LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

My point was, to regard a gay person's homosexuality specifically as warped and sinful is like regarding the colour of a person's skin as warped and sinful. There is no separating one from the other, which is why I imagine fundamentalists are so intent on flying in the face of the mountain of evidence that it is not a "choice". It is akin to claiming not to be a racist while avoiding people of a skin colour you find unfavourable, and it should not be socially acceptable as far as I am concerned.

edited 9th Apr '12 4:22:03 AM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

One's sexuality not being a choice does not imply that following through it is not sinful, just like it being a choice would not imply that it is sinful.

As far as I know, I am not homosexual; however, I certainly have impulses and instincts which, if followed through, would definitely be sinful. And so does everybody else, as far as I can tell.

But in any case, as far as I know nobody (or at least, nobody even vaguely sane) thinks that homosexual tendencies in themselves are sinful. Some think that homosexual behaviour is sinful, and that homosexual people are called to a life of chastity; as I said, I do not agree with this myself, but I do not think that it is an intrinsically bigoted position. It is a wrong one, I think — as far as I can tell, there are no solid reasons to think that homosexual behaviour is sinful — but that's a different thing.

EDIT: In other words, the difference between this case and the "black" example that you mention is that anti-homosexual behaviour Christians are not criticizing a characteristic, but instead a behaviour which an innate characteristic makes more likely to want to pursue.

A heterosexual person having same-sex intercourse would, from that point of view, commit precisely the same sin of a homosexual one doing the same — or a worse one, arguably, since they would not have the excuse of sexual attraction.

edited 9th Apr '12 5:07:35 AM by Carciofus

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

Fair enough, I suppose that makes sense.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

What I was taught growing up is that everybody is a sinner, and all sinners deserve to die and go to hell because God is just and righteous. But since Jesus died instead, if you believe in Jesus and repent of your sins, then you go to Heaven. But homosexuality is a sin, and from what we know now, sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. Even having impure thoughts is sinful.

Applying that reasoning, therefore, leads to two possible conclusions. Either homosexuals "repent" of their natural, fixed sexual orientation, which is impossible. Or they stay that way for the rest of their lives and go to Hell when they die, and that it is just and good for God to send them to Hell.

Therefore the only possible conclusion that I can see, based on what Christians tell me they believe, is that all homosexuals must go to Hell. I can't see any other possible conclusion based on my understanding of Christian doctrine.

Now I have asked people that question before, and most Christians I've asked tend to get nervous and say something like, "It's not my place to say." But if that is the logical conclusion of your own religion's doctrines, how could you believe otherwise?

Honestly, the whole Fred Phelps "Matthew Shepard is in Hell" thing actually seems the most consistent with what I understand Christianity to be about.

edited 9th Apr '12 7:47:33 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well, it seems not to be how most Christians understand it.

Can you be more specific?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well, most Christians aren't the Westboro Baptist Church, so obviously they have a different understanding of the scriptures.

Who's understanding is correctly isn't really something that can be objectively stated, neither do I really care about it either way.

Well yes, they aren't the same people. But it looks to me like their beliefs are basically the same on this issue. Sure not everybody holds up signs at funerals, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others don't tacitly agree with the WBC people.

Are there any mainstream Christian churches who believe that homosexuality is not a sin?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I find that Christianity tends to be a very heterogeneous religious, their have been only a handful of constants since the schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Some preach that all you need to get into heaven is believing in Jesus Christ, while others claim you need to repent and confess your sins, and so on.

It sort of baffles me that they all main stream versions of Christian faith hold on to such a ridicules belief re: Homosexuality.

edited 9th Apr '12 8:48:36 AM by LMage

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

Well, various Christian groups put a lot of time and energy into presenting the image of Christianity as a monolithic group, and that's why it happens. In order to present themselves as having moral authority, it has to be that way, even though they sometimes disagree.

It's strange, because I see a very easy pivot point for Christianity, and I find it very weird and troubling that nobody really takes it. I've been taught, like most other people, that the whole "Mote and Log" parable is saying do not judge lest ye be judged (except by Me), when you could also interpret it as that we need to have an understanding of moral scale, that some things are obviously worse than others and we should all just strive to do our best and improve things on an objective basis. Which is obviously much more healthy of a moral standard.

If one adopts that standard, then homosexuality may be a "sin" but it's such a small, insignificant one that who really cares? People might still be offended at that link, but if you make the adoption of moral scale clear and loud enough, possibly not.

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

The Anglicans are definitely mainstream — third biggest church in the world, if I remember correctly. They are very diverse, but many of them certainly believe that homosexuality is not a sin: they even have a gay bishop, if I remember correctly.

It saddens me to say that this caused a bunch of conservative Anglicans to convert to Catholicism, and that Catholicism as a whole did all it could do to encourage this movement. This, I must say, I found profoundly disgusting — not because I am in favor of gay marriage and so on, although I am, but because it was an extremely shady way to exploit an ongoing debate in another confession in order to gain converts.

I will admit, when I learned of that I almost considered converting to Anglicanism in protest. Ultimately, to do so over this matter would be insulting towards both confessions, just like the conversions the other way around are; but I won't say that I was not tempted.

edited 9th Apr '12 10:07:44 AM by Carciofus

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

Why do you think it would be insulting to convert from a religion you don't agree with to one that you do? Sounds to me like the most reasonable thing you can do.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Didn't you say that Anglicans have 16 different ways to answer a question?

But yeah, Anglicanism doesn't have an unified position on Homosexuality because they have rejected Levtuis 20:18 or whatever. Most Anglicans who oppose homosexuality and consider it a sin do so because of what the NT says

Dutch Lesbian

Because both religions are complex faiths, with rich spiritual heritages and similar but by no means identical beliefs.

The difference between the two cannot be reduced to the mere matter of beliefs about homosexuality, that's not even that an important point theologically speaking.

I would be happy if an Anglican, after making a thorough study of the differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism and after a good amount of prayer, came to the conclusion that Catholicism is the one church which rightfully carries the apostolic authority*

And, I presume, an Anglican would be just as happy if a Catholic, after careful consideration, prayer and study, came to convert to Anglicanism; but reducing the whole issue to a matter of "high church-y people who are OK with gay marriage are Anglicans, high church-y people who aren't are Catholics" is, I think, highly disrespectful towards the spiritual heritages of both denominations.

Yeah, that's why I said "many of them". Asking for an official answer from an Anglican is like asking for a simple answer from a Jesuit

edited 9th Apr '12 10:22:42 AM by Carciofus

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

There's a stereotype that in matters of religion, especially if you're talking about many religions at the same time, the guy who usually knows the most about the subject is the token atheist in the group. There have been some studies in the USA about how knowledgeable members of different religious groups were about religions in general, and the irreligious came on top.

(Of course I don't want to imply that there aren't ignorant atheists, but I find it kind of funny that that stereotype exists and here I am, coming to correct you...)

Wikipedia: the largest major denominations are Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. Anglicanism comes in fourth, but it's way behind Eastern Orthodoxy: there are about 85 million Anglicans and 230 million Eastern Orthodox people.

That said, the Anglican church is absolutely mainstream.

edited 9th Apr '12 10:59:19 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Are you treating Protestantism as a single denomination? That sounds pretty bizarre to me...

The Wikipedia page on Anglicanism says that it is indeed the third largest denomination of the world — I might have got it from that, actually, I was reading about Anglicanism a few days ago.

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

Well, OK, that definitely is a matter of definitions - as you said, it's about whether or not you wanna classify Protestants as a single group.

On the other hand, though, if you wanna break up Protestants into smaller factions, you can still get bigger groups than the Anglican church: for instance, if all Baptists are classified as an umbrella group, there are more of them (100 million) than there are Anglicans (85 million.)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Again, all of this factions makes it seem so bizarre to me that nearly all of them are unified in their opposition to homosexuality. It's almost as if the Christian factions oppose them because the public expects Christians to oppose homosexuals.

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

To continue this derail

Anglicanism is a Protestant Christian Faith because it rejects the authority of Rome. Its also an Umbrella faith with many different Churches

edit: Quakers and Liberal Anglicans aren't opposed to Gay Marriage or Homosexuality

edited 9th Apr '12 11:31:29 AM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

Yes, I agree, it's a matter of definitions — as far as I know, and as far as Wikipedia says, the Baptists are considered a group of denominations while the Anglicans are considered a single, if highly diverse, church. But it's not like the concept of "denomination" is all that well-defined.

To return on the main topic, this is a summary of the positions of Christian churches with respect to homosexuality.

Wouldn't that definition make Orthodox Protestants (which is something that I know Orthodoxes would definitely object to)?

The way I heard it, Anglicanism considered itself a via media (middle way) between Catholicism and Protestantism, and in a way both Protestant and Catholic. But I am no expert at all

edited 9th Apr '12 11:35:33 AM by Carciofus

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

@Whale

Sadly, Liberal Anglicans are a minority.

I didn't think Quakers where considered Christians?

edited 9th Apr '12 11:33:23 AM by LMage

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

They are certainly Christians. I don't know if they can be considered mainstream, though.

edited 9th Apr '12 11:34:01 AM by Carciofus

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

Huh, that's weird.

I could have sworn Quakers where a different Religion all together that sprung off from Christianity, due to their radically different beliefs.

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

Maybe you are thinking of Unitarian Universalists?

They have that kind of history. They are pretty cool, actually, according to what I've read of them — sooner or later, I might want to visit one of their services just out of curiosity.

EDIT: and of course, they have no problems whatsoever with performing homosexual marriages.

edited 9th Apr '12 11:38:47 AM by Carciofus

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

They most certainly are.

Ninja'd.

Interesting.

edited 9th Apr '12 11:38:18 AM by inane242

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.