LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Wow, I'm on my laptop now so I can look at that thing, and talk about being a crock of shit. and are right it's a load of bull. Here are so highlights.

"a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship"

That's not a parent who is in a same-sex relationship, just one who has had a same-sex relationships, so it's not studying gay couples.

"lesbian mother or gay father" again, a specific admittance of it not studying same-sex couples, just single parents who happen to be gay. "children of parents who have had same-sex relationships and those with married parents" Wow, talk about a misleading statement, apparently it's impossible to have a parent who has had a same-sex relationship that is also married. Ignoring the use of "married" instead of "in a stable long term relationship" (a massive oversight probably deliberately done to exclude many gays from the study), none of the subjects had married gay parents? Someone obviously got an A in selective sampling.

edited 12th Nov '13 6:44:38 PM by Silasw

I thought that was kinda too obvious to bear saying. However, there's a difference between critique that engages a given religion's tenets, and arguments against religion tout court. Religion isn't "absolved" from the latter in general, but in a thread like this one the latter simply isn't pertinent.

How and why? We've given our reasons for not accepting the validity of that study's results. You can't just turn around and dismiss them without addressing them when you were the one that brought the study up in the first place.

I'd say we're reasonably good at self policing that though, normally things don't get to far before someone says "take it to the philosophy thread".

I doubt anyone here has an issue with religion in general. Speaking for myself, it's okay to have beliefs you can't prove. But when those beliefs result in a negative impact on real world people, I'm going to have something to say about that.

I'm sure there's somebody out there who is Anti-Religion to the point of ridiculousness. They always exist. XD

But seriously, yeah, if you're using Religion to justify harming others, some criticism is going you're way.

Apparently believing that homosexuality is a sin counts as harming.

Less the belief, more what people are doing because of said belief. Being wrong is allowed, but denying people legal benefits for crappy reasons has to stop.

It does when your next conclusion is "therefore I see nothing wrong in absolutely ignoring evidence that favors gay people in favor of gut feelings to justify their current status as perfectly okay"

No. But believing it to be a sin and forcing others to agree and adher to those believes counts as harming.

I suppose it is one thing to be religious and have standards you hold yourself to. However, it is not fair if you are religious to use your standards to hold everyone else to, people from different sects of the religion as you, people who are from completely different religions, and people who are not religious.

Likewise, if you're non-Religious, you shouldn't use that to hold standards towards other people either.

While, yes, Religion is heavily used to oppress people and has been for ages, it's not always the case, and the reverse can happen.

It's better if it never happens from anyone at all.

While the reverse has happened I do not think it's anywhere close to happening in, say, the US.

I'm sure the US has had some problems with an Atheist condemning people based upon them being Religious here or there. Not like some known ones. Or to be clear, on a large scale, or even a noticeable one. But I doubt it never happened.

Obviously, we have more of a problem with Religion oppressing others in the US. I don't want to see it happen to anyone, Religion or no Religion. That's what I'm getting at. Not acceptable either way. Sadly, there's some out there who have no problems being a hypocrite about it. -_-

yeah, I may dislike a lot of religions and religious people, but I dont condone mistreating them because of their beliefs.

I can condone arguing with them about their beliefs in a healthy, debate style, argument, but just because I dont come even close to agreeing with Jhimmibob, Soban, or Maxima on religious-related stuff doesnt mean I think theyre terrible human beings who deserve to be treated with vile cruelty.

Yeah, I guess what I was saying gets completely lost in translation as somebody who is a part of a non-prosthelytizing religion.

Oh, sure; and I think self-policing will continue to work well. I'm just saying that if generic atheist arguments on this particular thread tend to get ignored and politely passed by as non-germane, that doesn't amount to a "protective site policy" against them.

edited 13th Nov '13 9:20:35 AM by Jhimmibhob

Like, by the time I was in high school, at Sunday school our classes received lectures about how the separation of church and state worked in the US, and were taught what could and could not reasonably be held up as discrimination against us for our religion. I feel like this sort of thing is extremely important, for atheists and christains and non-christian religious people alike. Everyone should know what their rights are.

thats also a good idea as that way people on either side dont start making up their own definitions that amount to "I feel insulted or threatened in my beliefs, therefore scream religious freedom to trample you"

This reminds me of something Peter Rollins said:

The point being that, despite atheism being the rejection of religion, essentially, it can still act as one.

The islamophobia that people like Harris and Dawkins regularly spew is a testament to it happening. Does it happen to the extent that it does with religion? No, not yet. Once it gains enough momentum and size, though, it will certainly happen.

The lack of religion can only act like that in the presence of religion though. It's a bit like an electromagnetic phenomenon known as a hole, where the lack of an electron can act like a positively charged particle.

edited 13th Nov '13 1:15:55 PM by Elfive

Um, no. Atheism can totally support oppressive institutions regardless of whether or not religion is around. Now, I'd argue it couldn't function like that if there was never religion because that would prevent it from ever having been a thing, but, now that it can be, it can function as a tribe or religion. Plus, I don't see religion ever completely going away since non-religious who read older religious stuff could certainly start believing it. In a mostly atheist world, they would certainly experience all sorts of oppression.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it does nothing to inhibit oppressive regimes than actually support them. There's always some other philosophy that actually causes all the problems.

Actually, I agree with DP here. If it is possible to divide a group into two, both of those things can become tribes. Relevantly to this thread, Christians and Homosexuals are two very broad tribes.

edited 13th Nov '13 1:55:46 PM by Soban

No. It could definitely be used by systems of oppression to support the systems of oppression (not merely oppressive regimes, but also other systems of oppression like heteronormativity, white supremacy, capitalism, and the patriarchy). Those systems essentially act as opportunists that use whatever they can to justify themselves. That's not to say atheism necessarily ''will' be used in that way, just as religion often isn't used in that way, especially more radical religion, like liberation theology and death of god theology. Atheism is not special. It is not fundamentally different than anything else that these systems of oppression have used to justify themselves.

Christianity isn't even really a tribe. Christianity is a host of many tribes, some of which ally themselves with queer liberation and some which don't and there are many queer folk who are a part of different sects of christianity.

edited 13th Nov '13 2:00:36 PM by deathpigeon