LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

No biz like showbiz.

Actually all the Mormon friends I have on Facebook have been complaining about this policy. Most of them complain that it's being unfair to the children, when the church doesn't have a similar policy against, say, the children of alcoholics.

Well, I didn't say the two sects' rulings wouldn't alienate anyone, just that it probably wouldn't lead to any noteworthy degree of protest or departures. And I certainly don't doubt what you say about your Facebook feed ... but yours, mine, and most other folks' feeds are generally subject to selection bias (if I had Reform Jewish Facebook friends, they'd be disproportionately likely to be among the minuscule number unhappy with their leadership's announcement).

edited 10th Nov '15 8:13:08 AM by Jhimmibhob

US Christian groups grow more accepting of homosexuality.

It would be endearing if it was actually their choice, and not brought solely by necesity

Well, the dynamics haven't really changed here when it comes to churches & social issues. Here as in other cases, most of the "mainline" Christian denominations are relatively quick to follow the zeitgeist, for better or worse.

But I'm not sure how useful this poll is at any rate: depending on what the individual respondents count as "accepting" homosexuality, the results could mean anything or nothing.

Crossposting from general religion, Anglican Church bars US Episcopal branch from the Anglican Communion over the latter's acceptance of LGBT persons.

Being shunned by an organization that turns a blind eye to bigotry? That'll teach them dirty libruls.

I doubt this'll end satisfyingly for Canterbury, or for anyone else trying to hold the Anglican Communion together. From what I can tell, one church really can't be doctrinally big enough for both the average American Episcopalian and the average African Anglican. Additionally, given that the Anglican Church is founded on a premeditatedly schismatic action^note I don't mean that as inherently negative; it simply describes how the Anglican Church came to be, whether defensibly or not., "church unity" isn't a very logically compelling hill for its leadership or member provinces to die on.

A Schism brought about due to royal disagreements regarding marriage, no less.

Sure ... though I don't think I'd accuse the Cranmers and Bucers of lacking integrity, just because Henry VIII's cynicism opened a window for their ideas of reform. Regardless, you're right that it set a double-edged precedent.

edited 15th Jan '16 9:04:52 AM by Jhimmibhob

Henry the VIII was a funky fresh weirdo. 10/10 would marry him again.

A Welsh MP - and former Anglican cleric - has announced he's giving up on the church because of their actions against the American branch.

He said the church's attitude to homosexuality will come to be seen as their 19th century attitude towards slavery, and pointed out that "Church leaders should read the Bible - Jesus's message was not one of hatred and division, but one of peace and understanding."

I seriously suspect that he will only be the first of many such reactions, public or private. It was never a good idea to start with, but given that on average most people in the UK would be more likely to support the American branch than the african branch, the Church of England is going to suffer fairly directly and immediately.

They're used to playing the victim card by this point though. The Anglican church has been on the brink of full on schism for a decade or more, over gay marriage, gay bishops, and women bishops in particular, combined with the general trend towards atheism and agnosticism in this country which is crippling church coffers.

So far they've weathered all storms to one extent or another, and I don't see this having any lasting impact on the church that other events haven't. Ultimately, none of them want the church to fall apart, so gritted teeth co-operation will be the ultimate order of the day, even though some will leave after this.

Not to mention that old attitudes are hard to change after you had indoctrinated to believe that LGBT is a sin for so long. I know it is hard for it for although I am pretty chill on that topic, it is hard for me to accept that LGBT will become a thing.

If you live in a place where religion has a very strong influence, it might seem impossible. But homosexuality was considered a mental illness not so long ago in places where gay marriage is now legal.

Indeed. Change doesn't come that easy and it isn't easy to embrace new ideas. Why was it considered to be sin, disease, mental disorder, etc.?

Paul didn't like sex (he actually wanted abstinence from everyone as Jesus would be back soon so we didn't need to have kids) and as a man raised under Rome gay sex was commonly associated with male teachers/authors figures dominating their young male students, which was a common thing under Greek-Roman culture.

In the Old Testement I think it was a hygiene thing, wasn't it listed along with the other hygiene laws such as shellfish?

I think that's the logic behind the bits of Christianity that don't see it as a sin, at least that's mine, we're not bound by Jewish hygiene laws and Paul was (even if he didn't know it) just talking about the kind of abusive relationships that often happened during his time.

That or we just ignore Paul because we don't hold to biblical infallibility (something I've had a vicar preach against in church) and seriously that's just some dumb shit.

edited 23rd Jan '16 2:53:36 AM by Silasw

I was under the impression that the Old Testament Jews were against it for the first reason you mentioned - that they identified homosexuality with a specific form of Greek sexual practice, and a lot of the writers of the Old Testament were really not on board with the increasing Hellenization of their culture.

And Paul wasn't from the abstinence side of Christianity as far as I know - though after Jesus himself, St. Paul is probably the most impersonated guy in Christian writing, so he "said" a lot of contradictory things.

In old testament times, there was this, Fun, practice of "a new guy came in town, lets rape him to show him whos boss" not unlike prison rape. (A different subject entirely is that the usual answer was "Hey now, dont rape me/my guest, rape my/our daughters instead!) So its still an association of a cultural bit that the old testament writers wanted to distance themselves from.

I was always taught that it was a sin against God, abomination or against marriage laws but after seeing this thread and talking about this with other users, I am beginning to question this wisdom and a lot of things.

My bible doesn't even have it mentioned as a sin in the New Testament, it talks a bit about "abusers of themselves with mankind" but I choose to interpret that as a condemnation of abusers (for to abuse another is to abuse not only your victim but also your own soul and in fact God himself).

Even the bits that are taken as it are from lists, it's literally condemed alongside alcoholism, revelry, sex outside of marriage, and worshiping idols, in fact I think it's only condemed in that context in the New Testament.

I still want to one say total up the amount of times pride and lying are called sins and compare it with the number of times homosexuality is, homosexuality would be right at the bottom of any sin mentions list.

edited 23rd Jan '16 3:52:03 AM by Silasw

The reason it was diagnosed as a mental illness is because classical psychology (we're talking at the birth of the science/even somewhat before Sigmund Freud) held that there were three things that diagnosed a mentally healthy individual:

That he/she could love, work, and raise children.

Obviously, one of these is rather problematic if you're in a relationship that, by its very nature, cannot procreate. Hence, it was treated as a mental illness and there was a whole industry (that sadly continues in some parts of the world to this day) of gay conversion therapy.

Today, that classification (not to mention the view on mental health in general) has obviously changed, and homosexuality (or, for that matter, any kind of expression of gender/sexuality) isn't thought of as a mental illness or categorized in this manner.

Wouldn't that definition have also excluded priests?