LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Let me rephrase then: without religion no justification that could be held credible en-mass would exist.

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

You have a very peculiar idea of "en-masse". Because where I grew up, those other sources of homophobia were considerably more en-masse than coming out of the church. Just because they don't bother coming up with more of an excuse than "ew gay" doesn't mean it'll magically stop being en-masse.

edited 6th May '12 9:20:34 PM by Pykrete

A very odd and naively idealistic look is what that appears to be. Because of what Pykrete and the rest of us have been saying over and over.

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

L Mage: .... gah. Thinking that gay people are icky or that being gay makes you effeminate is more mainstream than thinking that being gay is a sin. What about this is hard to understand?

Be not afraid...

I think everybody is identifying a paradox of religion. Does bigotry exist along with, independent of, because of or in spite of religion?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Bigotry I feel is just a failing of the human organism in general. Meaning that even without it I think it would exist. It also exists in spite of religion at times since not all religious sects are bigoted. Religion falls to the same pitfalls of all philosophies and world view systems. How it is used and perceived varies greatly.

Now how to solve this? Not sure. At times I wonder if we even can on a large scale and honestly think that our species' destruction is the only way to "fix" it on a large scale. So I'll just work on my small scale since my thoughts of "Let's just kill all humans" isn't really productive. I'll raise my kids and I'll teach what I can to who I can in what methods I have. And hopefully do little bits of good.

Even in spite of the ugliness.

edited 6th May '12 9:59:52 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

Sure, but why aren't those in charge of religion, American Christianity in particular, doing anything to stop anti gay prejudice?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Because they may not believe that they should or that it is important. There's likely other reasons. And prominent figures in some religions do stand up for gay rights and do try to defend it. Such as the leaders of some temples in Buddhism.

Though in the case of say my abbot who is the leader of the Thai Council of Bhikkhu's US division, or was last I checked, he has much more important shit to deal with. Like keeping Thai temples afloat and monks alive in general in the states.

Not sure about Christian leaders and figures due to my not being well...Christian.

edited 6th May '12 10:17:12 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

Um, some of the people "in charge of religion" (if you mean general religious leaders and theologians I am guessing?) are trying to stop "anti-gay prejudice". I think your issue might be that you think there is a select group of people "in charge of religion" or even "in charge of American Christianity".

edited 6th May '12 10:18:14 PM by Tiph

Also what that person there said.

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

Like who? Who is trying to put a stop to prejudice?

edited 6th May '12 10:26:54 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

We named off people earlier in the thread. At least I did in regards to Buddhism. I myself don't feel like looking for more or linking you to the posts.

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

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, there's Dignity USA and Dignity Canada, for one.

Depending on what you mean by prejudice here. Virtually any major denomination is against real hatred, but if you mean stuff like supporting same-sex marriage you have (for example), general synod of the United Church of Christ (or similarly, the Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutheran Church in the US or any other other 'liberal' denomination). If you mean challenging extant homophobia and heterosexism in the Church in a more active way you have, say, the Reconciling Ministries movement within Methodism made up of both "leaders" and laypeople, or No Longer Silent, made up solely of clergy throughout all Christian denominations, as well as quite a few others.

"Religion" is as broad as humanity itself, and there is no select group "in charge of religion". Individual churches can sometimes have a person or a group of people 'in charge'. But "American Christianity", let alone "religion"? Yeah, no.

And I don't want this to come off the wrong way, but it's pretty bad that I even have to tell you that.

edited 6th May '12 10:42:16 PM by Tiph

I also linked to people and groups trying to put a stop to homophobia. I'm not going to go back and dig them up again since you've made it clear you're just going to ignore them.

As Tiph said, there is no one person in charge of all religion. There is the Pope, yes, but his influence only reaches as far as Catholicism, which contains tons of fringe groups already who disagree with the Pope's stance on homosexuality. But the Pope isn't the only one with authority: There's the Vaticans, there's the many Bishops throughout the world, there's priests and deacons and nuns, oh my, and that's not even the half of it. And that's just Catholicism. There are so many different denominations of Christianity that it's easier to make a list of religions that are not Christian-based than to make a list of all the denominations of Christianity, and all of these denominations have their own autonomy in how they are set up and what their dogma is. Even then, there is no set group to control all of the followers of a religion in a single country, so to lump "American Christianity" all together like that is, quite frankly, dumb.

Additionally, as mentioned, there are other religions that have their own views on homosexuality, a great deal of them explicitly being against it, but of course nobody here (except Aon) seems to know anything about them or want to discuss them.

edited 6th May '12 11:32:44 PM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Loni Jay: "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, these two imaginary scenarios are different: A) everybody stops believing in Christian God and B) Christianity never existed. Do you understand the difference? If everybody stops believing in God the history wouldn't change. If Christianity never existed, the history would change.If everybody would stop believing in God the concepts like gay marriage and homosexual identity wouldn't disappear, even though these concepts have only emerged in Christian societies.

In other words there wouldn't be gay marriage without Christianity in the same way there wouldn't be atheism, liberalism, individualism, humanism etc. . Christianity didn't invent these ideologies. They were born as a reaction to Christianity or as reaction to some other ideology, which was born as a reaction to Christianity and so on.

That doesn't change the fact that today the only official force opposing gay marriage is a Christian one. Many people base their homophobic ideas to the gut feeling rather than Christianity, but there's a reason why these people are school yard bullies, people in other forums, and your dad rather than members of the parliament. People who want political influence can't ride the "but it's disgusting" bus for very long. Without believable arguments people don't have enthusiasm to fight political battles.

If there were convincing arguments against gay marriage that wouldn't rely on Christian morals, people would have brought them up already. When interracial marriage was debated, opposers didn't just invent new and better arguments against it, when the old ones failed to stand against the solid arguments for interracial marriage.

Unnatural argument only makes sense in a Christian framework. There's a way how humans should behave, the Christian way, the natural way and behaving otherwise is unnatural. Otherwise unnatural would mean "does not happen in nature" and if nature is defined "life on Earth excluding humans", then marriage in itself is unnatural. "Gays corrupt the youth" only makes sense if gayness is corruptive, which is only true in Christian framework.

EDIT: In short, Christianity isn't a source of homophobia, but it's the only source of convincing political arguments against gay marriage in Western countries.

edited 7th May '12 7:53:08 AM by sveni

@Odd

The issue is that while all of the groups you linked are good, the are a relatively small minority. Until such a time when they become a majority Christianity will remain a credible source, the only credible source, of justification for homophobia. The Prop 8 trial proved that.

edited 7th May '12 8:37:14 AM by LMage

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

No, what you mean is, until other groups get a brand name the way Christianity does, Christianity will be the sole target of those who hold them responsible for foiling gay rights.

It was an honor

@Starship

Can elaborate what you mean my "brandname"?

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

What other groups?

Soviet Russia is a pretty good example of replacements in politics, throw out one terrible politician and you get a new terrible terrible politician and a new group following him.

To say that removing Christianity would remove all power being used against homosexuals is pretty laughable.

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

...and? They start believing in the Muslim God?*

Actually, I consider this the same as the Christian God, from a theological perspective; but you get what I mean

In Hinduism? In Sikhism? In some form of atheism? And if so, which kind?

Since you are evidently not an homophobe, it follows at once that if everybody started believing what you do, there would not be homophobia left. But Christianity disappearing does not imply that.

I am less than convinced that these arguments are convincing, from a theological perspective: even if we admitted for the sake of discussion that gay sex is sinful, it would not follow that it — or gay marriage — should be banned. Fighting sin through legislation tends to be a bad idea.

But point taken: it is true that, as of now, most of the people fighting gay marriage use arguments based on Christianity. I am less than convinced, however, that many of them would not simply go and take some other basis for their claim, should they abandon Christianity.

edited 7th May '12 9:23:02 AM by Carciofus

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

Whelp. I'm just going to leave since this hasn't changed for days on end and now I'm just bored and mildly irritated.

FAREWELL AND GOOD LUCK RAMUS AND MAXIMA AND LONI JAY.

And Carc too.

edited 7th May '12 9:21:06 AM 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

You're talking about the tsar and Lenin, yes?

edited 7th May '12 9:25:43 AM by sveni

Because they're the only examples of that happening, sure. Except no, just watch history time and again, groups with similar goals and a different name change out near constantly.

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