LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

@OSIC, no, it just gets a significant more scrutiny about if it is an underlying principle of how the universe works or a specific application of the principles of the universe to a specific situation.

Because this seems like one of those things that, if you want to keep it, we need to start acting more like Sikhs in preservation of the way the body is "intended"... or it can be something that we toss out.

If I was not in a Aberhamic religion, I'd be a Sikh.

This issue sort of boils down to whether the human body is a Mac or a PC.

Well if we look at the crossdressing law in Deuteronomy, it would mean that you can't lend your girlfriend your jacket without making her a sinner.

@OSIC, the modern interpretation is that it's socially based. A woman who is being a woman can wear man's pants without a social problem. However, a guy who is being a guy can't wear a skirt without a social problem. (Kilts are not skirts)

Women's and men's pants are not the same.

When you take a jacket off of a man and wear it, it is a man's jacket. He was just wearing it. It was his.

edited 20th Nov '13 9:32:45 AM by ohsointocats

I think Eddie Izzard said it best. "I don't wear women's dresses. I wear my own."

So, if I understand this correctly, God forbids man from wearing womens' clothes and vice versa, but is willing to leave it up to man to decide what constitutes such? That's nonsensically generous of him.

Do we get to pick how we define murder, stealing, and worshipping other gods before him too?

There is also the matter of interpretation of this law. Considering it's tucked in with a whole lot of other ceremonial laws, it seems like it might be one too.

The particular words involved as well are questionable. The words translated as "man" are actually "geber" which is not simply "man" but refers to men at their peak of power or to a warrior, and the "clothes" refer to any kind of accoutrement, not just clothing. With this in mind I've seen translations meaning women are not supposed to pick up dangerous/manly trades and men are banned from wearing things that would encourage effeminacy, or that this is referring specifically to pagan groups at the time where women wore armor and weapons and men dressed as women and acted as temple prostitutes and that this verse tells the Jews not to be like them.

@chihuahua 0,

No, the fact is that is you go by what the Bible says, there are only two genders. It presents a gender binary. Nowhere in the entire bible does a third gender come into play at any point. The best objection might be science marches on. What they might have called male back then, we would call female today. I would use the Leviticus 11: 13-19 where they grouped everything that flew together even though our modern classification is that Bats are not the same thing as Birds. You can then dismiss Deuteronomy 22:5 with the point that it prohibits cross-dressing, but if someone is of that gender in the first place, it does not apply. How strong this argument is depends on your audience. If you audience is someone like me, I’ll simply point out that it’s pretty clear what gender most people ‘supposed’ to be and even what most people would consider exceptions still tend to fall on one side or the other. Then we will get into an argument about the differences between biological sex, gender, and what not.

On it being sin, I’m not of the camp that feels that someone who feels like they are slotted into the wrong gender is inherently sin any more then feeling depressed is a sin or being tempted to lust is a sin. The problem is not the temptation or the feeling, the problem is the action. Now, with the science marches on argument, the end solution really depends on where you think it has marched to.

If you look at the laws about what is kosher and what is not, bats are clearly considered to be separate. They get their own line about how you can't eat them.

The problem is that you are assuming that physical gender and mental gender are the same thing. And you're ignoring that intersex people exist. In the purely physical, there are two genders, and the occasional person in between. Mentally, on the other hand, people are all over the place, and this is really important, gender and orientation are not the same thing.

If you were gay, soban, you wouldn't be any less male.

edited 20th Nov '13 10:59:47 AM by Zendervai

Not in Leviticus 11:13-19. They are included in the same list. Far as I can tell, mental gender is not a construct that is in the bible. Physical gender only was considered. There is no mention of anyone who is intersex and no directions about it. My take on it is that it means that being intersex is pretty low on the relevancy scale given how many topics are talked about. At 5 verses, homosexuality it's self is pretty far down on the list of "This is important, pay attention." but at least it makes the list.

I'm not sure how me being gay relates to what I said, I'm sorry. I consider myself heterosexual but I won't deny that a objective observer might have reason to argue that I'm bisexual.

edited 20th Nov '13 11:09:15 AM by Soban

hate to tell you this., but the bible is about as scuentifically up to date as leech therapy

That would be why I suggested the science marches on argument. I don't agree with it personally, but it's a solid argument.

edited 20th Nov '13 11:11:42 AM by Soban

I was doing some reading and came across stuff that said that under Jewish law people of indeterminate sex were considered "men," and could take wives but not husbands — the opposite of today, where people of indeterminate sex are generally considered "female". Defining these people as mostly men may be out of safety because male/female was often defined as things like what men must do and things women are exempt from, so assuming them male is the safer option.

OSIC, that is a great observation! Thank you.

Which could get into some sticky situations in its own right, where Jewish law considers you a man but governmental law considers you a woman. And maybe if you're a trans* individual you can still be socially your gender but your obligations are still determined by your birth sex.

edited 20th Nov '13 11:20:57 AM by ohsointocats

Nope. (mildly NSFW, academic picture of genitalia)

Also, saying that God created man and woman and obviously nothing else is roughly similar to saying God created the sun, moon, and stars, and that the lack of mentioning extraterrestrial planets, black holes, a few million suns' worth of raspberry-flavored alcohol floating around, or other weirdass celestial bodies means they don't exist.

I'm amusedly curious as to how such a viewpoint would process dark flow. Because apparently something unobservably far beyond the edge of the universe is sucking in large amounts of it at crazy speeds that imply masses beyond anything we've ever observed, and that was WAY not mentioned in Genesis.

edited 20th Nov '13 2:46:11 PM by Pykrete

Exactly my point.

Also, the New Testament does speak against men laying with men (like in Romans and 1 Corinthians), but this is another passage.

I'm just building a biblical defense for homosexuality because many people live by it, so it's good to know how to debate from a biblical viewpoint instead of just dismissing the Bible outright.

the thing is though. People who live by the bible asd give a shit about gay marriage tend to be the sorts who wont take any argument that disagrees with them.

Someone who has reasoned and found that 2+2=4 is not likely easily to be persuaded that 2+2=5.

You seem awfully convinced in the infallibility and absoluteness of your belief systems. If I can tarry a bit, from whence does this stem- as many detractors share it.

You see, you predicate your stances based on the ideology you have been taught by the Bible and Church- but have you ever questioned it? Challenged it? A refusal to do so appears to lie at the heart of anti-gay marriage movements- since a belief in an objective truth stems from an unwillingness to challenge preconceptions.

conversely, one could argue that someone who is convinced 2+2= kleeborp wont be convinced its actually 4, no matter how much scientific and mathematical data disagrees

edited 21st Nov '13 12:30:30 PM by midgetsnowman

The heart of wisdom is questioning what you think you know. Some of the more important people in the Old Testament questioned God and tested Him. Like Gideon and Moses. Keep in mind, you can't just question everything.

Blind adherence to what you think is true is a great way for others to slip incorrect and wrong things in there.

edited 21st Nov '13 12:12:29 PM by Zendervai