LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Okay fine, fuck this, I'm out. I'm too fucking sick to deal with this bullshit.

Even though I don't like the vitriol that's been slung around here...I have to agree with Morg. There is no reason not based on personal "squick" value/homophobia that gay marriage is opposed. There has been no scientific evidence that gay marriages are any less healthy or stable than straight marriages, and there is no reason, no just reason whatsoever to oppose gay marriage. All opposition comes from homophobia, be it from internal prejudice, or blind acceptance of dogma, without stopping to consider if the dogma aligns with a decent moral code.

I don't think there is a middle ground, either. Either you an enabling abuse and inequality, or you're opposing it.

edited 26th Dec '12 4:42:44 PM by DrTentacles

Is there some kind of term for people who are only mildly prejudiced against non-heterosexuality, but don't meet the criteria for true homophobia? I certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Heteronormative, maybe?

@Tentacles: Conservatism is a reason, which has very little to do with homophobia. You don't have to hate gay people to oppose change.

edited 26th Dec '12 4:50:38 PM by Ultrayellow

Opposing change without a good reason for why said change is "a bad thing" is pretty much just blind acceptance of dogma. It's lazy thinking. It's not stopping to consider the effects of change, or weigh the consequences rationally. In this case, instead of religious dogma, it's using the status quo as dogma, but it's still just accepting dogma without asking "Why is this the case?" or "What is there objectively wrong with this?" or my favorite question "Who is harmed by this? Who is benefited? Do the benefits out-way the potential harm?"

I just feel like conservatism and most traditions in general are a way to avoid having to think. It's so easy to rely on what you've been taught, or on how things have always been. If you look at gay marriage in a vacuum, you really can't find any objections to it beyond "It's not been done before" (Untrue), "My religion says differently." (But what do you say?) or "It's gross." (Why?)

edited 26th Dec '12 5:00:20 PM by DrTentacles

Heteronormative is probably a good term, yeah.

It's kind of like, I don't know, they don't oppose gay marriage because it's disgusting or a sin. Just because it's 'not the way marriage is supposed to go'.

And yeah, it is still harmful, but don't you want to be able to effectively fight it? You're going to want to understand the reasons for it, then.

Opposing change just because it is changes something implies that you think the status quo is optimal... and since the current status quo includes institutionalised discrimination against homosexuals and that in turn implies you approve of that discrimination. (Either directly or that equality for homosexuals isn't worth changing).

And I have a hard time characterising that position as anything other than bigoted.

It's seems that talking about "homophobes" seems much like talking about "racists". Are the problems coming from the openly hateful who consciously have decided that this Other is less than human? Or is it coming from people who are "okay" with "them", but don't see why change is necessary? Is it coming from unconscious habits, biases, and privileges that the holder is utterly unaware of?

Most people don't know how an ill gay couple is denied benefits from insurance plans because of how federal marriage laws work. Most people don't know that a gay man may be barred from visiting his dying partner on his deathbed or how, for added insult to injury, the homophobic family ready to cut him out of the will does have those rights. Most people don't know how little protection there is for gay teens being bullied in schools. And most religious people don't pretend that those situations are remotely fair once they're informed of the facts - Starship didn't.

Religious establishments who rely on a "culture war" to keep people and pews and donations coming know this. Thus they seek to perpetuate ignorance surrounding homosexuals. And thus religious believers who are not "homophobes" per se continue to support a homophobic agenda without knowing any better.

@Taoist: agreed. One of the things oppressed groups don't seem to fully appreciate is that the same majority that expends effort in kicking them around expends the same amount of effort to keep the individuals in that majority ignorant of what is going on. Why do you think conservatives are so hot to censor the Internet?

Most straight white folk aren't bad people; they're just swallowing a bunch of bullshit being told to them by people in authority because they've never been given a reason not to believe it.

Most PEOPLE aren't bad people. Just because us straight white guys still hold the (ever-dwindling) power in modern society does not make us solely responsible for all the evils of society.

The problem here is that the conservative part of our government got where it is by pandering to a group of people that are pretty hateful, or at least prejudiced against minorities, LGBT citizens, and women (hell these days even young voters qualify as "out"). Any attempt by the conservatives to try and bring in voters from those groups (which would be, you know, giving them some of what they want) causes that base to howl. So they're forced by political reality to instead try and keep those groups disenfranchised - thus why you see shit that you do.

Basically, conservative America has become a victim of its own tactics. In the next few years you're gonna see a third party...a party made up of people who say "well, Obama's not my favorite dude, but why should I give a shit about gays getting married or where people go to church?"

You're already seeing it. Several old-school conservatives have ended their association with traditional groups, finding their policies to be hateful and/or illogical. Hell, my 90 year old great aunt - who lives in florida and has been a hardline religious conservative her entire life - stopped going to the Baptist Church she'd been attending for fifty five years because they started advocating violence against homosexuals. Now, she doesn't like gay people...but as far as she's concerned advocating violence against anyone is not a Christian value and she won't support it.

More and more people are seeing things this way, which is good.

edited 26th Dec '12 5:44:20 PM by drunkscriblerian

I was being sarcastic earlier. No one has the right not to be offended.

edited 26th Dec '12 5:58:47 PM by Morgikit

@Tentacles: So you admit there are reasons besides homophobia.

@Knightof: But again, you've failed to prove that being satisfied with the status quo means you're homophobic. You're just slinging that word around without any proof regarding the specific people you're applying it to. This is exactly the attitude I was talking about.

Ultrayellow: Was that the argument given to you, or was the argument "supporting the status quo is supporting homophobia"? Because the latter is a different argument, one that permits that the person opposing progress for LGBTQ groups is ignorant or misinformed.

Both arguments were given to me. I'd say only the second is correct.

Actually Taoist had a good point about awareness and I will concede my point was ill-formulated because I assumed we were speaking of people with a conscious awareness of what their choices entailed. But yes, if they aware of what that lack of change means, then yes, they are bigoted.

If they're not aware of what it entails, even if in a vague 'homosexuals are discriminated against in someway' fashion, then no, they're not bigoted, they're ignorant.

Of course that's not something to be particularly proud of either.

Well here is the dictionary definition

Don't know if that cleans things up.

I don't know. Quite a few people seem to take pride in their ignorance.

Not sure what there is to gain from arguing when it's ok to call prejudice prejudice. If somebody attacks somebody else out of genuine malicious intent or because they actually believe the lies being spread about their victim, the end result is the same. Most people who mistreat LGB Ts probably think they are doing the right thing. Do they deserve a free pass?

edited 27th Dec '12 6:01:23 AM by Morgikit

Being satisfied with the way things are doesn't mean you're homophobic but it does mean you're not willing to fix a problem. That, to me, makes you apathetic at best which is kind of bad since it means you're turning a blind eye to discrimination and abuse.

"Willingly Stupid Asshole" isn't a great step above "Bigot" if you ask me.

Hey gang. So here's my nickel's worth on the past few pages.

There was a time I would've agreed with this, but I actually don't now. Ugly things have happened in the name of the Church. People have been wronged. It's far past time that we sit down and start to reckon with this. People have good reason to be extremely sour on religion.

Additionally, hostile opinions are nothing to fear. I know I'm not a homophobe. I know I don't pick on gays. I know I fight for gay rights. Therefore, someone saying "all Christians this" or "all Christians that" doesn't mean I need to rear my head in righteous indignation. This is something I've learned being on this thread.

This thread was never the "Homophobia Apologetics" thread. And no white knight rides to anyone's rescue and claims you're being too judgmental. In fact, it seems the theists are the ones who want Phelps, the FRC, et al. to suffer criminal prosecution with the anti-theists saying "Whoa. Guys, lighten up."

Now, if you mean that the thread has taken some space to articulate the positions of those who oppose LGBTQ-ism to varying degrees while attempting to clear up the many misconceptions about them, well, that's different. And I find nothing objectionable about that; just as someone who says gays should be paid the same or that they're not child molesters as a rule doesn't make someone anti-Christian.

The funny thing about tone trolling is that if we flipped it around and starting disregarding the sensitivity of others on this thread, I think you'd sing a different tune. If we said "So what if we say "faggot"? What's the big deal?", would your objection be needless tone trolling? If we said "Let's be real, gay marriage is just about gays not feeling left out," would you have an objection.

I submit, it's not about tone trolling. It's about choosing between having a dig-fest, or, having a conversation. For some people, the difference is significant.

Exactly. With that said, I can understand how someone who perceives their rights are being stomped on might could leap straight past "This poor misguided soul is being an inconvenience to me" to "This asshole is interfering with my rights and they're my sworn enemy."

False Dichotomy. That is just as false as saying that someone who disagrees with the Bible must be an antitheist. You accomplish nothing by trying to shoehorn shades of grey into black and white.

I readily agree with you that there is an absence of any objective non-personal reason to oppose gay marriage. To classify all remaining motive under bigotry and phobia is plain stupid.

Kind of like lumping all Christians together regardless of the many times that's provably false, eh?

Accurate post is accurate.

First off, just one page ago I was called hostile and antithiest for admittedly being a bit harsh about the Pope's Christmas sermon declaring unrepentant homosexuals a threat to the family and western civilization (I compared it to fundie Muslims declaring jihad against percieved enemies of the faith). I didn't accuse anyone here of saying it, but you wouldn't know that from the reaction. I don't know what causes people here to seemingly jump to the defense of people saying hateful things like that, but I've seen it happen. If they don't even agree with it, why act so defensive?

Pretty much, yes. "Sworn enemy" is a bit much, though. The "poor misguided soul" bit was funny.

This again...if I had the time and patience, I think it would be interesting to go back through this thread and compare the number of times non-Christians have been accused of "lumping all Christians together" vs. the number of times it's actually been done. Though I can't prove it, I suspect the former would significantly outnumber the latter, because I can only recall one person who actually went that far.

That was just really mean of the Pope and I really lost all of the respect I might have had for the guy. :V

From my observation, I think Boredman was responding to the overall trending of your posts that have a distinct antipathy towards American Christianity. Additionally, along with L Mage and Lawyerdude, the three of you form a very prominent anti-Christian bloc, similar to the prominent conservative Christian bloc formed by myself, Bored, and Jhimm.

So, I think he was less referring to your specific statement and more to your statement against the backdrop of the aforementioned forum dynamics.

This being the case, I can understand your objection to his objection. Look, it's work for all of us to maintain this discussion that's now going on over 250 pages and has remained one of the most edifying and educational; and inspirational; discussions on a topic famous for divisiveness.

This topic runs close to the chest for many of us. It stirs up memories pleasant, and not so very pleasant. The right-wing Christian/LGBT divide is literally an argument between people fighting for what they perceive as their right to exist. People get weird when they think the validity of their existence is being questioned.

When you, the gay troper, hears "God never intended for a man to love a man", you hear "God never intended Morgikit to exist." When I, the evangelical Christian troper, hears "The world will breathe easier without Christianity suffocating it," I hear "The world will breathe easier when Starship no longer exists."

Both reactions are right, and wrong. It simply means we both have to work to reach our common ground. And I, for one, consider that a worthwhile goal.

I see how it would seem that way, but that's not our aim. Going back to the Senator Mourdock debacle, it's not about defending anybody, although sometimes, yes, we find nothing objectionable in what was said.

The aim is true understanding of what was said. We don't want anyone accused of anything they aren't guilty of. We want the truth of their words to be laid out so that even if we don't agree we can know what it is we're disagreeing with.

For my part, I think we only raise the whole "Stop lumping us with the lunatics like Phelps" when someone either directly or indirectly lumps us with the lunatics like Phelps. To be fair, this is more a running thing with Lawyerdude, more than you though.

As someone who is mostly aligned with the "anti-Chirstian bloc", I'd like to point out that I have no problem with Christianity or any religion. I have a problem with organized religion. I have a problem with the Catholic Church and the Pentecostal Church and even the Episcopalian Church. To be even more exact, I have a problem with hierarchically organized religious groups. From my position, hierarchy poisons and constrains. It's ultimately limiting and controlling. I oppose all hierarchy, and that includes the hierarchies that are churches.