Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in this thread.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:52:14 PM
Depending on where you are. Once more, while the leadership is glacial to any sort of change because it's appointed directly by predecessors who want to perpetuate their own views, most denominations' constituency has softened to the point that the worst of the direct problems are highly local to specific regions and the denominations that dominate them. Surprise: there's more to the world than a subset of 50 US states.
edited 9th Sep '12 8:53:05 PM by Pykrete
News flash Lawyerdude, we already do stand for something. We've been taking principled stands long before you had an opinion on the subject, and we'll do it long after. That little list of yours about how slavery, divine right of kings, and whatever else were all based off religion? Yeah, you forgot to mention many of those things were defeated by people of all faiths, sometimes with their lives.
The bottom line is this, you and L Mage, among others have determined that Christianity means [insert your view here]. And no matter how many times people tell you that Fred Phelps, Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are but one fraction of the total group, you shun that and instead embrace your own archaic and outdated view.
You are no different than the person who thinks all gays are fairies, or all Americans are fat loudmouths, or that all women are bitches. And while you are entitled to think like that, I'm entitled to call the bullshit out.
edited 10th Sep '12 6:55:10 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorI never said "all". And it's not just a question of some individuals. It's also considering whom those individuals represent. Yes, the Pope is one man. But he represents a billion Catholics all over the world. Same with Franklin Graham and James Dobson. They represent the views of millions of Christians. It's the same thing with official statements of other denominations. You can be assured that the majority of members of those denominations agree with those statements.
Sure there are gay Christians and organizations, so it's hardly surprising that they work for greater rights and respect for homosexuals. That's who they are. They're standing up for themselves.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.When someone tells you that it's your responsibility to live not only for yourself, but for every person who just happens to share some demographic trait with, and you can stay calm after hearing it over and over and over again, then I'll give this statement a bit more credence.
And Lawyer, nobody said that those guys don't have influence, although millions upon millions might be a bit of an exaggeration. What I find intolerable is this assertion that any of those guys 'just represents' a bunch of people.
You and others constantly ask this same old question of "Where are the high-ranking Christians who are for gay rights?" "Where are the prominent Churches?"
You just don't get it. Christianity isn't like the NFL, or the Army, or the state bar. There is no ranking system. If you study Christianity, you'll see there's a reason for this. The Bible is quite explicit that no one man CAN speak for anybody else. There is no religious leader who speaks for the rest.
The Bible makes the point that your relationship with Christ is a personal one. The Bible repeats constantly that each of us will be judged on the strength of our own deeds. Simply put, Rick Santorum, Fred Phelps, and Jerry Falwell don't have jack shit to do with my faith, nor I with theirs.
As Pykrete, I think, explained, even if we did decide to "denounce the nutjobs and take a stand" it wouldn't matter because we can no more force their behavior than they can force ours.
When you meet a Christian, it's the exact same thing as meeting a gay person, a Trekkie, a Brony, a vegan, a woman, or any person. That person may or may not fit your preconceptions. Chances are, they will in some ways, they won't in others.
In other words, ASK them if they follow Rick Santorum or Jerry Falwell. And for God's sake, if they say they don't, don't disrespect or demean them by demanding to know why they aren't more prominent.
I don't demand you be more "prominent" in the fight for LGBTQ rights, so I don't know why I have to tolerate it from you or anyone else.
edited 10th Sep '12 8:48:27 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorSure, Maxima. Because LGBT people certainly don't have to deal with stereotypes and generalizations.
edited 10th Sep '12 8:59:50 AM by Morgikit
@Maxima: I'll give an example on where we could see some good done, but it doesn't happen. Take the case of the Catholic church. I know you're not Catholic, but stay with me here. Every Easter, the media makes a pretty big deal of the Pope's Easter address, and how the Pope "speaks" for the millions/billions of Catholics worldwide.
Where's the pushback on that? Where's the letter to the editors that they shouldn't be all lumped in like that, that people might disagree? Where's the public pushback on that generalization? There simply isn't that much of it.
I don't think it's because people don't disagree, they do. It's because people don't want to HAVE to disagree. Or to be more precise, they don't want to be outside of the fold, even if they disagree with it. I do argue that this is actually what is mostly harmful about religion..this impulse, and I still think that's true. But it's neither here nor there.
But there's no significant pushback from within religion to the point that religion is a monolithic moral/ethical block.
Again, you can't blame outsiders for listening to what people are saying.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveNobody's suggesting that Starship run for Emperor of Christianity. I'm not talking about anybody in particular on this forum, really.
<deep breath>
The point is, the proposition has been put forward that there are many Christians out there who support LGBT equality. I don't doubt that some of those people do exist. But my counterpoint is that those who are standing up for LGBT rights are either a) LGBT themselves, b) silent (or nearly so) about their support, or c) of such low profile or prominence compared to the anti-LGBT Christian crowd. If there are people or groups that don't fit into those categories, I'd like to hear about them.
In regards to specific denominations, most of them (mainstream denominations particularly) have taken some official stance on gay rights. Of those whose official stance is against gay rights, those denominations represent the majority of Christians in the United States. If a Christian is a member of a denomination that is openly opposed to equal rights, then one can presume that they do in fact agree with the position. If they don't, they can a) do nothing, b) try to change it, or c) leave and go somewhere else. In the absence of action, silence is complicity in the status quo.
Here endeth the rant.
edited 10th Sep '12 9:11:13 AM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.I honestly can't even argue against these points. Damn, I hate being wrong.
edited 10th Sep '12 9:24:42 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorWhere's the pushback on that?
Okay, so I just looked up the Easter address from last year. The whole thing was "Jesus is risen, yay~, let's work with everyone else to make peace in third world." Not seeing a whole lot that would inspire pushback. I mean, most Catholics are going to be pretty cool with that much.
What, did you expect to be able to read the first letter of every sentence and get "burn burn burn the gays" or something?
edited 10th Sep '12 11:56:51 AM by Pykrete
29% of the Methodist Church's funds, regardless of how much you want to debate running costs of internal affairs, is an immense amount of resources that you lose by breaking it up.
My point was, if you value your religious organization in and of itself, this seems a very odd calculation for you to do. Now it's a calculation I'm happy to do, but I'm a godless atheist and the chance to go after all those religious tax exemptions makes me happy inside. But if you think your faith offers something more than the worldly, why are its worldly consequences your point of defense?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Like I said, I brought up worldly consequences specifically because it's something everyone on this thread could appreciate regardless of affiliation and might be wary of flippantly saying needs to be gone (though I am fine with taxing their non-charitable functions — in fact I'd encourage it if for no other reason than because it might steer them to use more of it on charitable functions). Also getting off one's ass and going out to make a difference in the world via is kind of one of our central ideas, and people within are going to be really miffed if that gets trashed because of a one-issue schism.
edited 10th Sep '12 12:17:00 PM by Pykrete
One can be a Catholic in perfectly good standing and disagree with the Pope, even vehemently — do I need to mention that, for example, Dante straight out mentioned in his masterwork that the current Pope was going to end up in hell for his deeds? Or can I mention Hans Kung, just to use the most famous modern-day example?
Infallibility (which, by the way, is a doctrine towards which many Catholics feel very little sympathy) kicks in only in some extremely limited and explicitly spelled out circumstances, and can only apply to certain items of Faith. No Pope has ever attempted to declare as an infallible doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, and if he did he would be challenged.
edited 10th Sep '12 12:02:47 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Certainly what he tells us to believe isn't always going to take, but he's still telling us to believe that.
Also, pope's not the only one who can declare infallible doctrine. The magisterium does it considerably more frequently, and they've been waffling about Humanae Vitae etc. recognized as such.
edited 10th Sep '12 12:13:20 PM by Pykrete
He's telling us what he believes to be right. It's kinda his duty (as well as a duty of the other bishops and Cardinals, of course, who may or may not always agree with him), and I won't certainly fault him for that.
One thing about which I feel myself agreeing, however, is that Catholics and, more in general, Christians who are in favour of civil gay marriage should try to let themselves be heard more. Perhaps it's just me; but while I know any number of Christians who hold such opinions, I must admit that I do not know of many Christian activists who call out their Church's official position in these matters.
I am sure that there are; but there should be more, and they should be more visible.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.One reason people are quieter than they should be is what happened here.
Oooh, interesting link. Thanks!
That one I knew already. One of my favourite theologians
was a great estimator of that movement (by the way, the condemnation of Liberation Theology was nowhere as total as some would have you believe. Some aspects of it were indeed declared incompatible with Catholic doctrine, as far as I can tell perhaps rightly; but others were not, or were even praised.)
edited 10th Sep '12 12:44:30 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology
What, did you expect to be able to read the first letter of every sentence and get "burn burn burn the gays" or something?
Well said Pykrete.
But seriously, yes, nobody is going to shout "Hey! We don't agree with what this guy is saying" unless we actually don't agree with what [insert guy here] is saying. When somebody in Arizona says "All of us in America want to stop having what few jobs we have being sent overseas" there isn't a need for me to shout "Hey don't judge all Americans by the people in one state", because in that instance I agree with them.
If the same guy goes "All Americans want to get rid illegals and are willing to racially profile to do it", THEN I'm gonna jump up and say "Hey dude, we're not on the same page on this one."
It was an honor
No it isn't. And sometimes nerves get frayed and we, I, snap for no reason. So my apologies there.
But I want you to look at it from our point of view.
But it's discouraging to be told that the money we willingly give to gay rights advocacy groups, the many times we've said "Don't gay bash in my presence please," the times we've made sure to encourage an LGBTQ person who may need it, the fact that we observe the Day of Silence....all that doesn't matter because some people think it isn't "good enough".
It's like leaving your own cushy village and rushing in to save another village being sacked by barbarian hordes and successfully driving them off, but being told by the villagers that it wasn't enough because you couldn't get there before the town hall was burned down.
It was an honorI've on honest question, though it's perhaps more of a concern than anything.
What is it that the LGBT community wants from Christians, Christianity, and/or the Christian Church? Or, maybe to be more broad, from the religious, religion, and churches?
The obvious answer is, "Please stop hating us. We're just like you, and we want to be accepted for who we are instead of people killing us, hurting us, and trying to change us to fit their image of who we should be."
But I'm more concerned with action. What is it that the LGBT community wants from others in order to achieve this goal? I'm willing to bet 10 to 10 that it's not standing outside buildings with large signs that may as well read: "I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!"
This is an honest concern. I'm supportive of human rightsexplanation, and if we take a close look at history, these rights were achieved for various groups in various definitions of victory through action. Supporting oppressed people is a good idea, as is standing up to those that seem bigoted or ill-informed on how reality is constructed; it seems the later is far less efficient than most would like, hence my question.

Thus far, internal opposition has proven wholly incapable of stopping it from festering anyways.
edited 9th Sep '12 8:32:28 PM by LMage