LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I probably form the "Can everyone stop misreading each other" block, seeing as most of my posts here are calling out people on doing that to Starship (occasionally it goes the other way, but I'm normally beaten to the punch in such an instance). From the way I participate in this discussion you wouldn’t realise I'm a practicing Christian (admittedly I only attend church 3 times a year but I still go).

Someone once said a Christian isn't judged by how many times (s)he's set foot in Church, but rather by how many lives have been touched through her/his demonstration of Christ's love.

In this regard, you seem to be doing okay.

Thanks

I should point out that I don't fit into the typical Christian block. My vicar (who despite having moved to a different parish is still the person I consider my vicar) is a women who secretly blesses gay unions. So my stance on the issue is not the standard.

I will agree that the line can be tone-trolling and legitimate criticism of bigoted language can be a little fine, especially in the heat of the moment. However as a general rule of thumb, if the only complaint you can muster is about the tone in which the argument is couched, then you're tone-trolling. Genuinely bigoted language is better criticised as a form of argumentum ad hominem.

Bad example. For while it may be flip and glib it's kinda accurate. The correct response for that is something along the lines "Why shouldn't they be not left out?" (but hopefully wittier and without the confusing double negative)

And I can't agree. On things like internet fora or in formal debates, the rules, regulations and structures of that place are the ones that govern the conversation. Any attempt by participants to set rules and limits above that are nothing more than attempts to control the conversation and shut people down (either one entire side, or just certain individuals). This is especially true when the conversation involves the institutionalised bigotry and oppression of one group towards another.

Short version: If you think its crossed a line, call a mod. If not, see my above point about actually engaging the arguement.

I'm not anti-Christian, Max. I'm pro-LGBT. Pretty sure I've said multiple times that I have nothing against individual Christians (though I don't buy into your theology for various reasons). My issue is with people who use Christianity as an excuse to mistreat and discriminate against people in our community.

In my experience, "God never intended for a man to love a man" is usually followed by "let's change the law so they can't marry" or "let's beat them up and harass them to show them it's not okay to be a godless sodomite". The people who say "marriage is between a man and a woman" where I come from are rarely content to leave it at that.

A completely reasonable stance to take. And yes, I do recall you saying that on several occasions. But....there are also moments where it appears that you have an issue with the mere concept of Christianity as a whole. Take this exchange.

Rhyme beat: they're legitimately dedicated to helping the least of us. Your retort: Unless they're godless sodomites.

I understand you're merely relaying your experiences with the Christians you've encountered, but you need to appreciate that when you come across folks like myself, Carciofus, Loni, and others who've stated that they have no interest in proselytizing people, that statement is going to rub people the wrong way.

Am I telling you to curb your speech? Never. I'm I telling you to deny the ugliness of the Christianity you've encountered? No. I'm simply saying that you, just like me, just everybody here needs to be vigilant of any statement that would seem to broadbrush anyone else.

Disagreed. There are forum rules, yes. But this isn't about the bare minimum in order to use these forums. We're talking about having a conversation. That's what this is about; what do you want out of the conversation.

Lawyerdude, to use an example, is a learned and intelligent troper and I personally like the dude. His constant assumptions and inaccurate musings about Christianity have irritated several tropers, myself included, while not technically violating the TV Tropes terms and conditions.

So, if your goal is to piss people off while not breaking any rules, okay. But if you want to actually have people share ideas and come to common enlightenment, then really a little consideration and courtesy is not a huge price to pay.

If me refraining from calling Morgikit a country fairy, for instance, or Kay and lady dykes, means that they'll feel respected and it alters their perception of Christians as a whole just an inch, then I think I'm willing to do that.

Note, I don't think of anybody as dykes or country fairies, just to be clear.

But....there are also moments where it appears that you have an issue with the mere concept of Christianity as a whole

Well I can't speak for Morg, but I can myself say that I do have a great many issues with the mere concept of Christianity as a whole (and all organized religion for that matter), in the same was I have issues with the concept of bureaucracies as a whole. The institution and it's over all ideology bother me greatly, but individuals within the institution aren't necessarily bad.

edited 27th Dec '12 8:04:53 PM by LMage

I don't want to tell you what to do, or come off as preachy, but you could probably stand to emphasize that point of view a little more. Most of your posts don't contain that kind of nuance.

Max, as you once said to me, learn to read. I was referring to the Catholic heirarchy. Not to Christians in general. And having problems with your theology doesn't make me anti-Christian. You yourself have admitted to having issues with non-heterosexual orientations. But if I called you anti-gay or anti-bisexual or whatever, you'd be upset.

Thing is Morg, I do know how to read. And write. And I actually do both fairly competently. I read that exchange several times, and nowhere did you make the distinction that you referring specifically to the Catholic hierarchy. I realize that's what you meant, but since no one here is a telepath, nobody knows that until you actually say that.

That's the whole point of the matter. As we are all limited to the confines of our own thoughts, it's easy to assume that because we mean something a certain way, then it's fairly obvious to everyone else that we mean it that way. Not so. And I don't say this to....preach...at you per se, but rather from experience. It was you yourself that had to point out to me that me just throwing out the term "gay rights lobby" as if it's one big all-encompassing entity where one is the same as all others is the same broadbrushing I'd call Lawyerdude out on. And you were right. So I take the extra step of differentiating when I'm referring to the gay lobby as a whole vs when I'm referring to some aspect of it specifically.

You are right, if you called me anti-gay, or a homophobe, I'd take umbrage. But....I would examine my statement to see if perhaps, inadvertently, I did say something that was homophobic or anti-gay. Because I'm not perfect. As Taoist pointed out, there are things in the LGBTQ experience I can't begin to fathom, let alone understand. My own experiences that one can make bigoted statements and not have a bigoted bone in their body.

The true enemy of progress in reaching equality is not the raging redneck homophobes who still think being gay is something you can "catch" or the crazy WBC types who want to banish all gays to concentration camps. No, the true enemy is the far more benign, and far more widespread ignorance of good and decent people who just don't know better. The key to combatting this is to remain circumspect in our dealings, to be constantly reevaluating and revisiting our viewpoints and how we present them.

Constant vigilance is the price we must pay not only for freedom, but for understanding as well.

Actually Maxima, that quote you made wasn't fair as an example because you've got off the subject. Without going back and hunting the quote down for myself or can remember it (which I don't off the top of my head) it's impossible to judge Morg's statement on its merits because I can tell who Morg and Rhyme Bear are talking about.

And while you may have addressed your statement to someone in particular, everyone can see it.

Here's the thing though. This in a conversation in this sense that it is an exchange of dialogue between two or more parties. But its not simply that. From where I sit its as much a debate or argument (in the legal sense in the Common Law where prosecution and defence present their arguments as opposed to a shouting match) rather than a simple exchange of dialogue. And in an open format my debating style is fairly bare-knuckled and I'm more concerned with making my point than being nice. I am aware that not everyone appreciates that style but I'm willing to live with that. And as long as I don't step over the forum rules I will view any attempts to restrict the tone as an attempt to shut down myself and others who prefer the more... combative debating style.

If that's not the kind of exchange you want to have, that's fine. Don't engage me. Ignore me completlely if you want (not hard. The time zone difference makes my participation fairly intermittent). But don't tell me to shut up.

It's ok Max. I did the hard work for you. Here's Rhyme's full post (a whole two posts before mine, so no wonder you didn't see it).

So yeah, the Catholic church was being discussed. But then if you paid attention, you wouldn't be able to pounce on my post and say "you're broadbrushing Christians!" So I can kind of see why you failed to notice it.

EDIT: From the previous page, since now I notice that the above post never mentions the word "Catholic" (never try to post after just waking up):

It's part of a longer discussion that starts about here.

edited 28th Dec '12 6:22:31 AM by Morgikit

Thank you for demonstrating my point. "Did the hard work for me"? "Pouncing" on your post? Where Morgikit? I read that exchange, including the part you highlighted. So again, you assume, incorrectly. I missed nothing.

Rhyme beat, as you yourself conceded, referred to the Church, no mention of what specific denomination, even if Lsama could reasonably assume that it was the Catholic Church. Thing is, that still wasn't my point. Rhyme stated the goal of the Church was to help the least of us. You responded with an addendum,"Unless they're godless sodomites." While not Catholic myself, I know firsthand that many of them, like myself, find it an affront to withhold help from those who need it because they're godless sodomites, whatever a godless sodomite even means.

It would've taken all of a sentence, if that much, to say "I was referring to the Pope specifically" or "the Catholic hierarchy, specifically." If you deem that less worthwhile than claiming that people are "pouncing" on you and defending why people should simply see your assumptions, then that really is your prerogative.

But the thing is, this isn't a courtroom. The only obligation someone has to listen to you is their own desire to listen to you. I could be wrong, but I saw no attempt to 'silence' you.

I saw Boredman making the point that the Pope's misdeeds should not be used as a valid reason to castigate Christianity as a whole, and then he submitted general examples of that very thing occurring in the past. I then saw you respond that he was saying these things because he had no 'rebuttal of the arguments' even though, to my estimation, he was merely pointing out a trend that several tropers besides myself and him have noticed.

Again, I think the issue here is that we conflate "Hey man, lay off the generalizations," with "Shut up". They're not equivalent. In fact, I don't think anybody of any religious leaning has attempted to stifle the discussion of the Church's failings and misdeeds.

I'm not generalizing. I just fucking proved I wasn't. If that proof isn't good enough for you than there is no point in arguing with you.

So how about them gays?

edited 28th Dec '12 9:02:46 AM by Silasw

Gosh, wow: I'm kind of glad I decided that using the laptop over Christmas in front of family would be rude.

I agree: enough of the knives, let's talk turkey and not the carving up of each other (seeing as 'tis the season).

About the Pope: yup... he's cementing his base as a geriatric bigot, now, isn't he? All the better to go down in Third World countries (don't forget, folks... he isn't plying to the North American market alone). Sad to say, quite a lot of so-called Protestant Africa would like his line... and he knows it.

I wish people would remember stuff like that about the international faiths: they're never just pandering to one market. Much like international corporations. Unlike international corporations, steering clear of controversy is unlikely to win share when it comes to hearts and minds of people feeling oppressed themselves: scapegoats work. And, when you're thinking Africa, you've always got to remember Islam looms.

I'd guess that the Pope's speech was mostly aimed at Western Europe and America. So far from pandering, the Vatican tends not to bother devoting major speeches or encyclicals to issues on which everyone already agrees with orthodox dogma. Like Benedict or dislike him, he tends to say things that he believes the audience needs to hear, and hasn't seemed particularly interested in what laypeople (in Africa, for example) would like to hear.

Yeah, the Pope's speech would have been aimed primarily at the people "guilty" of the sins he was talking about.

If I might inject more light and less heat into this discussion:

The Pope did not use his Christmas Day message, the traditional Urbi et Orbi^note  "The City [Rome] and the World", for the benefit of those lacking the benefit of a Classical education, to condemn gay marriage. The full text of 2012's Urbi et Orbi can be found here. It is the usual uncontroversial fare - His Holiness prays for peace in the Middle East, an end to the violence in Africa, a political solution to the conflict in Syria, for the establishment of "societies founded on justice and respect for the freedom and dignity of every person" in the post-Arab Spring states, for Xi Jinping's new Chinese administration to respect the role of religion (fat chance), and gives special mention to the faithful of Latin America. Europe and North America are notably absent from his speech, possibly because he is ticked off with the ever-accelerating movement of those societies away from values consonant with Catholic teaching. However, absent this snub, there is nothing in it that is overly controversial.

However, Archbishop Nichols of Westminster, the de facto leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, did use a BBC interview on Christmas Day to attack the planned same-sex marriage bill in the United Kingdom, criticizing the government for a "shambolic" lack of consultation over the bill. I posted this story to this thread, and called him a tosser, something I now regret - though I still disagree with him, I thought he had attacked same-sex people and same-sex behavior - He did not, however, attack gay people directly, or gay marriage internationally, confining his comments to a partisan attack on an upcoming piece of British primary legislation. His official Christmas message to the diocese of Westminster did not mention same-sex marriage once.^note In my earlier post, I made this same mistake.

The Pope, however has used one of his seasonal messages to attack gay marriage. The 2012 address to the Roman Curia, the Vatican's civil service (given on 20 December), devoted a substantial segment to an attack on gay marriage internationally. Some excerpts:

He then attacked the philosophy behind "the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family":

So the Pope's arguments are these:

1. Gay marriage is bad for children.

2. Sex is a God-given attribute, not one determined by ourselves - so, in essence, if you are a man, it is your holy duty to have children and discover yourself through marriage to a woman.

3. Marriage between a man and a woman has unique challenges, aspects, and relations without which Man cannot develop properly.

Shall we debate and analyze these arguments? This post is already too long, so I will confine myself to saying that I strenuously disagree with each and every one them.

edited 28th Dec '12 1:51:17 PM by Achaemenid

What a nice middle finger to transgender people. :/

Does Benny even realize transgender people exist?

Yeah, I have an issue with anyone who claims your chromosomes lock you into certain roles you must fulfill. It's no different to me than the people who insist that girls wear dresses and boys play sports.

I suspect he'd say they were deliberately denying their true nature just to get on god's holy nerves.

edited 28th Dec '12 2:09:06 PM by Morgikit

He's aware that people go for gender-reassignment surgery, but I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as acknowledging transgendered people's existence.

And there you have the precise problem.

edited 28th Dec '12 2:03:10 PM by Iaculus

1) Lie. (In what remains the largest and most comprehensive study to date there was no statistically significant difference between the parenting outcomes of children raised by heterosexual couples and those raised by male homosexual couples while female homosexual couples showed a small but statistically significant improvement over both. That was probably just a statistical blip though)/

2) Let's see, that misogynistic, transphobic and rather insulting to single parents everywhere.

3) Citation needed you howling hypocrite (given the Catholic Church's stance on clerical celibacy).

Edit: Formatting for easier reading. Offtopic: The forum software's habit of ignoring single line breaks is annoying/Offtopic

edited 28th Dec '12 2:13:40 PM by KnightofLsama

Re: Catholicism and Transgendered people

Catholic teaching holds that people are male or female in soul regardless of their gender identity, and that sexual reassignment surgery is an act of mutilation. The Church instructs those who believe their inward gender is different from their outward gender to battle that belief as a psychological problem, not with surgery.

The Church seems to try to pretend that intersex people don't exist, or at least doesn't mention them if it can avoid it. The Catholic Bishops Conference in America argued against legal protections for transgendered and intersex people in the debate around the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), however.

His Holiness called the "blurring of gender" a "threat to the human ecology" in his 2008 yuletide address to the Roman Curia. Draw from that what you will.

edited 28th Dec '12 5:13:38 PM by Achaemenid