LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

People this isn't the "try to convert me to your religion" thread, its the "Homosexuality and Religion" thread.

Stay On-Topic!

edited 31st Oct '12 8:01:28 PM by DeviantBraeburn

My first thought is that it simply wouldn't have survived that early on. As nasty as the Romans were, they were a lot more hospitable to cultural differences and borderline seditious values than genocidal nomadic warlords.

Turning the other cheek would've been a great way to get your tribe enslaved at best, slaughtered at worst.

edited 31st Oct '12 8:05:09 PM by Pykrete

Depends on the time period. Rome changed a lot through out its history.

...Right. I'm sorry.

...I would be more than happy to continue the debate in PMs, though.

There is a difference between saying that "all Christians suck" and pointing out that the way they interpret the Bible seems to generally involve glossing over it's nastier bits.

Virtually everyone can agree that the Bible is not to be taken literally, but nobody's really explained the logic behind which things are meant as "metaphors" or to be ignored entirely. Generally it's the "you have to marry your rapist" type of verses that get the axe first because they're just so at odds with our basic moral code... one that is independent of any book.

Maybe it makes sense to you guys, but I genuinely don't get it.

Actually, I could say the same thing about other religions too, but as it was already mentioned, discussions about those tend to be unproductive.

edited 31st Oct '12 8:10:23 PM by HilarityEnsues

*high-five's Jewishly*

What's up, meshugene?

(And I forgot to mention this when I posted, but the view on Judaism I was raised with probably contributed to how I view the Jewish God's morality. When one of your patriarchs is highly regarded because he flat out told God that He was wrong and started haggling with Him, and won the argument, it's hard to really accept quiet obedience.)

edited 31st Oct '12 8:22:13 PM by Rem

A lot of the laws like women marry their rapists, if a woman's husband dies she marries his brother, etc., were, in a bizarre way, protecting women of the time period. In this case if a woman was raped and unmarried, or if her husband died, she would be left destitute with no future. A lot of the laws of things that were "unclean" may have had other purposes like encouraging fertility and staving off certain diseases.

The idea behind some interpretations is that now, because women are able to maintain themselves and are not so dependent, the women marrying their rapist or having to marry their late husband's brothers are outdated laws. Basic sanitation makes many of the other laws out-of-date, as well.

Certainly they had their cycles of batshit insane.

Anyway, back to the topic of homosexuality,

Pretty much that. In Rome for instance, men were free to have sex with other men of lower status. Part of this is a consequence of how though girls were married off in their teens, men usually married in their mid twenties, thus having a whole lot of unmarried lower-status males running around. Boys were pretty much expected to screw anything with a pulse until they "grew up". After that though, it was usually considered a breach of discipline for not controlling themselves.

Marriage between men happened a few times, but was majorly looked down on when it happened. Same-sex relations were mostly prohibited among adult soldiers and leadership as a breach of discipline, as their power dynamic dictated that being penetrated was essentially an emasculating defeat (in part because there was no such ban on doing so to war prisoners) and a freeborn man was entitled to his masculinity.

It was a really schizophrenic system that managed to combine the worst parts of both aspects.

edited 31st Oct '12 8:36:43 PM by Pykrete

Relevant to this thread. We've got a pastor claiming that gays have stolen all the nice-looking black men. There's being far back in the closet, and then there's tearing out the back of the closet wall and building another apartment in there. Also, nice example of (and rebuttal to) the false equivalency here (he calls gays "authoritarian" and "totalitarian").

To be fair (much as I don't think he deserves it), you're slightly misrepresenting the remark:

Which is why we should be very open about our sexualities so people do not end up pursuing people who are not compatible at all.

"We don't hate the homosexuals, but they're evil authoritarians who want to throw Christians in jail and are incapable of feeling real love...wait, remind me why we don't hate the homosexuals again?"

I wonder how long it will take before someone says Mr. Jackson is being misunderstood and picked on...

I meant someone on this thread.

edited 1st Nov '12 4:46:42 PM by Morgikit

Mr. Jackson is already saying that.

Slightly related: Anyone else seeing the ad on Facebook for a "Christian LGBT Bumper Sticker"? Looks like a cross with vibration-parenthesis on a rainbow background. Just noticed it and thought it was neat, and useful to stifle the "but Christians all hate teh ghay!" arguments. Their site also has buttons and t-shirts*

we all know not all christians hate teh ghey.

we just also know the most vocal anti-gay supporters love to pervert christianity to do it.

Hey, it's not like only Christians hate gay people.

Loads of other people do that too! :D

Wait...

D:

edited 1st Nov '12 5:13:40 PM by kay4today

Exactly.

There are people of "science" who say homosexuality can't be a thing because it's not useful... while there's more and more data now to deny that people are still saying it, mostly because they think it's distasteful for whatever reason. Probably for threatening your masculinity reasons.

I wouldn't use nature as an argument for getting things right. If DNA is software it's damn buggy and a constant WIP.

@Kay

If DNA is buggy software, when do we get the DLC?

@Cats: But IIRC there have been studies implying that the factors that cause homosexuality also cause more/better maternal feelings and greater ability to raise children.

edited 1st Nov '12 6:22:40 PM by BlueNinja0

I know, I never said the people of "science" were using very good science.

I like "science", I'm going to use that whenever someone tries to use science improperly.

Does it count as hate to say, "We don't hate homosexuals, but homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. Therefore we should help people with homosexual temptation to repent of their sins and we should oppose laws that would allow them to marry, because gay marriage is a sin?"

Like this sort of thing, for example: Link

Who says they're the ones perverting christianity? If anything, the anti-gay crowd has centuries more of tradition and authority on its side. The most important, powerful and influential Christians in the United States are anti-gay equality. Who is to say that they're in the wrong?

edited 2nd Nov '12 7:20:01 AM by Lawyerdude

Trying to take away equality for anyone for no legitimately good reason(being gay, something that God created us as, means that we're natural) is wrong on all levels.

The Bible teaches love for all. It's true that it is far from about equality by any large margins, but it's not just that at all. It's the fact that they use it to treat Gay people with an entire lack of respect(I don't mean disapproving of one's "lifestyle", since that's not the same as hate, but just... not preferring it), something that is against the Bible's wishes, which is respect for all, and ignores all this to act horribly towards them, yeah, I'd say that's a huge perversion of its teachings.

And since that was a run-on sentence, clearly, let me put it another way; The book teaches love for all creation. People take horrific passages and use them to do the opposite. Even so much as refusing to read the context in which the passages exist. Which leads to constant death. Something that we're not supposed to do at all.

Yes, it's a severe perversion of it. Even if I could take Leviticus' passages seriously, it doesn't even say to make a Homosexual suffer. It says(atleast in certain ones) simply to kill. In what way can we justify bullying them either? I would never kill someone over it(and whoever would is doing it wrong), but that's still a perversion of its meaning.

So yes, the Bible is heavily perverted to hate on Homosexuality. And some variations of Leviticus consider it simply a jail-worthy crime at worst. Depends the translator.(albeit, death was administrated back then for really weak reasons. It's not now, hence why some translations refer to it as a cultural taboo and don't call for death either)

edited 2nd Nov '12 7:35:17 AM by Hydronix

I sure hope they're wrong. I don't want to be tormented for eternity, even if it means meeting all the great musicians.

But that's the very line that the most prominent anti-gay crowd also uses. They want to show their "love" for homosexuals by voting away their rights and trying to forcibly convert them, because that's how their God shows its love. "We love gays. That's why we want to change them." If the Christian definition of "love" is "fighting against equality and science", then how is that any different from those who are at least openly hateful?