LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

But if the act of sexual intercourse fails to produce a pregnancy, which is more likely than actually producing a pregnancy even minus contraception, then isn't that act against its telos anyway?

Or in other words, is it intention that matters, rather than the result?

What I read from Carciofus' posts is that the intent, rather than the result, is what ought to be measured against the telos.

Well, it's not against it's Telos, it just doesn't fulfill it.

Okay, fair enough. But if the "ideal" result is not achieved the majority of the time, placing emphasis on the telos seems a bit...well, pointless.

As I said, I think the idea of Telos is quite silly, as I do any sort of higher purpose.

edited 11th Apr '12 3:13:50 PM by inane242

While I myself believe in a higher power and bigger purpose, I don't personally think there is an "ideal world", I subscribe to the school of thought that says that the universe is unfolding exactly as it was planned to.

A Christian — a really serious one, I mean, not the half-assed toy version that I am — is meant to fight against the world-as-it-is-now, and even against him-or-herself-as-they-are-now. And fail, most of the time, obviously.

I said before that Christianity does not endorse disregard for the material word; however, one thing that Christianity definitely endorses is self-denial. And a form of self-affirmation too, but through self-denial. Total success is not possible through human forces alone, clearly; but we were commanded to imitate Christ, not to sit on our asses until He comes back.

From this perspective, the idea that homosexuals have to struggle against their desires is not problematic. So does everybody else, although it must be admitted that their situation is especially unpleasant. They deserve respect and sympathy; however, the actions that they feel attracted to deserve disapproval (although there certainly are far worse and more common sins, and although — allow me to reiterate this — an innate attraction towards a sin is not a sin itself)

My problem with this point of view is not the conceptual framework, which I agree with (although I don't necessarily follow it very well); it is that, personally, I am not convinced that the telos of sex is mere reproduction and that homosexuality runs counter the world-as-it-should-be.

Interesting. I wonder how you deal with the problem of evil then, but perhaps that's going a bit offtopic. But if you PM me, I'd be curious.

edited 12th Apr '12 12:00:38 AM by Carciofus

Those seem more like the traits of any truly great person than a great Christian specifically.

Somehow I find it comforting that people regardless of creed, arrive at similar moral conclusions.

It seems to hold up under it's own logic. I obviously have problems with it, but it seems sound on it's own terms.

edited 12th Apr '12 12:11:04 AM by inane242

I greatly appreciate the civil and intelligent timbre of the argument here. There is something heartening about the fact that I can now go into a thread in OTC and read a thread that is enjoyable and engaging for all the right reasons is a great step forward.

OK, now to making an ass of myself:

According to those biologists who actually study animal homosexuality—I'm reading a book on the subject, actually—the most likely and primary biological telos of homosexual and bisexual behaviour in many species is that it fosters social bonding behaviour, though the actual individual motivation is, well... because it's fun. Sex is fun. Most people agree on this. Apparently it's kind of universal.

Are there others in this thread who feel the same way? Do you think it might be at least in part because we've been adding mods? Is the pre-approval of OTC threads a good thing? Is the moderation in OTC too soft or is it too heavy-handed? To avoid derailing the thread, answer this in PM if you have the time. I'd like to know what people think about these things.

Just because it is fun, it does not means it is immune from any disapproval.

edited 12th Apr '12 2:13:51 AM by Blurring

Okay, current affairs time - and also time to prove that the US sadly doesn't have a monopoly on fundamentalist nutters.

Anglican Mainstream-backed Core Issues Trust are attempting to run adverts on London buses promoting "reparative therapy" for gay Christians who believe that they have homosexual feelings but want to become straight.

This campaign is both dishonest and dangerous. "Reparative Therapy" or "Conversion Therapy" is nothing more than child abuse. Basically watch the "therapy" scenes from A Clockwork Orange and replace the images of violence with gay porn. That's how they do it.

Homosexuality is not an illness and attempts to "cure" it only causes harm to people, primarily young people. Let me say that again: These people are advocating the physical, mental and emotional abuse of children in the name of God. Words cannot describe my rage.

edited 12th Apr '12 10:30:09 AM by Lawyerdude

How abut "Really really really really really really really angry"?

If it makes you feel any better, the current Mayor of London shot it right the fuck down.

:D

How easy is it to immigrate to London?

Good for the Mayor. And now that group is bitching about infringing on their freedom of expression. Protip: Freedom of expression doesn't apply here, bozos. They offered to pay for advertising space, and the bus company refused to accept their money and provide the advertising space. That the buses are government-owned is irrelevant.

I'm so glad those got pulled. Good for him. Has someone got a public email for the guy so I can email him to express my great appreciation that sanity prevailed here?

edited 12th Apr '12 1:46:02 PM by Vehudur

My Google-fu brought me to this page.

edited 12th Apr '12 2:00:18 PM by BestOf

I just hope they accept something from across the pond.

You know, I don't always agree with Boris Johnson, but when I do...

*mandatory Dos Equis joke*

Nobody's posted here in a while, so I'll ask another question: Has anybody quit their church or changed churches because of its stance on homosexuality? Maybe you grew up in one tradition, but came to learn that you disagreed with its position on that issue, or maybe it changed positions so you decided to leave?

We had a spike in our steady resignation rate from The Church when the chairman of our Christian Democratic party (3%) made a major plunder on TV. I didn't resign at the time myself because

1) I know the church and Christian Democrats are two very different things. Edit to clarify: the Church doesn't support the Christian Democrats, and has worked to distance itself from the party and politics in general.

2) I knew I'd whidraw my insignifigant support anyway when the church tax would start applying to me.

edited 16th Apr '12 3:46:57 PM by Qeise