LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Seriously though, it's a bad example because it concerns the underlying structure of fundamental particles. The scale it deals with is so far removed from the macroscopic level that rights and human values are completely alien to its domain.

We're talking about questions concerning the real fundamental nature of reality here. Whatever we find, it won't find bumsex icky.

edited 26th Dec '12 7:48:48 AM by Elfive

yeah, the real problem I have with comparing Religion and Science on the nature of Bumsex is at least if science found a reason to say bumsex is bad, it'd probably have something to do with health concerns or mental issues.

With religions, it mostly consists of "Our personal deity, whichever one he is, says its bad. therefore its bad, and we dont need an actual provable argument because fuck you"

Just out of curiosity, what are you guys getting out of this discussion? Are you just using the thread as a place to vent?

I have been wondering that myself actually...

To a degree. I am perfectly happy to discuss and debate with religious tropers, but they seem to have been scared away (understandably, given the general hostility of feeling on this thread).

I posted that article about the Catholic Church in Britain condemning gay marriage on Christmas Day because I felt it was relevant. I called the Catholic Church in Britain "tossers" because I felt that Christmas Day was not the time for a bitter attack on political positions but a time to celebrate love of all kinds. So, yeah, my last post was venting.

I should probably clarify that I don't even feel hostility to religion or the Church in general - but Archbishop Nichols's needless dig, on today of all days, really ground my gears.

edited 26th Dec '12 1:00:34 PM by Achaemenid

As I think I've said before: if your problem is with religion in toto, that's okay. That's intellectually coherent, and can be a perfectly honorable stance. However, this thread is mostly aiming at serious analysis of religion, and its implications w/r/t homosexuality. If you find such questions fundamentally unserious, that's your prerogative ... but you've probably come to the wrong place. Your presuppositions render the thread moot for you before it can begin.

No-one ever fundamentally altered their position on a topic by arguing about it on a forum. That doesn't mean you can't derive some entertainment doing so though.

*Cough* Kindasorta Starship?

Anyhow, I'd like to ask for some of the hostility to be toned down here. It's not...conductive to good discussion in here right now. I agree that that whole Christmas day thing gives reason for it, but this isn't really the place.

And just as I thought we were having a reasonable discussion all the antitheists jump on around Christmas and drown out the dissenters.

If you want to rant about "invisible friends" and "jihad" and the like, go to r/atheism or something.

edited 26th Dec '12 12:55:05 PM by Boredman

I'm an agnostic.

You can still be an antitheist if you're agnostic. Unless you're just pretending to be as hostile as you are, my point still stands.

To be fair this entire argument came about because one of the leaders of the religious world just had to get a cheap shot at homosexuals in on Christmas day. If he had just kept his mouth shut nothing would have happened.

edited 26th Dec '12 1:09:23 PM by Kostya

Yeah Benny called us a threat to mankind but we're the hostile ones, that's right.

Is this about to turn into the "Homophobia Apologetics" thread again?

edited 26th Dec '12 1:09:24 PM by Morgikit

So the Pope being a backwards old man justifies several pages of hostile ranting towards all religion? I guess I just imagined the parts where we were pejoratively referred to as believing in invisible friends and the like. I must have imagined the part where once again Lawyerdude used the Catholic church as representative of all Christians. I must have imagined the part where L Mage assumed that someone defending the church was trying to excuse all of their wrongs.

Stop appealing to worse problems. The Pope being a bigot doesn't justify you being hostile towards religion as a whole. Target the Pope. Don't use it as ammo against people who don't agree with him. Disapproving of this hostility doesn't make a homophobia apologist, and I'd appreciate it if you would fucking stop it already.

edited 26th Dec '12 1:20:23 PM by Boredman

I'm not fucking hostile towards religion as a whole. I said the pope said what he said. I didn't blame anyone else. If you immediately go on the defensive, how am I supposed to interpret that?

And by homophobia apologetics, I mean everytime we criticize something a homophobe says, and without fail a white knight rides to their rescue, saying we're being too judgemental or hostile and we should calm down when we are the ones being attacked and discriminated against in the first place.

edited 26th Dec '12 1:30:40 PM by Morgikit

Yes well in defence of the defenders in today's political climate it is pretty easy to declare some one a homophobic bigot because they say used the word 'preference over orientation', or defended a business's owners right to choose the clientele, or definite marriage as a union between a man and a woman, or think sexual relations between two men should be crime...

edited 26th Dec '12 2:19:25 PM by joeyjojo

If someone thinks sexual relations between two men should be a crime, they are a homophobic bigot.

edited 26th Dec '12 2:27:55 PM by Morgikit

Actually the Pope's homophobia is quite a valid example of the problems with religion in general, not just with respect to homosexuality. The promotion of belief without (or against) evidence.

Given the bigotry many Christian denominations is one of the most visible and prominent examples of this issue, to expect people not to bring up one in a discussion involving the other is to try and stifle discussion.

How else are we supposed to describe it?

And the rest is just tone trolling. You've got no rebuttal to the arguments being made so you complain about the way they're being made. *Edit: Okay, that was just venting. I've got better places to do that.*

edited 26th Dec '12 2:29:02 PM by KnightofLsama

Hehe, sorry I couldn't resist sneaking that one one to see if you would notice.

For the record I do agree you with but. If the Pope decided to spend his Christmas message slagging off gays then he not just a Homophobe but an asshole. You shouldn't defendant him.

edited 26th Dec '12 2:29:06 PM by joeyjojo

What are you talking about? How am I defending the Pope?

I believe you was being used in a general sense, rather than directed at any one person. It would be better put as "One shouldn't defend him." However, that's just speculation.

'You' being the generic you, an in an individual. I'll use 'One' in future to avoid confusion

edited 26th Dec '12 2:38:55 PM by joeyjojo

Homophobia as a term is overused. It's ludicrous to say defining marriage as between a man and a woman must mean homophobia. For one thing, the concept of homophobia didn't exist until Freud. And what homophobia means is a specific hatred of fear of homosexuality and homosexuals. Not social conservatism. The terms are not synonymous. Don't confuse them. If you throw around accusations of bigotry, you remove the weight when the term is applied to actual bigots. But more importantly, you create a poisonous "us vs. them" attitude.

So if a person doesn't fear or hate homosexuality, why would they support making it illegal for same-sex couples to marry? Nothing better to do with their time?

Perhaps because they believe that marriage is to do with families and children, and that gay people shouldn't raise kids either.

You can believe that homosexuality is fine between consenting adults, without agreeing that they should be allowed to raise children together. It's not a simple 'none of the rights' vs 'all of the rights' thing, there is a spectrum of how acceptable people might find homosexuality.

I know people who are totally fine with homosexuality, have gay friends, don't believe it's a sin, agree that a gay couple love each other just as much as a straight couple - but still don't think they should marry because they think of marriage as a man and a woman who will most likely have a kid or two.