LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I think there is that one method of "birth control" sanctioned by the Catholic Church? Or the Opus Dei, or something. It is some pseudo-scientific biological thing of a cycle that every X days before a womans period there is not enough mucosity for her to get pregnant and yadda yadda yadda. I did not pay much attention in that class (or any other) because—-

Of course I was young when they thaught me that, but the person trying to teach me that was some weirdo with about 12 kids. So not even then did I believe it.

But from what I understood, the church was "ok" with it in one way or another. I forget the name. Rhytm method? Knaus-ogino method?

Rhythm method. Technically, it's much harder for the women to get pregnant if she only had sex not near the times when she's ovulating. There's only a window of a few days in a month when fertilization is possible.

Of course I was young when they thaught me that, but the person trying to teach me that was some weirdo with about 12 kids.

The Rhytm method yes.

I... ahem... wrap it before I sack it, like most people born after the AIDS epidemic, but I don't think we should ridiculed people for their stance on artificial birth control. They do have their reasons for believing what they believe.

The rhythm method isn't 'pseudo-scientific'. The science behind it is fine.

From what I understand, the main problem with it is poor compliance - i.e. people get sick of all the fiddling around and not being allowed to have sex on this day or that day and just go 'to hell with it, one time can't hurt'.

Yeah, it actually has a decently low failure rate (less than a diaphragm)...for perfect use.

It also has a very, very large difference between its perfect-use and typical-use failure rate.

Between this thread, that thread, and the other thread, I still never know where to put this stuff...

I find myself lost for sense when they talk about "the definition of marriage. This is established by human history of thousands of years" when it isn't. Especially for all that polgyamy.

I wish they would retire those old, discounted arguments and come up with some better ones.

Curious. One of the churches in my neighborhood had a sign out front saying "hate the sin, love the sinner". I was wondering how people felt about that expression.

EDIT: Actually it was "hate the sin, love the person", but I think it's the same general idea.

You could argue this is off topic, but I've yet to see this expression used in a context not involving LGBT people.

edited 21st Jun '14 4:40:03 AM by Morgikit

To me that saying is pure bullshit. It's saying "I love you even though I hate what I consider to be the most important thing about you even if you don't."

In more positive news Presbyterians cool with SSM.

edited 21st Jun '14 5:52:45 AM by tricksterson

I think I saw it used for prostitution (at least fot the prostitutes, if not for the customers) and alcoholism/drug abuse, too.

I can see what that expression is trying to convey. The problem is, that it still sees non-heteronormativity as something bad. And in contrast to prostitution and alcoholism, sexuality and gender identity are an inate and important part of your self. You cannot really seperate the "sin" from the "sinner" in this case. They're asking for LGBT people to deny a part of themselves for no reason other than some sentences in an old book.

Wow, that's positive! Would be nice if the Church of Scotland (which is also Presbyterian) would follow suit, though I'm not seeing it.

It's a weird phrase that can be used in a lot of ways In the best of context it's being used to say that while they may think a particular action taken by a person (in this case engaging in same sex intercourse) is wrong they think that the person is still deserving of love. So the same way that my family and friends may hate that I ride a motorbike but still love me as a person, now this obviously falls apart when you start making 'sin' a state of being a person can't change like being gay, black of left handed.

Another optimistic take on it could be that the message isn't for LGBT people, it's for the anti-LGBT crowd who are so hateful, telling them that they may be right to disprove of homosexuality/homosexual acts but that's still no reason to be a hateful shithead to LGBT people.

Though going from everything you've said about where you live, the optimistic versions probably don't apply.

The fact that they're using the word "hate" proves it's bullshit.

I don't think you need to approve of everything another person is doing. There is nothing wrong with thinking a certain thing is wrong or harmful in general. I don't even think someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is innately a horrible person.

The key things is some Christians use this as a loophole to be hateful and condescending, which is wrong. I tried to explain it to my bible beating shithead brother once like this:

There is a big difference between walking up to a person and saying, "I'm concerned about you because of (this) and I feel it is not healthy for you because of (whatever). Would you consider talking to me about (this) and how can I help you?" and "The bible says (this) is evil and you shouldn't do it and if you continue to do it you'll go to hell."

The first I feel, if sincere, is coming from a genuine Christian love. The second is some blow hard jacking off to jesus and looking for an excuse to be hateful.

I don't think the use of the word "hate" is a deal breaker for if they're genuinely well meaning, people use words in weird ways, I'm sure I've got friends who'd say they hate some of the things I do. Your second sentence is obviously the kind a jackarse would say (man has my vocabulary shrunk since I started avoided gendered insults), but it doesn't use the word hate, likewise I don't think swapping the opening bit of your first example to be "I hate that you do (this), I don't think it's good for you because of (whatever)." really makes a difference.

See for me hate inspires passion, energy, and investment. Hate is stronger than not liking.

I hate child slavery. I hate pedophiles. I hate racism. I don't like brussel sprouts.

And I have noticed most people who are willing to use that phrase will use hate with the same severity.

I would prefer to use less inflammatory language because that is closer to a mark of sincerity and love to me.

Well, the haters have made it pretty clear they view homosexuality on the same level as pedophilia. Probably the other sexualities and gender identities as well, if they could be bothered to know the difference.

, than those people are assholes, I just wanted to make the point that there are ways that phrase could be used by nice people.

The problem is that it's like considering black people as descendants of Ham as per certain politically-motivated readings from literal interpretations of the Old Testament, and saying the Curse of Ham to be sinful, but you don't consider the person themselves worthy of hate, you just hate their melanin. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's not racist and saying the same of the genetics of gay people doesn't make you homophobic. Only if you have no idea what those words actually mean.

I've never been a big fan of the Old Testament, I'm the kind of Christian who focuses on the teachings of Christ, you know, the bits above love and kindness. Those bits are so much nicer.

The Old Testament wasn't really about morals so much as contracts. The Mosaic code contained stuff resembling basic ethical standards, but it was mostly on pragmatic grounds, and the Commandments are about the only thing that really hold water as moral instructions. Morality just didn't come up much unless some group or other went waaaaaay off the deep end (which is not difficult to imagine in a setting of feuding warlords). The rules happened to have a huge hygenic component, so over time people thought the usual illness from violating them was a mark on their value as a person.

Which is why Jesus spent so much time running around saying "stop thinking about legal crap and start thinking about being a good person."

edited 22nd Jun '14 9:47:04 AM by Pykrete

I'm not really sure what to think to be honest. I have heard the expression used in regards of love ones who have a life damaging addiction of some sort like drugs or gambling. I.e. 'love my mother', even though I hate she spent all my college money to pay for her xanax addiction.

Now I like the idea that you can maintain what a friend does is wrong, harmful and to condemned.... While still loving and supporting them as a person... But I'm not really sure it's possible :/

You can't really be fundamentally opposed to something and keep in good company with those who continue to do it.

edited 22nd Jun '14 4:07:11 PM by joeyjojo

It's one thing when it comes from someone who you know cares for you. It's another thing entirely when it comes from a total stranger who just blurts it out.

Speaking as a Christian I think many of those who Appeal to Tradition and go all "but the Bible tells us so!" ,when it comes homosexuality, are hypocrites. I mean, we've more or less written off many parts of both the Old & the New Testament as anachronistic, misogynystic, anti-scientific, prejudiced and, lets be real here, just plain silly.

I think that the true reason the same doesn't apply with homosexuality is because many people personally find it icky. If it had the same gravity with, say, being left-handed or deaf (or even mentally disturbed), the issue would have been solved years ago.

I think it's worth mentioning that with an analytical reading of the "lay with a man as with a woman" passage, it becomes fairly evident that it's about the location of the act rather than the act itself (i.e., a woman's bed is for making babies so do it elsewhere). Of course, for fundamentalists, an analytical reading of the Old Testament is akin to eating the Old Testament, so the point is somewhat moot.

There have been, indeed, many interpretations for that passage. However, whatever the original meaning was, it doesn't matter now because, hey, things change. Religion is evolving. I don't get why some people refuse to accept that. Pisses me off, actually.

Their attitude makes religion look like a static force of decay. It also turns it's back on large number of its own believers, which is inhumane and not-at-all Christian.

Seriously, if you can't stand to watch to dudes/gals kissing, you can't stand to watch to dudes/gals kissing. Don't use and twist religion to justify your own prejudices.

edited 22nd Jun '14 7:08:39 PM by LogoP