TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,626]  1 ... 568 569 570 571 572
573
574 575 576 577 578 ... 626

LGBT Rights and Religion:

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBT rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBT rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

edited 4th Oct '13 8:26:43 AM by Madrugada

 14301 Rem, Sat, 19th Oct '13 7:46:47 AM Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I think it's psychologically harmful and physically risky. Then again, I'd consider any sex outside of Marriage psychologically harmful and physically risky. What I want to point out is that using the excuse "But it feels so good" does not cut it when it comes to morality.

I don't even know what a morality is. I just try not to hurt other people and help them if I can, but since that's not enough, I'm sort of lost at sea.

Anyways, I'd argue that it'd be less psychologically harmful if homosexuals were treated with dignity, allowed to marry and not called sinners. Short of psychologically and physically dangerous therapy, there's really no way to change your sexuality, so even if it's slightly harmful to have sex with the wrong person, it's the only real option you have. (Aside from Onanism and chastity, I suppose. Onanism is probably ok psychologically, though I suspect that being intimate with someone you love is probably beneficial to the gray matter, depending on the person. Chastity...eh, it seems dangerous. Going against how we're designed and what have you.) The physical stuff can be dealt with through proper education and medicine, much like everything else—I'll grant you that, depending on the social structure and sex-culture, STD's might spread more rapidly among certain groups, but we're getting better at the sex-ed thing.

edited 19th Oct '13 7:47:36 AM by Rem

Fire, air, water, earth...legend has it that when these four elements are gathered, they will form the fifth element...boron.
@Soban: well, if its psychologicaly harmful because its outsde of marriage, then let gay people get married and problem solved.
Going Forth!
 14303 Radical Taoist, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:04:20 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Besides, what some people call "physically risky", others call "a wild Saturday night". Nothing wrong with indulging kinks between consenting adults.
 14304 Jhimmibhob, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:09:45 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
No, but when that's your only argument - and bear in mind, we have adressed all issues that could pass as intellectual arguments, both theological and otherwise -, it stands to reason that you don't have anything more to offer.

I sincerely doubt that most philosophical and theological institutes have fully & satisfactorily addressed all intellectual arguments on this subject, much less a pop-culture internet thread. And as is the nature of such fora, most of them don't get conclusively "addressed" in any ordinary sense of that word—they get bandied about for a page or two between pro/contra, get sidetracked, or degenerate into tangential sniping. We're not the last word on most intellectual subjects, and too often don't make it past the first word.

Just for example: I'm not aware of ANY project that's exhaustively teased out all the implications of natural-law arguments on this point. I'm not at all sure I agree with those arguments, but no remotely serious person imagines that the book is closed on them, or that they've been conclusively refuted or upheld. Their coěxistence alongside easily refuted "God said so, therefore" assertions says nothing, and those who would engage the former don't get any forensic blank checks because of the latter.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 14305 Radical Taoist, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:13:00 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
We must remember that at some point we have to ignore the theologians and live with real homosexuals in the real world. There is a point at which chasing the arguments starts to lose its utility.
 14306 Meklar, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:17:32 AM from Milky Way Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
[up] Remember, though, that most people in the world believe that the utility of even 1 more person getting in God's good books before they die vastly outweighs the utility of every enjoyable thing ever done by every human in history here on Earth.

 14307 Elfive, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:20:39 AM from London
WERE BACK BABY
You need a lowercase G on that God there, otherwise the number is only a third.
 14308 Jhimmibhob, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:21:42 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
What you're arguing is a philosophy called teleology. Essentially, it's a philosophy that things exist for a "final purpose". For one, it's not a Christian concept — it's Aristotle, and it's only used in our circles because Middle Ages theologians had a huge hardon for Aristotle.
Teleology, like a lot of great pagan inventions, can be borrowed & applied to Christian theology without any muss or fuss. It's a religion-neutral tool of analysis.

For two, while it was used in Aristotlean ethics as a tool to focus problem-solving methods, deductive reasoning, and study of nature, it did not originally have moral connotations. Even if one accepts the premise that things have an immutable final purpose, it's kind of a non sequitur to say any other use of that thing is morally wrong. By that logic, it's a sin to use my chair as a footstool while changing a lightbulb.
I'll take your word on that ... even though I could swear that the Nicomachean Ethics occasionally used teleology precisely that way. However, Aquinas killed a lot of trees arguing that in light of Christian interpretations of Creation, moral implications are exactly what teleology yields. Aristotle and Thomas weren't applying teleology to the same categories, so it's not surprising that they generated different conclusions.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 14309 Radical Taoist, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:24:57 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
[up][up][up]I highly doubt that most people believe that simply on the grounds that China and India combined are over half the world's population, and monotheists are minorities in both countries. I don't even think the majority of monotheists really believe that, or hold the belief in more than an abstract, cerebral way. Most religious believers are cultural.

As for the people who really do believe that? Well, there are some people who also believe the most important things are to invent replicators and warp travel, and then establish the Federation, so a future like Gene Roddenberry imagined will actually come to pass. I dismiss crazy sci-fi fans regardless of what fandom they're from.

edited 19th Oct '13 11:25:34 AM by RadicalTaoist

 14310 Elfive, Sat, 19th Oct '13 11:28:44 AM from London
WERE BACK BABY
Considering the amount of jury-rigging seen in most creatures, I really don't think teleology is applicable in a creationist cosmology, let alone one that pays attention to facts.
"Was that directed to me?"

Was the quote yours? Because I don't think so.

"One that does not cause him to treat homosexuals any differently or vote against gay marriage?"

You do realise that excusing discrimination without applying it is a fallacy for a reason, right?

"I'd just like to note that if God did not want murder to be wrong, he would not have made it so useful. Just because it's fun/useful does not mean it is an ok thing to do."

- Why, thank you for being once again hilariously stereotypical. And clueless.

- Murder is still usually considered viscerally wrong. Love is not (PS: irony at it's finest, don't you agree?)

"I think it's psychologically harmful and physically risky. Then again, I'd consider any sex outside of Marriage psychologically harmful and physically risky. What I want to point out is that using the excuse "But it feels so good" does not cut it when it comes to morality."

I see that, once again, you are resorted to ignore the now multiple expanations in this very thread about why your claims do not reflect reality.

Like I said, homophobes are now forced to resort to evasion and willfill ignorance.

@Jhimmibhob: Considering that your responses to the adressals of teleology have been basically not responding, I say that they have been indeed dutifully contested.

edited 19th Oct '13 11:37:53 AM by peryton

In the light of the fact that this has been moving into circular debates - since the opposite side appearently can't do anything but evade -, I propose penalisation for trying to apply circular logic.

 14313 Madrugada, Sat, 19th Oct '13 12:22:02 PM Relationship Status: In season
With Mod Hat On
And I propose that you dial back the adversarial nature of your arguments. This is a conversation, not a contest, there are no points to be awarded and no one is going to "win". If you feel that it's legitimate to dismiss the axioms someone else's position is based on simply because they don't match the axioms your position is based on, they have the same right.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
 14314 Pykrete, Sat, 19th Oct '13 12:51:10 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
I'd just like to note that if God did not want murder to be wrong, he would not have made it so useful. Just because it's fun/useful does not mean it is an ok thing to do.

Right. But it also doesn't mean using something for a purpose other than its primary one is a bad thing. Nor does it mean that an object's primary purpose is particularly good or even better than other purposes; a brazen bull might look unassuming as a decoration in an antique store, but what it was actually built for is the kind of thing that gives your kids nightmares.

The entire line of thought is a complete red herring.

Teleology, like a lot of great pagan inventions, can be borrowed & applied to Christian theology without any muss or fuss. It's a religion-neutral tool of analysis.

I'll take your word on that ... even though I could swear that the Nicomachean Ethics occasionally used teleology precisely that way. However, Aquinas killed a lot of trees arguing that in light of Christian interpretations of Creation, moral implications are exactly what teleology yields. Aristotle and Thomas weren't applying teleology to the same categories, so it's not surprising that they generated different conclusions.

There's some dispute over Nicomachean Ethics on that front. One theory is that Aristotle was dealing with the law and morality separately (some of the demonstrative examples he uses seem to lend credence to that), but Aquinas's conflation of the two held so much sway that it was consequently translated that way. I'm not certain how much water that holds, so I'm okay dismissing it.

But yes, any discussion of that inevitably turns into Aquinas's door stopper of natural law. And again, I can't look at that without seeing too many leaps.

One of the more memorably WTF ones that jumped out at me was when he brought up that Aristotle's original formulation of natural law that he draws from (a good deal of which he takes for granted) explicitly states that natural law isn't absolute across all men. Aquinas brings that up as one of the objections, and then his reply to it is "yeah he was wrong on that." No explanation or anything.

Later on, during the Parts of Lust he makes a whole lot of other assertions that don't sit right. Even if one is to take teleological arguments for the purpose of sex for granted, and that any other purpose for sex is automatically badwrong, it still leaves a whole bunch of things that don't seem right to a conscience. Infertile couples come to mind, and we even have plenty of notable examples of that throughout the OT without so much as a batting of the eye from God).

He brings up uncleanliness, which goes back to early Hebrews erroneously conflating spiritual and physical cleanliness, and Jesus spending a good part of the Gospels berating them for that. Even if one is to go against that vibe and still take cleanliness as a moral obligation, hygenic availability has advanced far beyond the point where masturbation and anal sex aren't really a huge deal with proper precaution.

Most of the weight against homosexuality specifically comes from a quote from Augustine that discusses the sin of Sodom, and obviously anything to do with Sodom should be killed with fire. But from more detailed Jewish accounts, homosexuality and lust were not the sin of Sodom — it was abuse of foreigners, and war rape and sexual hazing was one of the (very many) ways they went about that. From a modern psychological understanding of rape, it rarely has anything to do with lust, and the story of Lot it's pretty clear that they wanted to gangbang him not out of lust, but because he was the head of the household.

I mean, I can see where he's coming from and going to. But the landmines, man.

I think it's psychologically harmful and physically risky. Then again, I'd consider any sex outside of Marriage psychologically harmful and physically risky.

Then you'll be happy to know that gays are observably better at marriage than we are, and if anything we're the ones that should be taking notes.

edited 19th Oct '13 1:14:38 PM by Pykrete

[up][up]Understood. Still, it would be be very important to avoid circular conversations, no?

 14316 Zendervai, Sat, 19th Oct '13 6:38:55 PM from North Toronto Relationship Status: Waiting for Prince Charming
Eccentric Dreamer
[up][up] Yeah...pretty much everyone in the area hated Sodom and Gomorrah. And then (most likely), the Rift Valley cracked open and the cities fell into it, since the main proposed location for them was right on top of it. Sodom and Gomorrah were considered evil because they were basically the start of a horrific evil empire that scared everyone.

Keep in mind though. The men weren't interested in Lot. They were interested in the angelic visitor.

edited 19th Oct '13 6:39:43 PM by Zendervai

Everyone is a little bit insane. It makes the world so much more interesting!
 14317 joeyjojo, Sat, 19th Oct '13 6:41:22 PM from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Happy Oktoberfest!
Then you'll be happy to know that gays are observably better at marriage than we are, and if anything we're the ones that should be taking notes.

Only gay men. gaywomen not so much.
Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy -Gandolf In Harry Potter
 14318 Oh So Into Cats, Sat, 19th Oct '13 6:46:10 PM from The Sand Wastes Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The way women and the way men do social relationships tend to be different.

Men tend to have fewer relationships and his most important and by far the most valuable one in his life will be his spouse. Women however tend to be more well-connected and will have more people to reach out to when things go south.

Because of this divorce tends not to be as emotionally devastating for women than for men. Now that it's not a financial disaster for a woman to leave a marriage she's freer to leave.

However this explanation leads to the question of whether the divorce rate would be higher among gay men if they were different socially — as in a relationship may be just as bad as what caused a lesbian couple to divorce but they may feel more stuck together.

edited 19th Oct '13 6:49:17 PM by ohsointocats

"Beware of the wolves. They were raised by wolves."

Eidolonomics: ~60.4k/100,000 words
 14319 shimaspawn, Sat, 19th Oct '13 6:53:12 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up][up] Read the whole article. Gay women are still less likely to divorce than hetero couples. 3.3% to 5.5%. They're just more likely than gay men.

edited 19th Oct '13 6:54:34 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 14320 Oh So Into Cats, Sat, 19th Oct '13 6:54:13 PM from The Sand Wastes Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
A reason why gay marriages divorce less than heterosexual marriages may be because they feel less pressure to get married and therefore do not rush things as much.
"Beware of the wolves. They were raised by wolves."

Eidolonomics: ~60.4k/100,000 words
 14321 joeyjojo, Sat, 19th Oct '13 7:07:02 PM from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Happy Oktoberfest!
A plausible hypothesis but a hypothesis non the least.

Gay women are still less likely to divorce than hetero couples. 3.3% to 5.5%

I'll take your word for it. But the first article does state women initiate divorce more regardless of sexual preference.
Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy -Gandolf In Harry Potter
 14322 shimaspawn, Sat, 19th Oct '13 7:12:41 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
It's right there in the article:

The most recent evidence from the UK Office of National Statistics finds that homosexual couples that joined in 2005 were significantly less likely to have filed for dissolution four years later than heterosexual couples were to have filed for divorce: 2.5% compared to 5.5%.

As Hattersley points out, however, male couples were much less likely to dissolve their relationship than were female couples: By the end of 2010, 1.6 % of male civil partnerships had ended in dissolution compared to 3.3 % of female partnerships.

Women are more likely than men to file for divorce, but women in hetero relationships are more likely to file for divorce than women in lesbian relationships.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 14323 Tobias Drake, Sat, 19th Oct '13 7:14:52 PM from Colorado, USA Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
I'd just like to note that if God did not want murder to be wrong, he would not have made it so useful. Just because it's fun/useful does not mean it is an ok thing to do.

Fun and useful are not synonyms like you are trying to use them. If God wired man's brain to release the same kind of endorphins when he takes a life as it does when he orgasms, then I would agree that maybe God did intend for man to kill his fellow man recreationally.

God created the act of sex to be an excessively pleasurable experience - indeed, one of the most enjoyable experiences the brain is capable of delivering. What reason exists for this except that it is intended to be greatly enjoyed? The act of sex features extreme positive reinforcement from within your very biology.

edited 19th Oct '13 7:16:07 PM by TobiasDrake

 14324 joeyjojo, Sat, 19th Oct '13 7:20:42 PM from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Happy Oktoberfest!
Hmm... I guess the same sex realationship do have a slightly statistical edge then. Although still significantly less the difference between 'relationships with women in them' and 'relationships with out any women in the them'.

Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy -Gandolf In Harry Potter
 14325 shimaspawn, Sat, 19th Oct '13 8:16:23 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
It's 66% more likely that heterosexuals will divorce than even lesbians. That's a pretty big jump.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Total posts: 15,626
 1 ... 568 569 570 571 572
573
574 575 576 577 578 ... 626


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy