LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

The question is how much your jerkdom affects other people. If you're a quiet jerk and keep it to yourself, then that's fine, but once you start actively hurting people with it, that's where you draw the line.

This is why an impact view of morality is much more useful.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Derelict, my views aren't that difficult to parse. I say very specific things in response to certain situations. It gets confusing if one assumes a statement based on another statement. In other words, I say a sentence, and based on that sentence people decide to write a paragraph for me.

I have NEVER advocated violence against the LGBTQ community. Ever. There isn't a single post, partial post, or anything else I've written on this site that remotely advocates it, and I've written lengthy posts (sometimes ignored) advocating legal protections for LGBT Qs from harassment, bullying, and discrimination. I've also written much MUCH lengthier posts officially denouncing and condemning alleged Christians who focus more on harassing gays rather than our sworn mandate to demonstrate God's love by treating everyone with the respect they're due. These are also sometimes ignored.

I have repeatedly been open to discussing the issue on a scientific basis, but I'm saying I haven't heard anything yet that causes me to think the Bible was wrong in saying it still is a sin. I also flatly refuse to approve of homosexuality just to be agreeable with the people here, many of whom I deeply respect. That's a betrayal of my faith, and I'd sooner be banned from this site than do that.

The one thing I have changed in my position is my opposition to gay marriage rights. I was in favor of civil unions as I've stated before, but, in part because of these discussions, I cannot find any way to justify actively opposing marriage rights that doesn't contradict both my duties as an American citizen and as a Christian. I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to do yet, but I recently withdrew my support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

edited 23rd May '12 9:57:24 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

I'm not entirely certain if my points are valid in this discussion, since there are others here that are using vocabulary and a tone of voice that intimidates me from speaking. In fact I'm pretty sure my only meaningful contribution to this discussion would be the fact that I'm a Mormon. So I'm going to ask a question.

Is it possible to be devoutly religious as well as gay? Are the two lifestyles mutually exclusive? Can one not be gay and also have religious beliefs? If yes, then why are they like that?

edited 23rd May '12 9:54:07 AM by CalamityJane

Please consider supporting my artwork on Patreon

Several tropers have stated they are gay and Christian. Me, personally, I'm a bit of serial whore with a penchant for attitude problems and I'm not above lying and cheating to accomplish my aims.

I am also a Christian, admittedly not the best one. So...I really don't think God has a sign hanging outside his door saying "Gays Need Not Apply."

Now, as to whether that gay Christian is sinning....well, that's on them to decide for themselves.

It was an honor

I also flatly refuse to approve of homosexuality, even to be agreeable with the people here, many of whom I deeply respect. That's a betrayal of my faith, and I'd sooner be banned from this site than do that.

And the sexism, don't forget that believing that woman are equal to men and shouldn't have to submit to their husbands in is a "betrayal of your faith" as well.

This is the part that baffles people, and in growing numbers the public at large, about Christians that "disapprove passively" of the "LGBT lifestyle". If you can't produce one iota of reasonable evidence that homosexuality is negative in any fashion why do you cling to your disapproval of it? Your only defense is a literal interpretation of the Bible, wish in addition to forcing you to uphold clearly morally disgusting and repugnant views in regards to women as well as homosexuals, is a position (that is the Literal Interpretation of the Bible) opposed by any Church or denomination you would deem "real Christians" and held by the various extremist fundamentalist churches you condemn for being "fake Christians".

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

On the subject of equality when it comes to faith, I've come to believe that, to quote the Prophet, "In the Kingdom of God there are no second-class citizens", which to me (and other Mormons) means that women and men, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Africans and Caucasians and Hispanics and Asians and Aboriginals and Native Americans and whatever other races people made up, are all equal and should be treated as you would treat yourself.

Please consider supporting my artwork on Patreon

No argument here.

It was an honor

a literal interpretation of the Bible

In either these fora or on Wikipedia, someone mentioned that "lying with a man as one would do with a woman" (or something) means literally lying down, no mention of liking, snuggling, cuddling, or sex, being implied as a bad thing. (In other words, wanna do something with someone else of your same... male/female-ish-ness? Gotta be standing. Or sitting.)

edited 23rd May '12 11:50:32 AM by Enzeru

Ah yes: the Elaborate Sex Swing Rebuttal.

What?

@Enzeru:From What the Bible Says -thread:

Me:

Black Humor:

edited 23rd May '12 3:22:38 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Clever chap that Black Humor.

It was an honor

You definitely can't treat a dude like a lady while having sex with him. God has a point.

Perhaps, then, you should not be so free with volunteering what seem to be opinion-revising statements and less brief and vague in your posting. As a suggestion, of course, if that seems to be a routine occurrence for you. People reading into your posts too much, that is.

So then the question shall be then, why do you believe the Bible deems homosexuality to be a sin? What reason would God and Christ have for seeing homosexuality as, to quote the Old Testament, an "abomination?"

May I ask why you are intimidated? Is it because of the scientific language or the political rhetoric? Because if it is the science, I am perfectly willing to elaborate if at all possible.

As to religion, I believe so for most Christian sects. Mormonism, having the Book of Mormon—a document I am not personally familiar with—may be... slightly different, however.

Just remember that no matter what you may do in your categorical role as a homosexual, I can guarantee you that a Republican (or Democrat, or Independent; at the end of the day they're all awful) in Congress has done something far worse and anti-Christian, assuming homosexuality is even a sin to begin with. If we are to be measured by the standards of our government leaders, at least you are ahead of the curve in that regard.

This is true. If I were to follow the frankly literal and context-less reading of the Bible that produces the "homosexuality is a sin" line of reasoning, I would also have to be anti-feminist, pro-slavery, pro-religious-based ethnic cleansing, and many other horrifically bad things. Which, obviously, would also be wildly anti-Christian.

Sadly, while this would be an amusing semantic argument, it is linguistically unsound. In this context, "laying" with someone is a synonym with "having sex with." That's simply how they used the term. Similar how "to know" someone in the Bible means "to have (had) sex with them." Hence the once-common turn of phrase "I knew them in the Biblical sense."

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

I see nothing wrong with revising my points in light of new information. I also have spent considerable effort explaining and re-explaining my points.

The issue quite bluntly is that some people don't like what I have to say. And because I say things they don't like hearing, they have no issue making assumptions based on that alone, even to the point of making false accusations, some of which border on absurd. I don't do that. I'll spend 30 posts if need be and then more to make sure I don't misquote someone or accuse them of things they're not guilty of. I see no reason I should tolerate less, and I've said as much.

I don't know. I'm not God.

Not necessarily. This has been brought up on pretty much every other LGBTQ-related thread. It's possible, to me, that one can read the Bible literally and still reject the "horrifically bad things." In fact, I believe a literal reading of the Bible strongly denounces such practices.

It was an honor

Yes, please pick and choose the portions of the bible that you wish to believe, and conveniently forget the others.

I'm sorry if I sound rude or bitter, but I get very tired of watching people do that.

I do too. Especially when said people ignore the pages and pages of rhetoric about tolerance, forgiveness and humility in favor of obscure and debatable quotes that might or might not support their beliefs.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

You do realize that can be considered a personal attack? Which is a bannable offense?

If you can tone it down? I'd just prefer no one get in trouble...

edited 24th May '12 12:44:57 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Eh, I'll respond to that.

I discuss shit with people who don't share my beliefs so that mine own remain sharp. Starship may think differently than I do, but I respect his ability to be genuine and acknowledge when someone has a good point. I often think he's wrong -and occasionally I think he's full of shit- but at the end of the day I'm glad he's here. Why? Because while I'm thinking about how to respond to something he's said, I'm re-examining the way I view the world. and that's something everyone ought to be doing as often as possible.

The religious have a saying..."Hate the sin, not the sinner". I've adopted it into "hate the belief, not the believer". Anyone can be indoctrinated, and that includes you. And me, as long as we're discussing the matter.

The road to enlightenment involves letting the world stick a knife in your bubble and relishing the taste of the steel. Because as you hurt, so do you learn.

To bring this back on topic...arguing with the religious as to why I support gay rights causes me to re-examine my commitment (which so far has made it stronger) and refine my own beliefs on the matter as I defend them from outside sources. Which is one of the main reasons why I'm agnostic *

; I like waking up and wondering "what am I going to learn today?"

Anyhow, the progressive liberal always needs to be on guard against committing the crime they accuse their opponents of. That crime is dogmatism and inflexibility in thinking. It's still a crime when we do it, this needs to be remembered.

edited 24th May '12 12:59:52 AM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Circular arguments, not circular logic.

Fight smart, not fair.

So..

If homosexuality is a sin, then what the hell are we supposed to do?

Sit and wait for the eternity of pain and suffering after our deaths?

Looking at the culture that produced the quote this is likely true. But that's exactly why in What the Bible Says thread I asked what what the word means in the original text. Black Humors answer was that it actually means laying in the non-sexual way. And even if you do read it in the sexual way, strictly speaking it would still apply only for bisexuals. Perhaps you can interprate the sentence in multiple ways - that's often the case - but if you choose the interpration forbidding homosexual acts you make that decision for the same reasons you pick that verse to uphold instead of any of the thousands ignored ones.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.