LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Christianity is not as strong as ever. It's weaker than it's ever been and it's in a decline. Even the biggest churches are in a general decline. There are fewer Christians than there were less than a decade ago and that decline is accelerating.

The big reasons people cite for this: Disagreement with the church's views on sex, homosexuality, the treatment of women, and the general othering of people.

edited 21st Jan '13 8:04:56 PM by shimaspawn

Christianity does thrive on antipathy.

Considering the martyr complex most Fundies have about Them Against The Sinful World, It'll probably get worse as more and more people leave.

Of course, it's likely a new church will form. One that's founded on the views of some of the people leaving their old churches.

Because it's either that or finding a new religion. Or simply becoming non-religious.

I think most of the larger Churches are smart enough to smell change in the air and carefully edit their views to preserve their followings.

Or the older members will simply die out and be replaced by younger, less conservative ones.

Currently the trend seems to be 'become nonreligious'. A lot of people are still spiritual, but they don't believe in any one God or one religion. They just believe in something.

Think it's possible that if a schism should occur, with a group forming that matches the newer, less conservative views, that many of those people would jump on to the new sect?

Well Matues, that's the point I'm trying to make. The Church is divided into two sets, one who cares that "change is in the air" and want to maintain their numbers. Then you have others who never got into this to increase their numbers. They got into it because they felt it was right and just and what their Creator expected of them.

Quite frankly, I want the posers who are so concerned with maintaining numbers to leave. Let them cater to the masses. Let the true believers who care about honor and morals remain, unhindered.

It's the other way around, Starship. The people who care about numbers and noise and us vs. them are staying. The people who are leaving are largely leaving for moral reasons. So the moral people are leaving religion in droves because they seem Christianity is immoral thanks to it's positions on things like gay marriage.

It's like if there was a group out there that would donate money for free medical care for the sick, spend it's members' time working at homeless shelters, and campaigned loudly against interracial marriage. Sure, they do good work, and it's possible they do more good than harm (especially today, where anti-miscegenation isn't going anywhere), but its members are going to be turned off by that last bit and probably start leaving.

Now the group leadership has a question to ask of themselves - do they betray their ideals, or do they stay strong on their anti interracial marriage slogan? It might be purer to stay with that, and that's definitely something they should consider - not dropping their ideals just because people don't agree with them.

But what I think the leadership of this group should do is question, "Why are people leaving because of this? Is there something wrong with the people leaving, or something wrong with the message?"

Christianity may want to do likewise.

I'm not sure it is Christianity. Just a lot of the people who run churches should ask.

The thing to keep in mind is that it's not just Christianity that has this problem. Any ideal-based movement is generated by a dogma. Again, it's one of those dirty words, but dogma is necessary to effect social change. Society is all about inertia and it takes a sufficient force to get society to move an issue it doesn't want to move on or conversely to stop it careening headlong on a path it shouldn't be on.

Dogma can sometimes yield things like camaraderie, a sense that we're all a merry band of do-gooders who will take on the world and defeat evil. So, the membership expands from the initial Ragtag Bunch of Misfits to something more like a Badass Crew or Army.

So...now you have people who are willing to fight against what they perceive to be injustice, but they never really bought the whole initial dogma to begin with. As the war the movement was fighting draws to a close, and victory is near, and enemy is no longer terrorizing them, a lot of people don't have quite the same motivation to stick around. They start looking around like "Why am I still here?"

It might surprise some, but the gay rights movement is heading down the same path. The initial, completely noble, goal of equality and freedom from harassment, has, for some, morphed into a need to cajole and coerce everyone into accepting and approving their lifestyle. More and more, people are becoming disgusted with the gay lobby's limitless need to dictate what "a true supporter of the cause" needs to think and do. They're slowly starting to question whether LGBT's really want equal rights.

Now, going back to the Church, yes, Vericrat that is what the question becomes. But then it becomes a case of what's truly important. If you look at the Bible, the ideal is for a Christian to reach a point where the entire Universe demands they capitulate and the true Christian tells the Universe where to stick it. Many have called this the Church's "persecution complex" or it's "fantasy" of the "brave Christian facing down the world".

I find it no more a fantasy that many gays who behave as if they were ever the target of institutional oppression like many other demographic groups in this country, or that if someone doesn't accept and approve their lifestyle then they're not truly an ally.

But nevertheless, it's not a fantasy or a persecution complex. It's a belief that true dedication stands in the face of being alone. And as I like to say, being burned didn't stop us, I don't think being unpopular will.

edited 22nd Jan '13 7:48:14 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Should we not have the right to decide who we consider to be "on our side"? Think about this: what if the tables were turned? What if conservative Christians were actively persecuted and had legal restrictions placed on their actions and such? But they had a number of allies outside the community who supported them. However, imagine some of these supporters seemed to criticize the entire community for the actions of a few members? They seemed ever ready to defend their attackers and accuse the community of having selfish or even sinister motivations for their every action. Would you not consider them a strange sort of ally? One might even compare them to the biblical Job's "comforters", insisting that his suffering was his own fault, and if he'd just repent for his "sin", things would be better.

edited 22nd Jan '13 8:15:04 AM by Morgikit

Source?

Maxima, the thing is, as I know I mentioned before, and I'm sure has been mentioned thousands of times since my disappearance from this thread, there's a difference between approval and marginalization. Also, there is a very thin line between the two. I'm sure there are many in "The Gay Lobby" who want everyone, everywhere, to admit that they really approve of (if not want to join) their lifestyle, but this pales in comparison to things like Texas conservatives banning non-Christian and racist course material in the nation's textbooks. And because the state of Texas controls what books get distributed to the rest of the country, that means that this is not mere "disapproval" anymore. It's marginalization.

The problem is, people can't be left alone when what they want is to preserve their own status quo at the expense of others. And if people keep hiding behind religion to justify it, then "The Gay Lobby" has no choice but to attack that religion.

edited 22nd Jan '13 8:29:55 AM by KingZeal

Well, if people decide that I'm some kind of opponent or enemy, that's not really any skin off my nose. Whether gay-rights activists have the luxury of defining their support numbers downward is something that only they can decide. I'm fine either way.

When everyone wanted to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of Dan Cathy's actions, several people, identifying as gay, pointed out there's a point that campaigning for rights becomes demanding everyone think like you.

There was Huffington Post article where one of their Gay Voices writers slammed Jodie Foster's alleged coming out speech as not militant enough and too late, and among one of the criticisms lobbied was her support Mel Gibson. Thankfully many pointed out nobody who comes out has to to do so in accordance with anyone's dictates, and a person has the right to stand by their friends, regardless of the approval of others.

I know many LGBTQ's personally who say something along the lines "Dude, I just want to be left alone. I don't feel the need to make everyone like me."

Seriously, look at the comments sections on the articles linked to. Right now, supporting LGBT rights is seen as this clear sign someone is fair and progressive-minded, but people don't take well to being browbeaten. It'll become more apparent as this behavior continues.

I would agree with you. If any of that was actually happening. The gay lobby is fixated on gay marriage because that's the only right denied to the community. We agree on all the rest. And like I said, it's not my fault marriage is understood to be one thing, and the gay lobby insists, not wrongly, on changing that definition to accommodate their rights. Since you choose that path, then you also accept the drawbacks that go with it. Nobody is exempt from that.

Now, if Christians were persecuted and someone said "I want to help," I'd say "Thank you!" and keep it moving. I wouldn't sit there and denounce the person because they said "Y'know Starship I want you to have religious freedom, but I won't change the fact that I don't believe in your holy Book." I wouldn't care.

As another example, I'm a black man, and I see the exact same thing. Blacks that still want to behave as if this is Arkansas, 1961. They still act as if black people get fired from their jobs because of racism, not because some of them are shit workers. Every time a black man get arrested it's racist cops, not the fact he keeps doing criminal shit.

And yes, there are those who care about helping blacks who get fed up with the constant "woe is me" crap. Fuck man, I'm black and I get fed up with it. As I've said to some of my fellow misguided black people, get the fuck over it. As long as people aren't in our way, then stay out of theirs.

Cast Joseph McCarthy in a more favorable light? The "unintended consequences" of Title IX and Affirmative Action??? Zeal, please tell me this is a joke...

edited 22nd Jan '13 8:47:00 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

I wouldn't call it so much a "luxury" as I would an "obligation". Often in this thread, the "gay lobby" has been said to have a lack of integrity that makes us Not So Different from our opponents. Wouldn't it show even more of a lack of integrity to desperately cater to every potential ally, even when it's possible some don't have our best interests at heart?

edited 22nd Jan '13 8:52:20 AM by Morgikit

Jhimm, I think Morg has a point on this one. As Christians, we reject any suggestion we tailor our views to more palatable, so....no Morg, the GRL shouldn't tailor theirs, especially just to accommodate supporters of dubious intent.

But....at a certain point, you have to accept that some people will never agree with a homosexual, bi, or trans relationship. They simply won't. Just like no matter if a Christian walks into a cancer ward and successfully cures a hundred people with nothing but a prayer, people will still not accept Christianity.

It's something all people of all stripes need to learn to accept. And history has shown that every time any group deems itself above that fact, it suffers.

edited 22nd Jan '13 8:54:30 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It doesn't bother me that people "disagree" with me on my homosexuality. So it bothers you that I'm gay, whoop-de-doo, look at how much I care.

It only starts to bother me if people speak out against it openly without any reason whatsoever only because it's "wrong". Why is it wrong? Because it is!

Probably why I can't take homophobes seriously at all.

edited 22nd Jan '13 9:01:42 AM by kay4today

Right, I acknowledge that there are extreme opinions. But, I'm asking for sources that indicate the gay lobby (in your words) is being abandoned. Because I can find a few that seem to corroborate Shima's claims that Christianity is losing members because of ideological differences.

I wish it were.

edited 22nd Jan '13 9:12:06 AM by KingZeal

Hmm...I guess while I was sleeping last night laws were passed allowing gays to adopt and making it illegal to discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation. The wheels of justice sure turn fast don't they?

Believe me, I know...

edited 22nd Jan '13 9:12:53 AM by Morgikit

Christianity is more than the attendance in the specific Church, Zeal, something a lot of people don't realize.

You want to talk about decline? How about how asking how many Christians occupy leadership positions in sports, business, science, politics, etc. Compare that to LGBTQ's in the same. Compare the amount of money the Church receives from it's members and in turn funnels into the wider economy. Actuatlly see how much the Church devotes to humanitarian works including gay rights?

My point is, as always, I don't put too much into stats because, while it's helpful, it ignores a lot.

Meanwhile, just because I can't find a shiny stat, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm telling there's a growing impatience with the certain segments of the GRL trying to force everyone to see it their way. Like I said, you can get labelled a transphobe for saying you don't consider a transwoman a "natural" woman and that as a result you'd never want to be involved with one.

One commenter who also opposed the thought-coercion amusingly suggested that maybe they want to make a chip that'll force people to think otherwise.

@Morg - Okay, you don't have to rub it in now.

Explain.

edited 22nd Jan '13 9:18:33 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

I've observed before that it's primarily younger people leaving religion. According to a Barna Group poll in 2007, as referenced in their book Unchristian, the top characteristics that young people associate with Christianity are: anti-gay, judgmental, hypocritical, and too involved in politics.

Remember, younger Americans, say those under 30, have lived their whole lives in a world where Christianity is fundamentally associated with right-wing politics.

Transpeople can be a bit sensitive, I'll admit. Maybe when he said "I don't consider you a natural woman" she heard "You're not a real woman, just a man pretending to be one".

What a mature response! How could anyone find that offensive?

edited 22nd Jan '13 9:25:32 AM by Morgikit

Dude, all people are sensitive. Christians are notorious for getting indignant because *gasp* not everyone thinks like we do.

Some of us learn it's quite okay if not everyone believes what we believe. The sun won't stop rising because of it.

Gay marriage is only one of dozens of rights denied to gay people, but if we win this one, especially if we win it at the level of the supreme court saying that people can't discriminate against us, maybe gay people will stop being fired for being gay. Stop being kicked out of housing they paid for for being gay. Stop having such a high homelessness rate because we can't find housing or jobs in the first place.

Those are all rights.

How about the right not to be harassed in the street? How about the right not to be beaten or killed for our sexuality? We don't even seem to have that in a lot of places.

"I find it no more a fantasy that many gays who behave as if they were ever the target of institutional oppression like many other demographic groups in this country, or that if someone doesn't accept and approve their lifestyle then they're not truly an ally."

People have already addressed this somewhat but...EVER!? REALLY!? Are you really trying to say gay people were never the target of that kinda oppression? Or that modern young gay people were never the target.

edited 22nd Jan '13 9:45:37 AM by Wildcard