LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Wait, so you're arguing that, since you can't marry pudding, homosexuals aren't repressed?

I have not had enough sleep to figure that one out.

Precisely. In my defense, however, my pudding and I have enjoyed a long, faithful, and mutually respectful (though non-legal) union.

edited 22nd Jan '13 10:39:48 AM by Jhimmibhob

Jhim: Oh I see that makes more sense. Okay I think it is oppressive to keep a loving, willing, of age couple away from the benefits of marriage just because religious institutions don't like the fact that they are the same sex. is that something like what you were asking of me?

edited 22nd Jan '13 10:43:20 AM by Wildcard

Uh, I guess. Maybe in the strictest meaning of the word it's bigoted. But we're talking about attraction, a highly personal measure that most of us can't define. I can't tell you except in the broadest of strokes why I find only one of two similar looking girls attractive. It's just a part of who I am.

So if knowing that someone is a trans is unattractive to you, maybe that fits some definition of bigoted. If someone preferred blue-eyed girls as in your example, but didn't prefer the "artificial" blue-eyed girls I'd thing that was strange, but conclude, "Oh well, whatever does it for you, man." You can't decide what "should" be attractive to someone, you can only comment on what is.

So you might say, "But Starship, you think this actress is hot, and she's a trans." But what if suddenly, and without any conscious thought on his part, Starship's attraction disappears the moment he learns this information? Again, maybe it's bigoted, but who cares? I don't take it as a sign of what kind of person you are; your turn-ons and turn-offs are just different from mine. Just like every other person in the world.

@Starship Come on man, I'm not saying gays have had it as bad as blacks (though something tells me if people identified as homosexual prior to the 20th century, they would have), but to say that there's no institutionalized oppression is silly.

Further, this idea that it's the gays' problem because they're trying to change the definition of marriage:

Granting for the sake of argument that the definition of marriage is one man and one woman, I say, "Who cares?" Definitions change over time. The definition of "citizen" didn't used to include women. The definition of "murder" didn't used to include killing your slave. The definition of "rape" didn't include something a husband could do to his wife. We've moved on from those definitions. This "definition" of marriage that only the Church really seems to support is outdated.

Well, calling the differences "nominal" is kind of begging the question. Plenty of people would contend that if anything, they're essential.

To go along with Jhimm.... In a country founded on self-determination, adults should be able to marry whom they please. I used the polygamy example, but I'm actually not against polygamy. I myself would never marry more than one woman, and I sure as hell wouldn't share any number of wives with another guy, but if there's a set-up where it works for them, hey have fun.

But the fact is marriage has been understood to mean a certain thing. If you want to change the definition, then you have to argue for that change. The fact you have to argue that change, or that some people aren't willing to throw it out, isn't oppression.

Edit: At Vericrat - I was only saying gays have traditionally made folks uncomfortable. Blacks didn't just make people uncomfortable, we were meant to be the zoo animals.

@Definition of marriage - Yes, definitions change all the time. There's a process to that change. And nobody is exempt from it.

edited 22nd Jan '13 10:48:59 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Back before slaves in America were free, they weren't "people." The definition of "person" didn't include slaves. Did that mean they weren't being oppressed?

Excellent point! Now, some people have indeed changed their personal working definitions, but that's far from everybody—and it's not as obvious to me as to you that only a dwindling religious minority of holdouts disagree; indeed you might be in the minority here. And whose definition the U.S. courts should adopt is far, far from a no-brainer.

edited 22nd Jan '13 10:50:47 AM by Jhimmibhob

The fact that somebody thought it a swell idea to look at a set of human beings and decide "these people don't count as people", that's unfair.

In other words, yes, the law that a slave can't marry, learn to read, or pick his own name, isn't technically untrue. The fact that you define slave as someone who's done nothing wrong but have a certain amount of melanin is.

With the gay marriage debate, there are no similarly false premises. We acknowledge you're adults, we acknowledge you're in love, we acknowledge there are benefits to get from a marriage. We also have to acknowledge that marriage has meant this specific thing and in order to accommodate you we have to change it.

It's inconvenient yes, but it's a fact.

Now, the one flawed premise that must be corrected is that religion of any stripe has any pull in this. It shouldn't. Because that separation is something we all agreed to.

edited 22nd Jan '13 10:55:45 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

I'd say that one of the worst things about the "slave"<>"person" example was the law's willingness to play dishonest games with language, screwing around as if a word simply meant whatever the drafters wanted it to mean to achieve their purposes. To me, that's fundamentally lawless, and well worth guarding against. That's why I'm wary when any present-day activists appear to be playing similar semantic games.

edited 22nd Jan '13 10:57:16 AM by Jhimmibhob

So what you are saying is even if it is bottomless cruel technically it doesn't count as oppression unless they lie?

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:09:59 AM by Wildcard

Just mentally impaired adults who don't know our own minds. Or criminal adults who are pretending to be a certain way to harm society somehow.

Just that it's an evil kind of love that causes hurricanes, earthquakes, school shootings and terrorist attacks.

You're forgetting, Max, that not everyone who has issues with non-heterosexuals is as...polite about it as you try to be.

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:05:01 AM by Morgikit

Yeah, and I'm saying that in interpersonal relationships, that's bullshit.

Yes it does. Because we're talking explicitly about biases and prejudices. Discriminating against someone for the authenticity of those properties, when it affects nothing but your own state-of-mind, is prejudice.

"It's who I am" is never an excuse not to question yourself.

I didn't say anything about what "should". I only commented that it's prejudiced. For example, if someone doesn't like a SPECIFIC transwoman because her jaw is too masculine, that's one thing. Unless he suddenly is attracted to another transwoman with the same properties.

If it' bigoted, we can call it into question—because that's basically the entire point of this conversation.

It's like when they polled a number of Japanese people on if they'd like to have Americans as neighbors, and then asked them the same or similar poll after making the person's race clear as African-American. The answers were widely different, based SOLELY on that. That's prejudice.

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:10:48 AM by KingZeal

So if I change it to...

...it's suddenly inapplicable?

Morgikit: I don't think he has issues with homosexuals.

Vericrat The issue was that originally Marriage was defined as a union man and a woman. A person did not have a definition that included "not black".

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:12:38 AM by Wildcard

Well then Zeal, I guess we're prejudiced.

I'm saying that even if it's bottomlessly cruel, even it is oppression, you still have to go about it in the same manner as everyone else who also has a gripe and no amount of indignation is going to change that.

@Morg - Did I detect a hint of thinly veiled insult, Morg?

Edit: Vericrat - You honestly lost me there.

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:13:44 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Whether or not the implications are "bottomlessly cruel" is yet another issue that needs to be more than simply asserted. And no: reality places all manner of limitations upon all of us, but that's not the same thing as oppression.

@Wild: Sorry, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

@Max: It's possible.

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:14:38 AM by Morgikit

I edited it guys. Can you answer the new question I was trying to get across?

Hole in one.

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:14:58 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

That's a great start. So what are you going to do to fix it?

Even if not for yourself, then for others?

Jhimmibhob: Oppression is done by authority, not natural forces.

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:17:30 AM by Wildcard

Wait, what?

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/family03.htm

Um, sorry old friend, but I wasn't saying that as an admission. I'm saying that I reject the notion that I have any obligation to change my "prejudices".

I'm obligated to treat each person fairly and with equal respect as fellow human beings. I'm under no obligation to treat all people the same. And I won't. And all the cries of oppression won't change that.

edited 22nd Jan '13 11:23:48 AM by TheStarshipMaxima