LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I would assume so. I remember reading somewhere that it was pretty common but I can't find a source on google without wading through lots of Literotica results.

edited 2nd Oct '13 8:58:42 AM by ohsointocats

Ancient Egyptian, not Muslim. Muslims came way after the Exodus. (And even Jesus)

Yeah, I know that- I wasn't sure whether the cite was saying that Maimonides was saying that the Tanakh prohibited homosexuality because of a then current Egyptian practice (most likely) or whether the prohibition was justified because of a practice current in his lifetime.

Got it- it was the former. Thanks.

I gave you one. Twice. I even explained to you exactly why it was compatible with Biblical inerrancy.

Which, technically, is also not generally a moral issue but one of inbreeding. I mean, Adam and Eve's progeny would have had to break that by default, and nobody really considers that particularly horrible so much as icky.

Probably because nobody knew what the hell orientation was any more than they knew what E. coli was when they wrote the dietary restrictions.

That comment got me a very good discussion that I enjoyed and informed me. In fact, I'm going to have to go back over it and think about what was being said.

The point being that explaining it as being solely as a religious thing does not make sense.

You do realize that e-coli was the reason for the restriction, right?

It may have be a reason (it is given as a reason by people who want to justify following it in modern times), but I think its just as likely/more likely its because people the Israelites didn't like/other nations ate pork, ate shellfish, etc.

Pork has parasites, and shellfish has a nasty habit of making people really sick if they aren't prepared correctly. For a lot of those restrictions, there is a surprisingly good reason behind it. Admittedly, it's kind of restrictive, but for a culture in a land that, frankly speaking, is not very hospitable, removing as many of the dangerous elements as possible was a good idea.

And? Not having known what sexual orientation was doesn't point to it as "the reason" for restricting anal sex. As likely as anything, it was restricted because anal sex under poor hygienic conditions can cause septic shock and is more likely to transmit disease (the exact mechanisms for which the Hebrews also had no concept of).

If that's the case, then like E. coli, we've identified the health risk and now have ways to bring that risk down to acceptable levels. Today anal sex is still noticeably more hazardous than vaginal given appropriate health precautions, but a) not really by a worrisome amount, and b) we have ways to treat the exceptions when they happen.

Things would be so much easier if God had written "Oh, by the way. I created these little creatures called microbes that can make you mortally sick if you're not careful with your food. Make sure you wash your hands frequently using clean water and cook any and all meat thoroughly before eating it. And they'll make you sick if you have unprotected sex, too. Here's how to cut down on the risk."

But no, some middle-eastern tribesmen get "thou shalt not" and our ancestors end up learning these things the hard way - at the cost of countless lives.

Do you have a source for this?

edited 2nd Oct '13 3:47:03 PM by Snipehamster

It's not E. coli. The restriction wasn't against hamburgers. If it was anything, it would be Trichinella.

edited 2nd Oct '13 3:56:19 PM by nightwyrm_zero

Pedantry, etc.

So if the restriction was to prevent tricinella or salmonella or whatever, that's not really a serious risk in the age of modern medicine, right? So it no longer counts, right?

This is the logic of many reform Jews, yes.

"The issue with that argument is that we can understand homosexuality in other species through sin corruption. It need not be 'natural' for them either."

1- The idea that animals "sin" is rather incoherent in historical judeo-christian traditions. Considering that the "evidence" for such an opinion is flimsy at best...

2- In many species, homosexuality is a vital adaptation, sometimes important to reproduction itself (i.e. whip-tail lizards, for example). It is, therefore, not "unnatural"... and neither is in mankind.

edited 3rd Oct '13 2:27:47 PM by peryton

The problem with declaring something unnatural and then saying whenever it pops up in nature it's unnatural there too is that rather than being a compelling argument, it just appears that you don't know what "natural" means.

If the natural world doesn't fit the ideal presented in a book, then saying that the natural world is at fault instead of your book is an absurdity.

It should be noted that the phrase "natural law" as it shows up in theology is a term coined by Aquinas and deals in moral nature — not physical.

Of course, to back it up he goes into a long series of logic that eventually leads back to "Paul said it so it's true". Summa Theologica is surprisingly well-reasoned in places, but not everywhere.

Modern science has pulled the rug out from under a lot of Aquinas' initial postulates. His logic is fairly sound, but it's often based on assumptions that are just plain wrong.

some of his assumptions about observable physical reality, yes. Nothing that obviates his natural-law principles, however. And I'm having trouble recalling anything in Thomist moral philosophy that rests solely on now-disproved physical science.

No, the linchpin of his moral arguments is the existence of God. Take that as fact and they're fine, but if you don't they fall flat.

That's why you can't use any of his arguments to try to prove God exists. It's one of his foundational assumptions so any attempt to use them to prove it will result in a nice bit of circular reasoning.

"It should be noted that the phrase "natural law" as it shows up in theology is a term coined by Aquinas and deals in moral nature — not physical."

Mind you, based of Aristotelian thought, which is focused on trying to attempt to reason physical facts.

" And I'm having trouble recalling anything in Thomist moral philosophy that rests solely on now-disproved physical science."

Thomist teleology is based off of then accepted facts about biology. Natural law was supported by evidence now long discredited.

edited 4th Oct '13 1:31:30 AM by peryton

Curious. Anybody know what the Bible has to say about transsexuality?

Actually, the linchpin of his moral arguments is an inferred lex naturalis, which is compatible with the idea of God, but doesn't necessarily crumble to dust without it. But even if so, modern physical science certainly hasn't "pulled the rug out from under" the existence of God (though it's offered some valid alternatives).

Moreover, this is a thread about gay rights and religion, so it's perfectly valid to speculate about what, taking God's existence as a given, the implications are for moral philosophy. All of which leaves Aquinas 100% relevant to the conversation.

Thomist teleology is based on his foundational concept of the ens, which is more fundamental than biology or the whole of physical science. It's pretty portable, discover what one will about cell structures and neurons.

edited 4th Oct '13 5:11:11 AM by Jhimmibhob

It does bear remembering that the question of whether natural law exists is distinct from the question of whether the model of it described in the bible or any other holy book is accurate.

I think it's entirely possible that natural law exists, and does indeed require divine aid for humans to see, but that that aid has never been given.

I think there's something about no crossdressing (which pretty much everyone ignores now), but nothing about trans-sexuality. Remember, they didn't know it was a thing.

But the ens emanates into the mundane world, and it's affects it's ordination. Furthermore, there's still the fact that most naturalistic philosophy in thomist thought does look into the physical world for "evidence".

Under historical notions, homosexuality isn't unnatural given it's relevance to actual organisms, as dictated by the same order that makes bees hive things.

edited 4th Oct '13 7:57:34 AM by peryton