TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,625]  1 ... 571 572 573 574 575
576
577 578 579 580 581 ... 625

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

 14376 joeyjojo, Fri, 8th Nov '13 7:25:36 AM from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Happy Oktoberfest!
[up][up]I think he'll okay with that. Doing business with non believers and all that.
Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy -Gandolf In Harry Potter
[up][up]

the thing ios jhim, it becomes a problem if say, some lesbian couple moves to smalltown alabama and all the businesses cite a right to not sell to them
Going Forth!
 14378 joeyjojo, Fri, 8th Nov '13 7:34:11 AM from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Happy Oktoberfest!
Why would he want their services in the first place?

Since running them out of town is out of the question. Everyone 'keeping to their own' is preferable outcome.
Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy -Gandolf In Harry Potter
"Honestly? I'm not sure I'm opposed to business owners having that kind of liberty. For one thing, I'd just as soon know where the business stands."

Even ignoring the inhumanity, it's bad for the economy when potentially competent individuals are fired. I trust competent capitalism comes before immoral integrity.

edited 8th Nov '13 9:44:54 AM by peryton

 14380 Morgikit, Fri, 8th Nov '13 11:31:44 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
Sorry Joe, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that I can be having a conversation with a fellow employee during lunch, slip up and mention my boyfriend, get reported and lose my job.
 14381 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 8th Nov '13 12:47:01 PM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up][up]Not necessarily: as a rule, matters of individual conscience (moral or not) are considered weightier than their economic effects. I'm no lawyer, but can't think of ANY civil-rights case that's ever been decided on the strength of the latter consideration.

[up][up][up][up]Granted. I'm just saying that as an individual I find it useful to know where a business OR one's community as a whole stands.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 14382 Morgikit, Fri, 8th Nov '13 4:22:19 PM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
I'm confused. Cause it sounds like you're saying businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on religion because hey, at least we'd know which businesses would discriminate if they could. Doesn't sound very responsible.
[up][up] While I think morality comes before pragmatism, when pragmatism is supposedly the way to go (i.e. the main argument from the Right about denying human rights is because "there's more important things to solve"), it comes across as exceptionally double-standard-y.

And again, on the grander scheme of things, firing potentially competent employees will fuck up the economy.

edited 8th Nov '13 5:28:23 PM by peryton

 14384 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 8th Nov '13 8:17:15 PM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up][up]Wasn't really talking about public policy. I'm saying that personally, I'd rather someone overtly discriminate against me on account of my religion than have him feel obliged to put on a non-discriminatory mask for legal reasons. There's something about such play-acting that feels diminishing to the both of us.

[up]That "main argument from the Right" is a new one on me. Leaving aside the question-begging assumptions about what "human rights" we're talking about here, you'd think my monthly Right-Wing Cabal newsletter would've mentioned that it was a talking point somewhere among someone (where the hell are my dues going?).
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 14385 Wildcard, Fri, 8th Nov '13 8:44:01 PM from Somewhere in the galaxy
Go! Fly! Win!
So you've honestly never heard "with all the wrong stuff going on in this county your going on about gay rights?" Is that what your saying?
Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there. With open arms and open eyes.
 14386 Pykrete, Fri, 8th Nov '13 9:03:26 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
I haven't. At least not from the right. I've heard at least two left-leaners saying that if you absolutely had to prioritize, an economy so fucked up that it threatens to put almost everyone in the country in poverty while entrenching its most corrupt aspects ever more deeply and buying out legislation to veer into a Shadowrun scenario is probably a higher priority than gay rights. But they're also not really in favor of that sort of either-or decision.

Usually, the right-wing that opposes gay rights just either goes ahead and says it (often citing religion) or introduces clauses into otherwise unrelated legislation specifically to mess with gays. They don't really bother with that kind of passive-aggression.

EDIT: Okay, now that I think about it I do remember one or the other of the Fox pundits saying it too — probably O'Reilly.

edited 8th Nov '13 9:09:42 PM by Pykrete

 14387 Morgikit, Sat, 9th Nov '13 3:56:26 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
Jhim: I'm not really talking about policy either. I know my boss is prejudiced against people like me. He's said some pretty hateful things. I don't know if it's related to his Catholicism, but as far as I know, they don't teach anything to contradict what he says. And either way, I'd rather the government not give him free reign to act on his prejudices, forcing me to look for a new job in this economy and possibly ending up on the street. If thatís too much of an inconvenience for you, then that's too damn bad.

edited 9th Nov '13 4:26:31 AM by Morgikit

 14388 Soban, Sat, 9th Nov '13 7:50:39 AM from The Park Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Feeder Of Pigeons
Regarding the QJV from last page,

Genesis 19:5 Works for me.

Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 I don't feel that the interpolation is warranted. They are in sexual deviance sections. Most notably prohibitions against adultery, bestiality, and incest. To throw it out also throws out what amounts to the core of the prohibitions against that as well. (Some might see that as a benefit.) They are also incorrect that it the purity code is solely for the priesthood. God was addressing the whole nation of Israel.

Romans 1:26-27, I'll be honest. I disagree with their translation, but even the translation that they render is homosexuality would still be a sin. I don't feel as if they have resolved the problem with this verse. It is the logjam that really stops a argument that homosexualy is not a sin.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Again, I disagree with them about Arsenokoitai. I feel that they ignore important cultural and historical factors. (Such as that Arsen koitai was used in the greek translation of the Leviticus verses)

1 Timothy 1:10 The problem being that man is a very important part of the passage. If I was going to retranslate it the way they were I would have been consistent with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and gone with "For whoremongers, for the promiscuous, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

Jude 1:7 Works for me.

Overall, I feel that their translation is off because I don't feel it interprets cultural and scriptural context correctly.
As is in accordance with prophecy.
Euo will do!
[up]Um... it's the Book of Levi?

Yes, the Levites were supposed to monitor other people — true. But, they were to uphold all the teachings much more strictly themselves. <_< That's the whole point: normal Israelites weren't to be held by such excruciatingly high moral and cleanliness standards. (Which is why they were supposed to apply situational judgement on a case-per-case basis — except for themselves: that was also the core to Jesus' objections to the Pharisees. They'd forgotten the whole "situational, case-to-case and spirit of the law" thing.) -_-

edited 9th Nov '13 8:00:44 AM by Euodiachloris

"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
 14390 Soban, Sat, 9th Nov '13 8:09:41 AM from The Park Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Feeder Of Pigeons
Leviticus 18:2 and 20:2 states, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them:" Then comes the rest of the chapter. It's addressed to the whole of the people, not to the Levites.
As is in accordance with prophecy.
 14391 Morgikit, Sat, 9th Nov '13 11:55:27 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
Weren't these rules supposed to be for the Israelites? So why are we expected to follow them now?
 14392 Zendervai, Sat, 9th Nov '13 11:59:09 AM from North Toronto Relationship Status: Waiting for Prince Charming
Eccentric Dreamer
The 10 Commandments still apply as well as anything reaffirmed in the New Testament.

edited 9th Nov '13 12:32:50 PM by Zendervai

Everyone is a little bit insane. It makes the world so much more interesting!
 14393 Jhimmibhob, Sat, 9th Nov '13 12:37:19 PM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
Yeah, a significant chunk of theology—from the early centuries A.D. up until the present—has been specifically dedicated to the very question "which parts of the Bible (both OT and NT) still apply fully, which were local or special injunctions, which are moot because of changed circumstances, which are suspect because of translation or semantics, and why?" All this "well, what about [insert weird Levitical rule here]" isn't the novel Armor-Piercing Question that we underread moderns imagine it to be.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 14394 Jhimmibhob, Sat, 9th Nov '13 12:45:11 PM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
So you've honestly never heard "with all the wrong stuff going on in this county your going on about gay rights?" Is that what your saying?

Apparently, I don't get out much. (But then, TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life.) I'm not denying that some pundit out there might have tried it, but the arguments I've heard usually take on the issue pretty directly, and don't try to wave away its importance. Some of the arguments have been good and some have been bad; some have been well-meant and some malicious; but they've treated the issue as a nettle to be grasped. I generally read my news, and don't watch network or cable newscasts—maybe that's got something to do with it.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 14395 Elfive, Sat, 9th Nov '13 12:49:30 PM from London
WERE BACK BABY
You really ought to start producing bibles with the consensus of all that theology included as an appendix or something, If it's required to properly read the book.

 14396 Oh So Into Cats, Sat, 9th Nov '13 12:52:23 PM from The Sand Wastes Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
That's what the talmud is for.
"Beware of the wolves. They were raised by wolves."

Eidolonomics: ~60.4k/100,000 words
 14397 Zendervai, Sat, 9th Nov '13 12:54:46 PM from North Toronto Relationship Status: Waiting for Prince Charming
Eccentric Dreamer
They do. The things are basically multi-volume encyclopedias.
Everyone is a little bit insane. It makes the world so much more interesting!
 14398 Soban, Sat, 9th Nov '13 1:33:52 PM from The Park Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Feeder Of Pigeons
@Morg, there is a lot of debate about it. My point of veiw is that it was the perfect law for them at that timeframe. However, we don't live in the same context. However, the principles that underlay the law still apply. You can figure out the princibles that were used for it by reading them. A bit like perhaps using a Crown Victoria Manual to figure out what is wrong with a Lincoln towncar. (They are extremely similar cars) While the details might be different, the principles that make the car go are the same.

Modern Christianity tends to view the Bible as all you need to read with the other stuff being explicitly supplemental. We mostly seek solid translations of the originals so that we can understand what is being said. Almost every pastor I've heard has said at one point or another, "We might be wrong, check it against the Bible."
As is in accordance with prophecy.
 14399 Pykrete, Sat, 9th Nov '13 1:51:28 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
You really ought to start producing bibles with the consensus of all that theology included as an appendix or something, If it's required to properly read the book.

Yeah, we could call it a Catechism or something.

Though I am in full favor of a clearly annotated Bible.

 14400 Soban, Sat, 9th Nov '13 1:55:18 PM from The Park Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Feeder Of Pigeons
take your pick
As is in accordance with prophecy.
Total posts: 15,625
 1 ... 571 572 573 574 575
576
577 578 579 580 581 ... 625


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