LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Well, a distinction can be useful between homosexual people — that is, people who are attracted to other people of the same sex — and active homosexual people — that is, people who have sexual relations with people of the same sex.

A homosexual person may not be sexually active — for example, he or she could be celibate; and a person who has sexual relations with people of the same sex needs not be homosexual — she or he may do it for curiosity, or for money, or for other reasons.

Even under the strictest Christian point of view possible, there is no possible way in which being "homosexual" in the first sense is a sin; as for the second, on the other hand, opinions differ, as we can see — but the traditional perspective is that it is indeed sinful to have sexual relations with people of the same sex.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that this is the distinction that Maxima is suggesting by talking about "Homosexuality" and "Homosexual Lifestyle". If it is so, may I perhaps suggest the term "Sexually Active Homosexuality" for the latter meaning? It is a little awkward, but it does the job.

edited 1st Mar '13 1:51:38 PM by Carciofus

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

Only if you agree to start using the terms "Heterosexual Lifestyle" and "Sexually Active Heterosexual".

@Starship, wouldn't "person who conducts homosexual acts" be a pretty good term? Sure it doesn't roll of the tounge but it covers what you want with minimal confusion.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

"Sexually active heterosexual" is just fine, I think. It is a perfectly reasonable descriptor for people who have heterosexual sex.

"Heterosexual lifestyle", like "homosexual lifestyle", is a bit awkward, because of course heterosexual and homosexual people may subscribe to many different lifestyles (sure, there are some subcultures which mainly cater to homosexuals and some subcultures which mainly cater to heterosexuals, but a person needs not to be a part of any of them).

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

I'm in favor of just using the results of the first circular semantics wank, but I understand if nobody wants to trawl through the thread again to find it.

edited 1st Mar '13 1:57:54 PM by Pykrete

Elfive is right

It goes back to what Gabrael mentioned as religious people using certain phrasing and other tactics to separate LGBT people as "others".

A homosexual is a homosexual regardless if they are sexually active or not just as is a pansexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.

And if the Christians are right and to think of something is just as bad as doing it, then who cares if they tangibly acted on their sexuality? Mental is enough so it's pointless and insulting.

edited 1st Mar '13 1:59:15 PM by Polarstern

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Someone who is talking about people acting on their sexuality.

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

read the rest of the paragraph that phrase came from.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Oi! Seeing as Carciofus and I are both arguing against Starship here, could you not lump all Christians in the same boat? This isn't a religious thing, it's a Starship thing

edited 1st Mar '13 2:01:27 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Again Carc, I feel we get the most accurate meaning when we take the Bible in total.

The entire point of Acts 15 was that Single Issue Wonking over unimportant stuff is a waste of a Christian's time and effort. And mind you, Paul himself did not necessarily agree with that. It was the council that came up with it.

Some believe the council boiled the whole thing down to the most important bits. And they all make sense, you shouldn't have idols, you shouldn't fornicate, and generally, we abstain for drinking animal blood (though I do go for a rare steak myself).

The point Carc is that a letter specifically written in the context of a dispute doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming message of the NT is that "Guys, how about you focus on actually loving your neighbors, not cheating to get what you want, and resisting your own lusts rather than dickering over such minutae?"

It's convenient that I can't point out it isn't me who invented the definition as it actually is lest Shima send another mod post.

edited 1st Mar '13 2:05:28 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Yeah, no. I dunno where you got this, but this is not Christianity at all.

I guess that you refer to that famous passage in which Jesus says that if one gazes at a woman with lust then they already committed adultery with her in their heart; but that — especially if you look at the wider passage, which is not about sexuality at all — is just saying that indulging in bad desires is in itself bad.

If — to make one overblown example — I happen to have a violent thought about a person I dislike, that is not the same as if I messily murdered them; but if I spent days and days indulging in fantasies about the violent demise of that person, well, that would not be healthy and it would indeed be sinful.

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

Silasaw,

most Christian denominations still teach that to think a sin is just as bad as doing the act iself or if not, it's a lesser sin.

Starship is not the only Christian to do this.

Besides, I thought this was the Homosexuality and Religion thread, not the "All about Starship's Views" Thread.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Starship, you might not have invented it but your the only one here who uses it. Really, it's not that hard to type "sexually active homosexual" rather than "homosexual lifestyle". Hell it would actually save time as we'd avoid these semantic arguments.

I guess I was just never taught that, but then my vicar was always into blessing gay unions more than going on about sin, and yeah, point taken on the thread not actually being about Starship.

edited 1st Mar '13 2:13:56 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Maxima: Thanks.

I find it strange than you describe the blood prohibition as Single Issue Wonking while details about who can or cannot have sex with whom is part of "the overwhelming message" — when it is mentioned in three passages of the New Testament, tops.

And even if Paul did not agree with them... well, if one cannot ignore Paul, then they certainly cannot ignore James and Peter either, right?

I can agree that resisting one's lusts — and, more in general, exercising self-restraint — is part of the "overwhelming message"; but for example, Jesus seemed a lot more concerned with the importance of fasting (something that we modern Christians, me included, have largely abandoned).

Again, just my two cents.

edited 1st Mar '13 2:12:45 PM by Carciofus

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

See, where this fails is that this isn't what a Christian believes.

What?

edited 1st Mar '13 2:14:58 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Please go tell my entire old church. I don't think they got that memo.

I'm pretty sure you could find a single christian who believes that if you looked hard enough.

And on this, I entirely agree with Maxima (shocking, right?)

I'm pretty sure you could find a single Christian who believes that Judas was an giant octopus from Betelgeuse 7 if you looked hard enough.

edited 1st Mar '13 2:16:48 PM by Carciofus

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

Don't get all technical Elfive

It was an honor

Actually, some of the more extreme factions in the southeast do explicitly teach that, but usually it's a theologically unofficial but common opinion among the Bible Belt that sometimes makes its way into the pulpit.

In either case, it's not something a "majority" of denominations teach, not even in the US and certainly not worldwide.

edited 1st Mar '13 2:17:48 PM by Pykrete

I think what is being objected to here is the "Gay lifestyle" term has been used to describe gay people as being all alike and bad, "all gay people go clubbing, wear pink, have indiscriminate sex with anyone and everyone of the same gender" etc...

The problem being that there isn't a singular gay lifestyle. Starship is using it to describe any lifestyle that includes homosexuality, while in most of the news and conservative blogs it has been used to say "Teh gays are in da clubs sexing up everyone they can."

Problem is Maxima can't seem to find another word to describe it, tell you the truth I can't either.

Edit: How much anti-gay stuff is in the bible anyway? It has been a long time since I read any version of the Bible and the only stuff I've heard about it since then was...

"(That Amendment)didn't even make it into the Moses Top 100 Commandment Countdown."

edited 1st Mar '13 2:20:49 PM by Wildcard

The Catholic Church I grew up in said sinful thoughts were the same as sinful actions. Both the Methodist and Baptist denominations (various congregations of each) my girlfriend grew up in considered sinful thoughts a lesser sin to the action itself, but a sin none the less.

I also have talked with Angelicans and Pentecostals who have said that was their official doctrine as well.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Well, here's the thing, if I'm expected to respect the majority and not use offensive terms then I sure as hell don't think it's too much to ask that people stop saying ignorant shit like "terms the religious right made up" or "you're just doing this to make a point".

A simple "Starship, yes, this is a real term and no nobody made it up to spite us, but just don't use it, thanks," would suffice.

You misunderstand, I agree with you (yes, shocking). Jesus hated the Pharisees because they were all about "This thing will DAMN YOU TO HELL!"

There is no such thing. Not even homosexuality, homosexual behavior, or homosexual acts.

Single Issue Wonking is WRONG. Whether it's over the sinfulness of rare steaks or over two guys kissing.

If Jesus were here, his message would be something like this "Why dost thou care about your brother's boyfriend and yet ignore the fourth wife in your bed??"

EDIT: Did you just ninja me, Wildcard???

Is this truly what you all think I mean when use that term??

edited 1st Mar '13 2:25:19 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Do they also consider virtuous thoughts the same as virtuous actions?

Like "I never give to charity, but I've thought about it a lot, which is basically the same thing, right?".

edited 1st Mar '13 2:25:06 PM by Elfive

I'm the best Ninja. No. I think you mean any lifestyle that includes homosexuality. Like you described. I tried to make that clear sorry. Just that might be part of the objection to using that term.

Is it "No sin will automatically damn you to hell?" Really not even the worst ones?

edited 5th Mar '13 8:21:56 PM by Wildcard