LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

It takes a huge fucking leap from any point to get to "kill sinners". Case in point, the only perfect person in the history of humanity; the very Son of the very God him-fucking-self turned down EVERY opportunity to execute judgment on the many sinners he came across.

When his disciple Paul sliced off an ear, Jesus reattached it.

Only some Gestapo fuckwit would actually use the Bible to justify thinking some people have a right to suggest others "should die".

If one focuses on the Old Testament then it's really not that hard, though that makes me wonder, who don't Jews have loads of fundamentalists bent on killing people? The Old Testament is their book.

Really it takes only one thing, arrogance. If you assume that you are an agent of God's will then it makes perfect sense. God says X is wrong and anyone who does it should die, the exception of "only God shall kill" doesn't apply, because you are a holy servant of god.

Though I stand that the people who read the Bible and take from it "gays must die" (all 5 of them that have actually read the full Bible), and not "adulterers must die" "people who lie must die" "Cheaters must die" "anointing children must die" "people who have pre marital sex must die" "[insert group here] must die" have gone into it with an agenda, because many of those things actually receive orders of death a lot more often than homosexuality.

Like someone using a religious text to justify themselves is anything new?

Not exactly . The Old testament is parts of the Torah, yes. But it omits a fuckload of it. This leads to a lot of misunderstandings and no context entries in the bible.

edited 6th Jun '13 8:31:41 PM by Midgetsnowman

So what, we just took the bits where God smites people and left out the rest. Who had that stupid idea?

The catholic church.

They basically took the torah, books that would become either the apocrypha or Bible, and picked and chose what parts they felt made the most sense together.

That was the origin of the bible.

edited 6th Jun '13 8:44:25 PM by Midgetsnowman

Yet when gay Christians pick and choose and ignore the anti-gay verses, they get yelled at. Maybe there should have been an 11th commandment against double standards.

As a relevant example, the OT stripped out everything of Sodom and Gomorrah except for saying they're evil followed by one mention of wanting to have sex with a dude (for reasons that are also omitted), then getting right to the brimstone. It's easy to read that and think "gay -> brimstone!"

In the original Jewish texts, they talk about the Battle of the Vale of Siddim, Sodom and Gomorrah winding up with a lot of prisoners after the fact, getting ridiculously abusive to them, then extending it to any and all foreigners. The aforementioned "sex with a dude" was, in the Jewish texts, war rape as a way of hazing newcomers — and far from the worst they regularly did to foreigners (or occasionally to their own — executing a local pre-teen girl via scaphism for giving money to a beggar comes to mind). This is contrasted with the nomadic tribes' laws of hospitality, because in the middle of the desert that's a freaking huge deal. And then, after the context is given, they get brimstone'd.

edited 7th Jun '13 12:52:34 AM by Pykrete

The CoE gives up the fight against gay marriage. Their new focus is going to be on making marriage better and more stable for everyone's sake. They want to add adultery into the marriage bill now as a way marriage can be dissolved and making sure that parental rights are there for same sex parents.

Because, the Co E has decided, if gays are going to be married, someone should think of the children and make sure that BOTH of their parents have legal responsibility for and custody of them.

The CofE - it might be wishy-washy. It might sit on the fence. It may be as divided as they come... But, it does manage to listen to the mood when it's yelled at it, at least.

Even though it grumbles about doing so. At length.

edited 7th Jun '13 7:16:33 AM by Euodiachloris

They don't have their own independent country in possession, so they are in worse position. Pope should build Mussolini a statue for his kindness.

There was a rather chill dude who said something like, "Why dost thou fret over the splinter in your brother's eye, and yet totally miss the brick in yours??"

There's like, a thousand, rules against rank hypocrisy throughout the entire Bible.

And yet with all the hypocrisy in there the rules against hypocrisy are themselves hypocrisy.

It's practically zen.

Clearly it didn't take. Maybe there should have been two thousand.

That's pretty clever. Sadly, the entire point about hypocrites is that they'd ignore it if God himself came down to their face and said, "Stop picking on people". Which he kinda did already.

You know, He really should have worked on brand recognition and distillation of the core information to get the message across more? God: hires crappy PR consultants and marketing guys.

edited 7th Jun '13 8:01:02 AM by Euodiachloris

I think he probably should have shown up somewhere in more recent times, maybe in a nascent world power with a more updated set of rules...

Oh, wait.

edited 7th Jun '13 8:02:20 AM by Elfive

It's nice to see the Co E being reasonable, sure they don't want gays to be able to marry, but at least they are willing to accept defeat on the matter. Though I'm still annoyed at them for voting against the bill, they shouldn't be exercising their right to vote on something like that.

Doesn't that just highlight just how wishy-washy and willing to back down the Church of England is? It's not like any of you guys are going to respect it more now that it has changed position.

edited 7th Jun '13 9:02:56 AM by joeyjojo

Why not? <confused> Standing by your principles is all well and good... but, not when it distances you from the people you're supposed to be serving and caring for.

edited 7th Jun '13 9:05:22 AM by Euodiachloris

Georgia Scout troop gets kicked out of one church after 68 years...only to receive sponsorship from another.

The pastor from their old church says he received a standing ovation from his congregation when he made the announcement. Well gosh, I guess that makes him right. >_>

<face-palm>

So uh, I guess since the Boy Scouts accepts gay members, every scouts is now gay?

Sound logic I guess.

Actually, I get the concern. Else, why not let boys into the girl scouts?

With that said, I don't see the big deal. Plenty of guys think I'm cute, it doesn't ruin my day. I just wish I could get more women to see it that way, but that's a different predicament.

I do support admitting gays into the Boy Scouts, but I don't really see how he's entirely wrong.

This.

edited 7th Jun '13 1:00:56 PM by Robotnik