LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

@Loni: Yeah. People use anything to feel superior - their skin color, their sex, the brand of clothes they wear, the group of people they hang out with, their sexuality, their virginity, their sexual experience, their religion, their home nation, their intelligence, their looks, their hobbies...I think it derives at least somewhat from our nature as social animals (we like to belong to a group) and need for competition (things that put us higher than others). Combining the two and you get a feeling of "Everyone in my group is superior to those who aren't."

You hardly need religion for that.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

@ Loni:

[1]

Now you know.

Huh. According to that, he possibly quit the seminary because it was too liberal, including in matters of homosexuality.

Be not afraid...

Yeah, well, he failed to accept homosexuality, and therefore failed to become a priest.

edited 5th May '12 4:58:53 AM by IraTheSquire

I didn't know that about Abbott. That explains a lot really.

I remember listening to old radio interview about him when he was back in uni, bitching about left wing bais in higher education

edited 5th May '12 5:39:48 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

@Loni As one of those people, no, I don't think religion is entirely to blame. I just think that as religion is potentially dangerous, we should ACT like it's potentially dangerous instead of pretending that it's all rainbows and cupcakes, which is what I think, society tends to do.

Then of course the question becomes how do you minimize the dangerous stuff and maximize the positive stuff.

(As a side note, I had a maple cupcake at Friday Night Magic last night. It was UM UM GOOD)

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I don't think religion itself is at fault, but rather people use it to justify various views.

I mean, the Pentecostal Church I attended had certain traditional opinions on things like how people should dress. (Such as women shouldn't wear pants in public. Only dresses). Of course, when I attended a "Ancient History of The Middle East" class in school, I discovered that most other people find them a bit.. eccentric.

I'm sure the spontaneous speaking in tongues during church services helped that idea along.

What I'm getting at is that sometimes, small religious groups have their own traditions baggage and opinions about something, and they use religion to reinforce and justify these ideas.

So Religion isn't really at fault here. It's just used by some people to justify their own opinions.

I myself tend to treat religion as neutral but something with potential for danger. I wish others would do this as well. I myself am much more concerned with instilling that view about sex in people however. I've had some personal experiences with the damage it can do as the one committing the act. The amount of harm caused by said act is rather horrifying. And that's just emotional and social damage. We haven't yet got into physical damage or the damage it can cause to the self if you become addicted to it.

My problem in general is impulse control, attention seeking, and an addictive personality. That doesn't change that I've witnessed first hand just how much trouble sex can bring about.

In general I would like people to do this with everything.

edited 5th May '12 12:34:23 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

If Christianity would magically disappear from the face of the earth gay marriage would become reality in Western countries. Homophobia wouldn't go anywhere, but the only argument against gay marriage is the Christian one.

But this is kind of pointless point, because Christianity isn't going anywhere anytime soon and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

If my grandma had wheels, she would be a tractor.

Counterfactual reasoning is tricky in the best of circumstances. If Christianity magically disappeared, I guess that what would happen would depend on what would replace it.

edited 6th May '12 1:29:42 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Or in other words, don't base your arguments off of "This event occurs and then I predict the future".

It's counterproductive at best.

edited 6th May '12 3:16:51 PM by Ramus

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.

I don't think gay marriage would necessarily pass straight away. I've known a couple of people, including my father, who don't think that gay people should be allowed to marry and/or have children together for completely non-religious reasons.

These reasons mainly boil down to 'it's just not right' or 'it's not good for the kids' or 'why do they even need marriage'.

I don't know what percentage of opposition to gay marriage is this, but it seems like that would just replace the religious reasons anyway.

Be not afraid...

I can't picture members of the parliament using arguments like "it's just wrong".

God, I envy you your legislature.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

It's not like the current arguments against it are much better.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

This is pretty much nonsense, because as of right now, the only nations which have gay marriage are either majority Christian or have some sort of strong Christian background. Gay marriage was near nonexistent in the ancient world as well (though there is some evidence of marriage-like ceremonies in very specific cultures at very specific times iirc).

Most arguments I've heard against it aren't 'it's a sin', but simply 'it's unnatural' or "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman". Religious people use that argument, but the argument itself isn't religious.

I can certainly imagine politicians saying that. More readily than I can imagine them saying 'homosexuality is a sin'.

edited 6th May '12 5:05:15 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

That's the "what if Christianity never had existed" scenario.

The official arguments used here boil down to "it's not part of our culture". The underlying meaning is that our culture is Christian and thus backed up by God. I've never heard such vague statements used in any other law making discussion. If everybody suddenly stopped believing in Christian God, such arguments would loose their power.

edited 6th May '12 6:25:17 PM by sveni

In a forum I once frequented, there was a non-religious person who firmly believed that homosexuality was wrong. The beliefs are somewhat independent of the religion itself, though some use it to justify the idea.

I'll have to disagree with you on that one. As Tiph said, almost no cultures have such a thing as gay marriage. So, unless you're claiming that all cultures in the world are christian-based, that argument doesn't hold water.

Look, I'm not denying that Christian teachings about homosexuality being a sin contribute to the levels of homophobia. I'm just saying that it isn't the only thing contributing.

As a flipside to that argument - parts of Christianity also disapprove of divorce. Has that caused all of society to stop doing it, or pass laws outlawing it? No, it has not.

edited 6th May '12 6:49:37 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

I think the divorce comparison is a good one, because it shows why gay marriage has such strong opposition while divorce doesn't, even (or especially) in Christian societies, societies where the predominant religion disfavors the one more than the other (I'm pretty sure Christ himself says no divorce, but doesn't say anything directly on point about homosexuality).

And it gets to the heart of why homophobia really exists in the first place:

Because it's different than what people are comfortable with.

We all know plenty of people who've been divorced. We can look at them and say, "Yeah, they're good people." With the statistics out there, we're all very aware that we could be the next divorced couple. We have sympathy for those who get divorced.

On the other hand, while it is becoming more prominent, we don't all know many openly gay people. There's nothing to suggest that we could one day become gay (like you could one day be divorced), because people's sexualities are a lot more static than their relationship statuses. It's just hard to empathize with something that you have a personal revulsion for, and that most people share. Most people can't go around saying "Divorce is evil" because many of them have been divorced. So the one is evil and unnatural and the other is just kind of sad when it happens.

So while Christianity gives people a common argument against gay marriage, it is really that feeling of difference and inability to empathize that is the root of the problem.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Homophobia would exist with or without religion. But justification would not. The only reason all this hate is allowed to poor our into the public space is because Christianity shields those that spew with a "moral highground".

edited 6th May '12 8:35:04 PM by LMage

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

I myself don't buy that. I think we'd just find another justification. Why? Because people are assholes and different things scare and upset us.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I admit I don't understand this.

Religion is not the only justification for homophobia. It never has been. In any case people don't need justifications for disliking people who are different.

Perhaps removing religion would tone down all the "You're going to Hell" and "Gay people are the reason for X natural disaster" and "God will turn away from America because of gays" protesters and that sort of nutcase. But it would do nothing for the more casual "it just isn't natural" and "it's icky and sissy" types of homophobia.

Be not afraid...

Of course we'd find another justification. We'd say, for example, that it was "corrupting the youth." That charge's been around for ages and ages.

And if Christianity didn't happen, the world would look radically, radically, different. Don't know if Northern Europe would have kept the Norse and Celtic gods, but I don't remember a lot of gay relationships in there. The argument that there would be no opposition to homosexuality if Christianity hadn't existed is so silly, I can't believe someone actually thought seriously about it before proposing it.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.