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
It's a truism that people only hold up tradition when it benefits them to do so. Besides, most of the Appeal to Tradition people use to justify keeping the LGBT community down involves a generous helping of misunderstood history.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~Has anything changed with the scout decision?
Edit: Argh! Looks like they delayed the decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/boy-scouts-postpone-decision-on-gays.html
I didn't want this too happen and I don't care for the Appeal to Tradition argument. Tradition being so frequently used to excuse horrible policies. I'm concerned that it will give the church groups more time to announce pulling support and the scouts having to consider this from a financial point of view which I think will make them keep the ban. New decision in May.
Hopefully the gay marriage decision does not get delayed in the UK.
Gotta love the "protect the children" sign. "Oh noes they might learn that people of a different orientation exist!"
edited 6th Feb '13 6:59:20 PM by Wildcard
Hey, cut the sarcasm. After all, Senator Kelly caught his version of the gay. For all we know, the gays are getting ready to make a machine comparable to Magneto's.
edited 6th Feb '13 11:08:12 PM by Vericrat
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
Ask, and you shall surely recieve:
Vatican speaks in defense of gay couples.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the church should do more to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in countries where homosexuality is illegal.
In his first Vatican press conference since his appointment as the Catholic Church’s “minister” for family, Paglia conceded that there are several kinds of “cohabitation forms that do not constitute a family,” and that their number is growing.
Paglia suggested that nations could find “private law solutions” to help individuals who live in non-matrimonial relations, “to prevent injustice and make their life easier.”
Nevertheless, Paglia was adamant in reaffirming society’s duty to preserve the unique value of marriage.
“The church must defend the truth, and the truth is that a marriage is only between a man and a woman,” he said. Other kinds of “affections” cannot be the foundation for a “public structure” such as marriage.
“We cannot surrender to a sick egalitarianism that abolishes every difference,” he warned, and run the risk of society becoming a new “Babel.”
I was going to say "It's better than a kick in the balls"
Then I read
“We cannot surrender to a sick egalitarianism that abolishes every difference, ” he warned, and run the risk of society becoming a new “Babel.”
Does he even know what "public structure" means? Or is he vomiting verbal diarrhea between his daily altar-boy diddling? (Yes, I'm going to keep going on about that until the church acknowledges that they screwed up, and actually punish the people who've done that. Thus far, they've still be in cover-up, hide the damage mode about child sexual abuse)
Secondly, sick egalitarianism are two works that should never be used together.
Third, I'm pretty sure that's not what the story of Babel was about. I though knowing these things was supposed to be your job.
Lastly..."affections" in quotes like that seriously makes me want to hit you.
edited 7th Feb '13 6:10:30 AM by DrTentacles
Actually, they don't have control of it—which is why they're using their speech rights to publicly voice their stances on the issue, and to reach voters or public officials amenable to persuasion towards said stances.
![]()
It's unlikely that the Vatican considers gay marriage ontologically possible, so saying that they want to make anyone "second-class citizens" would probably strike them as less than coherent ... or as tantamount to complaining about the "unfairness" of gravity and thermodynamics. The archbishop's statement is a simple, unsurprising call for charity even in the face of grave confusion (by his lights), combined with an understandable refusal to let confusion have the final word.
Jhim marriage between gay people is Ontologically Possible and I don't know why you keep insisting it isn't. Or why it matters considering we have done changed plenty of legal definitions before with little to no bad results. In fact I think it is far more important to change the law to protect it's citizens than to carry on using a limited legal definition just because of a fear this might lead to non-specific "bad things".
edited 7th Feb '13 7:10:20 AM by Wildcard
People have free speech rights. And since the main level of organization of people in the world are countries, I don't think people surrender their free speech rights in the international community just because they speak through their countries.
Now, anyone can be "held accountable" for their speech if you mean that others don't have to associate with you if they don't like your opinions. And that's not just at a country level; if your views are offensive to a Republican, they don't have to associate with you.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.And of course, Polar is right that "speech rights" is an iffy concept here. I'll rephrase it as "custom-honored speech prerogatives of sovereign states and their representatives in the international arena." Not as snappy-sounding, but what can you do?
Countries have different accountablility than people.
People can be sued for liable or slander. But countries can be sanctioned, called out in international forums, and held to economic pressures.
Anyone can say whatever they want. You just have to be willing to accept the consequences of those words.
"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question MarcI find it amusing that a spokesman for an organization that talks about talking snakes, planet wide floods, water turning to wine and the dead rising from the grave considers same-sex marriage "impossible".
But that's socialist thought control.
edited 7th Feb '13 8:00:28 AM by Morgikit
![]()
![]()
I strongly disagree with this, but I acknowledge it exists.
If you mean countries don't have an enforceable right to free speech, I agree - if the international community decides to wipe you off the planet because you said something they don't like, I suppose they probably can. That doesn't mean that the right that we talk about isn't still important.
I don't think we should be sanctioning people (or groups of people) for their opinions. Instead, we should sanction them for their actions.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

I think Winston Churchill skewered tradition best of all when someone argued that better working conditions for Royal Navy sailors was "against the traditions" of the Navy: "What traditions? Rum, sodomy, and the lash?"
Schild und Schwert der Partei