LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

That depends on the denomination really. In the case of the Catholic Church and others with strong hierarchical structures a better analogy might be that the lay members of the church are renters while the Church hierarchy represents the actual owners of the property. The analogy is imperfect and best not stretched too far.

Eh. That may well be how the current ladder-climbing Curia at the top sees it, anyway. Canon Law had a new addition in the 80's that explicitly outlined the rights and duties of the laity, and it kind of does read like a contract.

That said, it also explicitly protects the right for any member of the Church to make concerns like this known to both the hierarchy and everyone else, and in many ways we're obligated to.

edited 23rd Dec '14 7:29:37 PM by Pykrete

Renters would assume I have zero voice in how my Church works. But I do(I just choose not to say something). The analogy is extremely fitting and very accurate for Catholic Churches, the one mainly in question right now.

Others don't necessarily do this, but it's very accurate for the Catholic and Christian Church. Not every Church works the same in who has speaking privileges. In this context, the analogy is very accurate. Especially the one I go to, which never silences people for speaking up. We don't do that. Call it anecdotal evidence, but it's also proof that the ability to speak up in Church is very possible.

Well from the Church's perspective it's not a big deal. Homosexuality is mentioned what 4 times in the New Testement? My bible is in London so I can't check but I'm pretty sure that's about it, it's never mentioned by Jesus and when it is mentioned it's normlly part of lists of sins, I don't know if it ever gets an indevidual mention. Homosexuality isn't a big deal in Christianity, it's gets way less mention that shit like disrespecting ones parents. Hell I'm pretty sure taking the Lord's name in vain is condemn more times in the Bible then homosexuality.

Now that doesn't mean it dosen't matter to one personally, but homosexuality has about as much relevance to my position in the church as the communist party's position on Enviromental regulation (issue chosen at random) would have on my membership to them (if I was a member) sure it's something I care about personally but it's in no way a key part of the party/church belif system, it's actually a very minor point for the belif system and one which has a great deal of accepted internal divide over it.

I don't think I've ever had a sermon mention homosexuality, if I was in Church and they started railing about it I'd probably walk out (as I considered doing when they started having a go at other faiths a couple of weeks ago), but I'd still consider myself a member of the Church, I'd just not attend that particular physical Church again, I'd go back to my little countryside Church's that just go on about love and kindness.

edited 23rd Dec '14 7:42:20 PM by SilasW

That is a completely dishonest interpretation of that sentence.

Never mind yet another severe generalization.

Now try backing that up. If every Church is like that, then you can certainly prove that literally every single one absolutely does not care about anything but their members' money and past or present, with a citing for it all.

If not, you're being extremely insulting to many Religious leaders by calling them dishonest and greedy alone just by your wording. I do not see how that is even remotely true, and while there may be Churches that support bigotry, and some that may even be malicious intently and greedy, I can't think of any off the top of my head. But you're going to need to prove every single one that exists now and in the past are actually this in order to take that kind of paragraph seriously.

edited 1st Jan '15 11:54:46 PM by Irene

I was reading an article on the Advocate just now about a trans teen who committed suicide after her parents sent her to conversion "therapy". The contents of the article aren't really important to my point, but I can PM it if you are interested.

The comments sections on articles I try to avoid, because there's always a troll lurking. But the very first comment caught my eye. A gay Christian was saying that real Christian parents don't abuse their children, and that these parents (who identify as Christian) were "heathens". Holy hell. Not only is that a hateful slur against pagans (yes, some pagans proudly call themselves heathens, but the commenter clearly meant it to be insulting), but it illustrates a problem with relations between LGBTs and religious communities.

It sucks when a group you're a part of has members who are scum. But when group X says person Y who does harm is not a real X, it comes off less like minimizing harm and more like PR damage control. If group X really wants to show how different they are from person Y, actually show it instead of just telling them.

If you're a Christian, when's the last time you said to an LGBT person "God loves you for who you are, not for what others say He wants you to be"?

Never, because my faith has never really come up with my LGBT friends. Also most of them aren't religious so they wouldn't give a toss about what god thinks of them. What they care about is what I think of them, and my love for them is shown the exact same way my love for all my other friends is shown, by me being kind and loving to them.

Why would I single out an LGBT person for specifically telling that god loves them for who they are not what others say? The list of sinners in my life is extensive (starting with myself), why would I single out people who commit one particular sin that's not even particularly important from a biblical perspective?

-sigh- You ever had a point you wanted to make that you were so sure was well thought out? And then somebody comes along and just dismantles it as if were just some incoherent rambling?

I'm going to try and clarify what I mean, but I need awhile to think of something that can't be picked apart so easily.

You asked for my perspective and I gave it, I thought that was what you wanted.

Your point makes total sense, people who invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy are being silly, the point I was trying to make is that regardless of their morality the people who lock their identity to their religion are a minority, yes I'm a Christian, I'm also a Brit, a geek, a gamer, a student, a biker, a Socialist, a man, a European, and much more besides.

Most Christians who are going to condemn such shitty treatment of one's kid aren't going to condemn it because it goes against Christian teachings (though it does), they're going to condemn it because they're decent people who are horrified by child abuse.

edited 2nd Jan '15 8:36:22 AM by SilasW

Americans do tend to hug their allegiances a bit tighter than us Brits do.

My point is I keep seeing people complain about Christians being generalized when it comes to LGBT issues. And accusations of anti-Christian bias towards LGBT who have a negative perspective of Christians. But I don't really see anything being done about that besides shouting "not all Christians!" And when that's the first response to an article about a teenager who killed herself and blamed her abusive parents in the suicide note. I get angry.

That's one reason why I appreciate the Pope's efforts to stop bigotry towards LGBT and even the Anglican's efforts. But the Protestants across the Ocean need to step it up.

Read though the last few pages, several Christian troopers have been explaining in detail how certain assumptions about Christians and Christianity are false.

Which is exactly the same as "not all Christians."

Every denomination has some form of authority or at least a major council. Now while the individual churches may vary in how they wish to exercise that, so far, very few major leaders in American Protestant movements especially have denounced bigotry or homophobic behaviors.

In fact, I can't think of even one though I'm sure there is at least one. That's a problem.

They need to be changing policy, advocating fairness, making public statements. and they're just not doing it.

Hardly, most of "Not all X" statements are in response to someone saying something that isn't actually a general statement about that group as a whole, that's what makes them wrong.

It's not wrong for someone to correct me if I make a false assumption about what all feminists believe, in fact several feminist troopers get very angry when people make such false assertions. "Not all X" is a perfectly legitimate response when someone is going "all X are Y", it's an asshole response when someone is goign "these X were Y" or "people need to be prepared because they often can't tell if an X is Y until it's to late".

If I was to make some absurd assertion about LGBT people here I would rightly be drowned in responses screaming "not all LGBT folks", it would be nice if the same courtesy was extended the other way when people make false assertions about religious folks.

And yes there are serious issues with the American Protestant Churches, they were founded by religious exstreamists who rage quit Europe because they weren't allowed to burn heratics alive anymore, there's a pretty bad bit of history there.

I read through the last few pages. They seem to boil down to "why do Christians-?" "Not all Christians!" Not sure what lesson I was supposed to learn.

I'm going to assume that's not directed towards me, as you'd have to redefine the English language to interpret my posts as doing such. But I do wish that when an LGBT person is harmed by someone who sites their religious beliefs, that other members of that faith would be more concerned with providing comfort to the harmed party than engaging in damage control. Some do, some don't. All I want is to see more of it. I don't think that's too much to ask.

edited 2nd Jan '15 11:30:57 AM by Morgikit

Again I repeat my point, why do people take issue with Christians going "Not all Christians" when someone says "all Christians X" but will defend to death the right to go "Not all gays/women/feminists" if someone goes "all gays/women/feminists X"?

Also you appear to have missed the big problem of the last few pages, it wasn't being said that "Christians do X" it was "all Christians do X" that we were disputing. Nobody has denied that it's possible to be a Christian and be a terrible person, we just resent the implication that all Christians are terrible people or must believe terrible things.

edited 2nd Jan '15 11:27:14 AM by SilasW

Because shit isn't being done.

I know very well that all gays are not pedophiles, all Christians are not bigots, and all Muslims aren't terrorists. Just like I know that not all football fans are psychos looking for a fight.

The problem is that too many times when a swath of bigotry is being pointed out, too many people will sit there and say "NOT ME!" instead of, "This needs to stop and I want the faces of the demographic to voice their opposition so this does stop."

We know it may not be "you" the individual, but when your demographic is complacent or silent on the issue, then "you" the collective is guilty by proxy and yeah, we'll judge you for it.

The way we get those leaders, spokesmen, and what not to start actively fighting bigotry (which is supposed to be the Christian way) is if enough of their constituents gang up on them and tell them to cut it out.

(Much like how the Republicans are back-peddling on the ACA)

Have you read Lawyerdude's posts? There's a reason the latest one got thumped, it's because exactly that shit is being done. It might not be you and Morgikit doing it but it's being done, and you're response is to "sit there and say "NOT ME!" instead of, "This needs to stop"".

Do you see why I have an issue?

Silas, why don't you go back and read? Only one person in the last 4 pages has said something even remotely close to what you're claiming was said (and even that's a stretch), and that person is not me.

And did it ever occur to you that maybe I don't like generalizations either? That's why I went with the whole group X person Y thing. Because I'm trying as hard as I can to express my opinions about this issue without generalizing. Okay?

EDIT: But if nobody is going to acknowledge my effort and instead accuse me of shit I didn't do, then maybe there's no point in expressing my opinion here.

edited 2nd Jan '15 11:49:26 AM by Morgikit

Actually, no I don't. If it doesn't apply to you and you're not one of the "Christians" who is espousing hatred, then why take it so personally?

If you are one of those who is active in their own way then you know we're not talking about you and you have no reason to get worked up about it.

It is about making Christians who are active against bigotry the majority, not the minority. And regretfully, they are the minority in many, many places.

We've won a great victory in gaining the Catholic leader but his own cardinals and bishops are fighting him. We are making baby steps in the state with women being allowed as priests or pastors in denominations that have often forbid it. Some denominations have never had this problem and they're speaking up more.

But again, it's just like asking Muslims to speak up against terrorism, gun advocates to speak up against the NRA and other batshit elements, or conservatives to speak up against the tea party crazies. If you don't want the crazy people to have the majority voice, you have to be louder.

It was indeed not aimed at you specifically, it's a general point that's been bugging me for a while. I have a personal theory that if I took some (emphasis on the "some" there) posts made on this forum and swapped the targets from groups such as men or Christians to women or gays and posted them in the relevant threads I'd be thumped and burned alive.

Now onto your point. I agree with it completely, anyone who's first response to someone getting hurt is anything but to try and help the person whose been hurt isn't responding right. If someone has been hurt by a bigot than the victim should be your focus.

To use a personal example, a close friend of mine had her girlfriend leave her and go fully crazy religious nutjob on her, I (likely along with several others) comforted the hurt friend and told her that her ex was a nutter, you're right that that's how people should respond, but I wonder how often religious folks do respond that way but it goes unnoticed because they don't bother to bring up their faith (said friend visited me recently and had completely forgotten that I am actually a Christian).

But yes, that is in no way to much to ask. The only time citing "not all X" would in anyway be a good idea when helping a victim is if it would in some way help them (because say they really value what X group believes and will be less hurt if they know that the person who hurt them isn't representative of all X).

And I don't think you have been, my initial response to you certain wasn't made under some warped assumption that you were making assumptions about all Christians. I was simply giving my personal feedback to your question, I didn't for a moment think that you were saying all Christians acted in such a way. You asked a question and I answered it, then you responded to my answer as if I'd tried to rip your argument apart, when I'd simply provided my personal answer to your question.

@Gab, you responded to me explaining that some people in this thread had been trying to debunk one individuals assertion that all Christians are bigots by going "Which is exactly the same as "not all Christians.", so it's kinda felt like a person response directed at me specifically as opposed to bigoted Christians as a group.

edited 2nd Jan '15 12:05:36 PM by SilasW

I think that the reason that people get so upset about "not all like that" is that it seems like it often gets used by a powerful group to silence those who are being oppressed.

Whenever a church hurts LGBT people, the response is generally, 'They're nutters. We aren't all like that.' And that's all we get. There's no punishment for the people who are hurting others. There are no repercussions for them. It just gets swept back under the rug of not a problem because not everyone in group X is doing that.

Women getting harassed in the street isn't an issue because not all men are like that.

Gay kids getting sent to religious conversion camps isn't an issue because not all Christians are like that.

Brown people being passed over for jobs isn't a big deal because not all white people are like that.

It's a dismissal of problems. It tends to be the first and only response we get, and it doesn't fix anything, it doesn't change anything. It just sweeps issues under the rug.

That's why it annoys people.

We know not all X are Y, but pointing that out doesn't make you one of the Z. It just makes you one of the people dismissing Y as an issue.