LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Good point. Let me be clear; as Taoist corrected me, science is not a dogma. However in it's application it can be remarkably like a religion. Much of science is built precisely on things taken at face value. Much of it is stuff we can't prove one way or the other, because we lack the technology in the first place. So yes, it's about faith.

Really the only difference me and the scientist is that I say I'm willing to go with this book written by God to fill in the blanks, he picks up a book written by other scientists and says he's going with that one. We're Not So Different you know.

Science yes. But as I made the distinction, scientists are people first. It is a rare professor of psychology who's esteemed by many, who's won awards, who's been published in prestigious journals, who can look past all that when some college student suggests a theory of his might be wrong.

Because he's an arrogant prick? No, an arrogant prick doesn't usually attain the respect he has. It takes work to check your beliefs. It takes time. I would know. On the one hand, he has this kid who still has spots telling him "he may have found something." On the other hand, he has a bunch of equally venerated doctors like himself who long ago such a thing wasn't possible. The professor tells the kid he's off, not because he's an asshole, but probably out of genuine care for the kid's career. He probably believes he's on the right track now.

To believe such things don't happen in science is a bit of a reach.

I do agree that a founding principle in Christianity is that the Bible can't be wrong. And I agree that if I'm wrong, that belief will hamper my ability to find it. But that's a risk, we all take, religious and not.

The other thing, while the Bible might be infallible, people are NOT. The Bible is clear in that point. A true Christian can't use the Bible's infallibility as an excuse to not examine himself, cause he ain't God.

Can we get a definition of conspiracy theory? Because I would say that Albor's argument is just that, and if we're not to discuss conspiracy theories I'm a bit lost as to how we are to respond to him.

Starship: Certainly, the scientific consensus could well be wrong. But if that is the case, it is evidence, repeatedly tested, that will demonstrate such a fact. The fact that scientific authorities could be wrong when pitted against allegedly 'infallible' scripture is not a firm basis to dismiss them.

And even if it were the case that homosexuality could be controlled, why should that affect homosexuals' legal rights in the slightest?

edited 2nd Feb '13 5:42:01 PM by Snipehamster

@Snipe - Well actually.....in the case of homosexuality, much of the data is "repeated" more so than repeatedly tested. And it doesn't change that the overwhelming amount of the data actually says little if anything. The studies themselves say as much.

Again, I think the problem here is that we're mixing up science with scientific consensus and with assumptions taken from the science. Facts can't lie, they can't be biased, they can't be mistaken. The people looking at them and commenting on them can. And often are.

As for legislation....I don't see what it has to do with. But as I made the distinction earlier, it DOES make a difference when you claim you're being judged for who you are rather than what you do. The first makes your opponents bigots, the second makes your opponents....people who don't agree with you. Huge difference.

I disagree. I would no doubt be called a bigot if I called for, say, a ban on infant circumcision or evangelism in schools simply because "they're wrong"*

No, you wouldn't. People might say you're shortsighted or flat-out wrong. But they wouldn't call your opinion hate speech. Because, see, generally people feel it's good and healthy to have an opinion on deeds, since deeds can be right, wrong, or neutral.

Tentacles got it. Mental disorders are classified by their ability to intrinsically cause unusual harm to the subject or others. Those organizations declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder because all the negative effects they found were a result of either being ostracized by other people (not mental) or fearing such (not intrinsic to the condition). What replaced it on the list of disorders was having a sexual orientation you don't want, which can directly lead to anxiety, depression, etc.

edited 2nd Feb '13 7:04:49 PM by Pykrete

Wow, I didn't know. Thanks for the link Pyk.

Huh. I think we were discussing that topic many pages ago in a speculative sort of way, but I didn't know there was an actual term for that. Interesting.

edited 2nd Feb '13 7:24:46 PM by HilarityEnsues

Britain's House of Commons debates on gay marriage tomorrow. It will probably pass.

However, getting it through the House of Lords will be a real challenge, as the Parliament Act, by convention, is only to be used where a party said it would implement the policy in their manifesto, and conservatives only pledged to "consider" it. It will take balls I think Cameron doesn't have to force it through over this constitutional convention. There is the Lib Dems, who did promise to introduce it, but the interpretation of the law will be murderous.

House of Commons debating gay marriage at the moment.

The Guardian are liveblogging it.

And the Catholic Church is comparing gay marriage to Hitler. For bonus distastefulness points, they're doing it in Germany.

edited 5th Feb '13 2:34:10 AM by Achaemenid

They sound like so many people I know..

Considering where they are, and how damn tired everyone has gotten of Hitler comparisons, that's probably going to do more harm to their credibility than good.

The UK debate is on now, so far the big point I'm seeing raised by the no crowd, is that there is no need for a couple to consummate their marriage with sex (in common law non-consummation is grounds for annulment) and additionally and that due to the current definition of Adultery it would not be possible to divorce over adultery. That and there is some railing about how while the UK government can legislate in such a way that churches may not be sued for not performing a same sex marriage, they are questioning if the European Courts might make it so churches can be sued. However it’s a very polite debate so far.

What does Benny have to say about this, given his own problems with false Nazi accusations?

O god, one of the M Ps voting against (a labour one as well) just played the "Marriage exists for life, between a man and a women and for the purpose of raising children". This is England (and Wales) for god’s sake, our church was founded on breaking the "marriage is for life" rule.

When does it come to a vote? Late tonight or tomorrow?

There is a vote for the bill to proceed and assuming the vote succeeds it goes to the committee stage, then the report stage, and then they have the third debate and the vote. Assuming it passes it then goes onto the House of Lords.

No wonder politics is so slow! I guess these guys act as a good safeguard though. American laws and amendments have to pass by so many people as well so it is slow here too.

Here is hoping the "for" side wins the debate.

edited 5th Feb '13 6:53:26 AM by Wildcard

They should win, the Conservatives only need enough votes in favour from their side to make up for any Lib Dem or opposition dissenters.

A sticking point I'm seeing is a lot of people who are against the bill are making the point that we already have equality in the form of civil partnerships, which have been ruled to be equal by the European Courts.

The one offensive thing so far has been when a Conservative MP made the suggestion that a better idea (that he however does not subscribe to) would be to do away with civil marriage, do away with civil partnerships and create a civil union bill that anyone could enter into with anyone (family, friends or romantic partners). And that resulted in him getting shouted at and told to consider exactly how much what he had just said could offend, though in true parliamentary fashion he was only able to be told off because he allowed the person who wanted to tell him of to speak.

There's something nice about how even the people who say offensive things are polite enough to hand over time to another member who wants to tell them that they are being offensive.

Edit: As for the speed thing, the bill was only introduced into the house 12 days ago, so it's not going that slow.

Edit 2: A Conservative MP (who is for) made the point that some people have said "Gay people can marry, they just have to marry someone of the same sex" and pretty much the entire parliament laughed. It's nice to see everyone for or against can laugh at the really stupid argument. Now we've got a Northern Irish MP going on about it, how he's against it and how people will get sued, prosecuted or fired for opposing same sex marriage. However as the DUP only have 8 seats and the other Northern Irish ones have 4 between them (plus the North Irish M Ps who don't attend parliament) this really doesn’t make a difference. The Northern Irish are likely to all vote against simply because they all have close ties to the churches with which they associate.

Edit 3: This is a good debate. One Labour MP (who will for now vote for but will vote against at the 3rd reading) was making the point about marriage being tied to children and promptly got called on it by a female Labour MP who made the point that when she married she was of an age where she might not have been able to convince and as such was he calling her marriage less valid.

Edit 4: There are several Northern Irish M Ps ranting about God and how the area of marriage is not up to the UK government. Bloody Irish...

edited 5th Feb '13 9:17:25 AM by Silasw

Just to update anyone following this thread but not the Gay Marriage in Britain one, or indeed British politics in general: The House of Commons has passed gay marriage legislation with 400 votes for and 175 against. Predictably, most of the "no" votes came from Tory MPs.

Not quite, instead they've voted it through its second reading. It has passed its second reading. It still has committees and its third reading, then the Lords, which is a fucking old-folks home full of people who might cancel the Bill.

It won't take effect for at least another year from now, if it passes the Lords at all.

edited 5th Feb '13 11:49:45 AM by Achaemenid

In fairness there was also pretty much a complete no turnout from the Northern Irish M Ps (who do not ever belong to the main UK parties) and while most of the no votes were conservative just under half did vote yes. While the bill has passed it does still require a final vote after amendments and such have been done, however with such a large majority (400 to 175) there isn't going to be any stopping it now. However it does still have to pass the House of Lords, which will be much more difficult. It can be forced though by the commons but that would be very unusual and might not succeed, as some M Ps might switch their vote in protest of an attempt to override The Lords.

I think the Lords will have a hard time shooting down a bill that has such overwhelming support in the Commons. The Lords Spiritual will certainly whine, but there's only 26 of them.