LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Oh, it's considerably higher than that. Current estimates of "unapproved" contraception use are in the mid-90's percent.

Laity point-blank ignoring official church stances over an issue isn't really anything new, for better or worse. It happens with contraception, it happened when Spanish settlers started taking slaves in the Caribbean (there were some really really scathing letters sent from the higher-ups on that and colonists gave zero fucks), and it's hit a tipping point on homosexuality.

edited 1st Mar '13 1:36:42 AM by Pykrete

I thought it would be something like that. I would imagine there would be quite a few out there who relied on "folk medicine", and things like pulling out and crap.

I'm kind of wondering if this could be a serious issue. While the laity are ignoring them in places like the US, there are many others where these thought are common amongst the people. I'm wondering if regional, or geographic, schisms could become common in the future. I'm looking at the Episcopal Church, and seeing things like the Anglican Realignment, and wondering if things like this could have a serious impact on Church structure.

edited 1st Mar '13 1:39:46 AM by Lascoden

I know my mother had to stop using pills because they made her physically ill (toxic responses to weird things seem to run in my family), but every time I'm visiting and have to open the cabinet for toilet paper, well, there's a big box of dissent right there.

As for geographical schisms, yeah that happens all the time — for instance, the super-conservative Protestant flavors of the US Southeast are geographical reactionary schisms from the Anglicans immediately prior to the Revolution, fueled in part by a desire to distance themselves from England as much as possible. By now they're barely recognizable as having been associated with that.

edited 1st Mar '13 1:50:53 AM by Pykrete

Timing sex with the woman's menstrual cycle is very popular for "birth control" in the Practicing Catholics I know. However, that's really tricky.

The thing is most reigious sects don't want to believe they have the wrong idea about things.

My father didn't allow me to be put on birth control as a devoted Church of Christ because he was so confident that would make me have sex even though I was having serious health problems. (Never mind he controlled my every move.) It wasn't until I was completely incapacitated from pain and dehydration due to uncontrollable cramps forcing me to vomit anything that he took me to a doctor. The doctor gave me a perscription for birth control as part of the treatments that would follow. It helped a lot.

Regretfully, it takes something very drastic and very personal before most religious individuals will even consider changing their minds or at least consider a different view. When you have a faith that sets something different up as an "other" and then hangs the stigma and fear of eternal damnation around it, that only solidifies the walls people will put up to defend their views and reject any counterpoints.

Natural Family Planning has fallen way, way out of public use of late. (About 1.5% of couples in the US use it — for scale, about 1/4 of the US is Catholic).

I would have a problem with a lot less religions if they didn't try to force their moral code on everyone else. Especially when those beliefs can be really harmful like "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says it is a sin". There is also the issue of the indoctrination of kids who had no choice what family they were born into having to follow religious rules even when they don't agree, and it can hurt them very much. True that can happen in any family but religion doesn't ted to lend itself well to preventing that.

edited 1st Mar '13 5:51:11 AM by Wildcard

Sadly, the problem there is that many religions require their followers to try and spread their faith for the good of everyone (according to their teachings, at least). If (and only if) the religion in question is correct, its followers are objectively the good guys - The Hero on a cosmic scale.

Most, or at least some, of those trying to impose religious rules on others do so because they honestly believe that they're trying to save people from a Fate Worse than Death. And those that keep their religion to themselves provide their more vocal peers with a firm base of passive support.

At the very least, it's a damn effective marketing strategy.

edited 1st Mar '13 6:08:41 AM by Snipehamster

I wish there was a way to stop people from trying to force it onto others though. The rules about gays, abortion, and the roles of the different sexes in particular can damage the children who didn't have a choice in their religion.

edited 1st Mar '13 6:16:36 AM by Wildcard

Honestly, if the RCC wasn't the biggest or one of the biggest charities around, I'd have divorced myself from it already.

Also, I think I stick with the RCC cause they had already fucked up (majorly) so many times in the past that our leaders can't go around inciting hatred (against homosexuals, for example), without getting told to STFU (you pedophile-protectors!), including by their own congregation.

And yes! According to Wikipedia, more Pro-Gay Catholics than Anti-Gay Catholics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism

The reason why we can't keep religion out of politcs is because most religious people, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, feel it is their duty as members of that faith to try and uphold their morality.

It is immoral to be homosexual so it is immoral to stand quietly as people endorse homosexuality as a nuetral or positive choice.

Brother's keeper is stronger than Give unto Caesar for most Christian denominations.

Surely you can divorce yourself from the Roman Catholic Church without stopping to give to the charitable wing. I mean, I doubt you need to be a Catholic to donate to a Catholic charity.

I live in a 80%+ Roman Catholic country with Muslims and protestant groups.

They live you alone when you tell them you're a Roman Catholic. Besides, at least the RC ain't anti-Science.

So you lie about your beliefs to get left alone, implicitly supporting a corrupt institution that you've admitted you're not a fan of, thus providing it with added legitimacy it hardly deserves?

No no no, I agree with some of the RC's teachings, not all of it.

It's impossible to find a religion which you agree with 100%.

Also, as mentioned, plenty of Roman Catholics do not see eye-to-eye with the RCC.

Instead of abandoning it, we're trying to make our leaders stop being morons and adapt to the changing times.

You could all pretend to abandon it. That would give them a wake-up call.

Could you not choose to be a non-denominational Christian and choose to be a Christian rather than an Catholic or a Protestant or a Orthodox Christian and practice your own form of Christianity distinct, but related, to the Catholic form?

edited 1st Mar '13 6:40:02 AM by deathpigeon

I am very confused as for why non-Catholics are so eager for pro-LGBT Catholics (or, more in general, for "progressive" Catholics) to leave the Church.

I mean, even putting aside the real, theological reasons why we remain Catholic (they have little to do with the topic anyway), surely we are more useful by staying within our Church, encouraging internal discussion on these themes, and showing by example that you can be a Catholic and support gay marriage?

If — for the sake of discussion — all "moderate" Catholics left the Catholic Church, that would not make the organization magically disappear. It would keep much of its influence, but radicalize and lose the possibility of internal criticism; and that would be a very bad thing for the Church, yes, but also a very non-good thing for the rest of the world.

This is a very cynical and calculating way of putting it — I am not a Catholic because I want to spread internal dissent about these themes, I am a Catholic because I believe in Catholicism. But if I were a non-Catholic supporting LGBT rights, pro-LGBT Catholics leaving the Church would be the last thing I'd want...

I have to agree with that. I'd rather see moderate Christians try to reform from the inside than just leave.

Roman Catholicism has over a billion followers worldwide. And plenty of those followers are not "blind" sheep followers, okay?

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism

I don't want pro-LGBT Catholics or Progressive Catholics to leave the Catholic Church. I want all Catholics to leave the Catholic Church since it's a corrupt and highly hierarchical institution that does more harm than good. I usually attempt to persuade Progressive Catholics more because it seems to be easier.

I mean, people should be allowed to believe what they want (though I want people to believe the truth), but those beliefs should not be used to provide a horrible institution (that of the Catholic Church, and not the beliefs associated with it) legitimacy it does not deserve.

That does not address anything I said. What I was saying wasn't relevant toward how many are believers, and I certainly did not say, or mean to imply, that the followers were "blind sheep".

edited 1st Mar '13 6:45:47 AM by deathpigeon

death Catholic beliefs are ABOUT the institution. Saying you're a Catholic that doesn't believe in any organized religion at all is kind of like saying you're a Muslim that doesn't believe in Muhammad.

Even if you disagree, death Catholics believe that the hierarchy is needed to get things done, just like they believe government is needed to get things done. You believe that neither is nesecary which is fine, but it's not what Catholics believe. This is why there are many people that don't believe every tenet of Catholic theology but still remain in the church. Less organized religion like Protestenism, has thousands of variations for precisely these reasons. If theology is the only reason why you're there, than the second you disagree with the teachings of your sect than you switch to a new one. From my understanding this actually leads to MORE reactionary Christianity, not less.

I'm not even going to try to excuse the bad things the Roman Catholic Church has done, and there has been plenty of bad things.

But as I've mentioned before, a religion is like a country. Its done bad things and its also done good things. Just because I'm Roman Catholic, it doesn't mean I agree with all of its current policies. I just happen to agree with Jesus Christ a LOT.

Just please consider me as one of the many Roman Catholics who is trying to make church leaders wake the fuck up. Besides, way too many Christian denominations already. As mentioned, it's more practical for progressive Catholics to cause internal dissent / rethinking / arguments than try to cobble together another Christian denomination.

edited 1st Mar '13 7:01:42 AM by probablyinsane

Agreed. There have been many terrible things the church has done, but there's also many good things it has done. I would much rather the church focus on it's social justice tradition and leave the sexuality by the wayside, and take culpability for any crimes any of its members have committed. Leaving won't change that. Joining in a wider discussion with a large number of other progressive Catholics might.

Then I fundamentally disagree with Catholic belief. I think that no one should be a part of any church, regardless of his/her beliefs. If someone believes in the Abrahamic God, then the person should worship that god in a personal way, rather than as a part of a hierarchical organization like a church.

And it's my understanding that Protestant churches aren't more reactionary than the Catholic Church, just more varied. There are some more reactionary, and some more liberal.

And I extend my critique of organized religion to countries as well. If you haven't figured out from my signature, title, location, and avatar, I'm an anarchist and I oppose hierarchy in all forms, including that of the state and organized religion.

edited 1st Mar '13 7:08:43 AM by deathpigeon

Ah, but abandoning the organisation doesn't work for Catholics because you need a priest to bless the wafers and wine for communion, so they'll transubstantiate when you eat them.

Although lets not get into the matter of transubstantiation because a) it's off-topic and b) my opinion of the doctrine is not fit for civil discourse.