Homosexuality

[Agro]

Wasn't the Jehova-Witnessing dipshit Phoenix?

As for religion and acceptance, I think homohaters are generally the minority of religious people; however, as long as those people continue to rally up their friends gays and lesbians and going to have a bit of a difficult time.

[California Mountain Snake]

Don't judge all religious people just because some people (I believe you're talking about Jarly) don't get it. I'm a very strong Catholic (often considered one of the most gay-hating branches of Christianity) and I have no problems with people being gay. In fact, I'm friends with a guy who is gay. And as if that isn't proof enough, that kid is a very, very active member of my church. And most people there know he is gay, so it's not like he's hiding it. Obviously, no one is treating him too badly there, or he wouldn't keep helping out.

You can hardly blame anyone for it. Sure, it was only a fraction of the Nazi's which perpetrated the most heinous crimes known in history, and most of them were normal people fighting for what they thought was an injustice against their country, or were conscripted soldiers, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start telling Jewish people that they should really give Nazis a second chance. Yes, you're right, there are a lot of respectable, accepting religious people out there, perhaps even a majority, but despite this fact all (no exaggeration) of the opposition to homosexuals getting fair treatment or receiving beneficial changes in the law, comes from the religious front, it makes it kind of hard for homosexuals at large to feel sorry for the nice religious people in all of this.

Edited August 12, 2009 by California Mountain Snake

[Jyosua]

Don't judge all religious people just because some people (I believe you're talking about Jarly) don't get it. I'm a very strong Catholic (often considered one of the most gay-hating branches of Christianity) and I have no problems with people being gay. In fact, I'm friends with a guy who is gay. And as if that isn't proof enough, that kid is a very, very active member of my church. And most people there know he is gay, so it's not like he's hiding it. Obviously, no one is treating him too badly there, or he wouldn't keep helping out.

You can hardly blame anyone for it. Sure, it was only a fraction of the Nazi's which perpetrated the most heinous crimes known in history, and most of them were normal people fighting for what they thought was an injustice against their country, or were conscripted soldiers, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start telling Jewish people that they should really give Nazis a second chance. Yes, you're right, there are a lot of respectable, accepting religious people out there, perhaps even a majority, but despite this fact all (no exaggeration) of the opposition to homosexuals getting fair treatment or receiving beneficial changes in the law, comes from the religious front, it makes it kind of hard for homosexuals at large to feel sorry for the nice religious people in all of this.

Godwin's law at it's finest.

Anyhow, the problem with religion and homosexuality lies not in the people, but in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

At the risk of offending someone, I think I'll quote this:

Killface: "Well they just legalized civil union between you know the gays."

Manger: "But we're Democrats. We're for that?"

Killface: "Well I guess Leviticus was a Republican. Because, wait hang on. He goes, 'If a man lies with a man as with a woman…’”

Wendell: "Boast."

Killface: "... i.e. pushing him to the store."

Wendell: "What?"

Killface: "They shall be surely put to death."

Woman: "First of all. Leviticus wasn't a person."

Killface: "Well demigod, whatever."

[Fox]

Don't judge all religious people just because some people (I believe you're talking about Jarly) don't get it.

The Bible expressly condemns homosexual "behavior," so it's completely reasonable to assume that its followers do as well, unless they say otherwise.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Fox

[Jyosua]

Don't judge all religious people just because some people (I believe you're talking about Jarly) don't get it.

The Bible expressly condemns homosexual "behavior," so it's completely reasonable to assume that its followers do as well, unless they say otherwise.

That's silly. The followers mostly disagree. But most of the churches' official stances are that it's wrong, but that's only the official stance. It's very common to take an official stance and have nobody actually think that. Lol, you should have heard my mom when I told her that her pets didn't have a soul, according to the catholic church she belongs to. XD

Note that I say most. The conservatives which are in the minority now, still think it's wrong.

[Gordon Freemeow]

So just for the sake of making this more amusing, I know plenty of of homosexuals who also follow Christianity. Just so happens some people believe that the bible doesn't expect one to be perfect, and follow it word for word. Smart blokes they are. [/slightly off topic]

[California Mountain Snake]

You can hardly blame anyone for it. Sure, it was only a fraction of the Nazi's which perpetrated the most heinous crimes known in history, and most of them were normal people fighting for what they thought was an injustice against their country, or were conscripted soldiers, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start telling Jewish people that they should really give Nazis a second chance. Yes, you're right, there are a lot of respectable, accepting religious people out there, perhaps even a majority, but despite this fact all (no exaggeration) of the opposition to homosexuals getting fair treatment or receiving beneficial changes in the law, comes from the religious front, it makes it kind of hard for homosexuals at large to feel sorry for the nice religious people in all of this.

Godwin's law at it's finest.

You seem to have a particularly annoying habit of identifying various tropes in someone's post, and expect that to somehow substitute for an actual argument on your part against that post.

That's silly. The followers mostly disagree. But most of the churches' official stances are that it's wrong, but that's only the official stance. It's very common to take an official stance and have nobody actually think that. Lol, you should have heard my mom when I told her that her pets didn't have a soul, according to the catholic church she belongs to. XD

Note that I say most. The conservatives which are in the minority now, still think it's wrong.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Of course people should just ignore the official stances of churches and organizations, remarks by prominent church pastors on public airways, those who perpetrate hate crimes in the name of religion, and interest groups which actively lobby the government to block gay initiatives in the name of religion (with ample access to church coffers) because hey, they're just sayin' that. You can't be taking what they say seriously. We're just joking with you man!

I don't feel this way in my own life, having met many tolerant religious people. But if a person is a member of an organization in the religious community which actively promotes discrimination, and they do nothing to change it or remain ignorant to it, but still expect fair treatment, I say fuck you.

[Jyosua]

You can hardly blame anyone for it. Sure, it was only a fraction of the Nazi's which perpetrated the most heinous crimes known in history, and most of them were normal people fighting for what they thought was an injustice against their country, or were conscripted soldiers, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start telling Jewish people that they should really give Nazis a second chance. Yes, you're right, there are a lot of respectable, accepting religious people out there, perhaps even a majority, but despite this fact all (no exaggeration) of the opposition to homosexuals getting fair treatment or receiving beneficial changes in the law, comes from the religious front, it makes it kind of hard for homosexuals at large to feel sorry for the nice religious people in all of this.

Godwin's law at it's finest.

You seem to have a particularly annoying habit of identifying various tropes in someone's post, and expect that to somehow substitute for an actual argument on your part against that post.

That's silly. The followers mostly disagree. But most of the churches' official stances are that it's wrong, but that's only the official stance. It's very common to take an official stance and have nobody actually think that. Lol, you should have heard my mom when I told her that her pets didn't have a soul, according to the catholic church she belongs to. XD

Note that I say most. The conservatives which are in the minority now, still think it's wrong.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Of course people should just ignore the official stances of churches and organizations, remarks by prominent church pastors on public airways, those who perpetrate hate crimes in the name of religion, and interest groups which actively lobby the government to block gay initiatives in the name of religion (with ample access to church coffers) because hey, they're just sayin' that. You can't be taking what they say seriously. We're just joking with you man!

I don't feel this way in my own life, having met many tolerant religious people. But if a person is a member of an organization in the religious community which actively promotes discrimination, and they do nothing to change it or remain ignorant to it, but still expect fair treatment, I say fuck you.

Look at you, trying to change other people's moral prerogatives. I smell a hypocrite.

Regardless, yes they should not be allowed to discriminate. But that doesn't mean you should assume every follower of Christianity to be a Gay-hating son of a bitch, just because their religion is stupid enough to take an official stance like that. They aren't ignoring or doing nothing about it, but religion as a whole tends to be a stubborn old goat that resists change. Do you fucking realize how long it took to get an official apology from the Catholic church about Galileo? The officials are to blame. The followers are not. Religion is something of a label. Just like political parties. Republicans mostly are against gay rights. Does that mean I hate every republican from the start, before I know them, because they're belonging to a party that generally identifies themselves with the most socially backwards policies? No. Every republican is different. I have friends that are Republicans that support gay rights openly. Just as I have friends in the Catholic church that openly say they have nothing against gays, and even like them more because they tend to have more of an open mind due to the oppressive nature of society when dealing with gays.

This is why I hate organized religion. Christianity is general. If I were to believe in it, I'd call myself a Christian and not a Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, what have you. The reason for this is because then you can pick and choose what you interpret literally, without someone standing over your shoulder telling you that you can't do that.

By the way, my Godwin's Law line was supposed to be taken as a joke, to lighten the mood before I get to the actual post.

[-Cynthia-]

On the whole majority/minority thing, I would guess that the majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Think about it, if thwe majority of Americans are Christian(like 60% or so) and the majority of Americans are against gay marriage(see Prop 8, which was in California...not exavtly a conservative hotspot), it makes sense to assume that most Christians are against gay marraige. Of course there are athiests/agnostics against gay marriage as well, but they're the minority, especially when most of the arguments agaisnt gay marriage are religion based in the first place.

So yeah, I'm going to say that most of the followers are also against gay marriage. Of course that doesn't mean all, but if gay marriage advocates have one group of people standing in the way, it's Christians.

[Gordon Freemeow]

On the whole majority/minority thing, I would guess that the majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Think about it, if thwe majority of Americans are Christian(like 60% or so) and the majority of Americans are against gay marriage(see Prop 8, which was in California...not exavtly a conservative hotspot), it makes sense to assume that most Christians are against gay marraige. Of course there are athiests/agnostics against gay marriage as well, but they're the minority, especially when most of the arguments agaisnt gay marriage are religion based in the first place.

So yeah, I'm going to say that most of the followers are also against gay marriage. Of course that doesn't mean all, but if gay marriage advocates have one group of people standing in the way, it's Christians.

Christian.

Support gay marriage, right 'ere.

[-Cynthia-]

Christian.

Support gay marriage, right 'ere.

Good for you. My point is that you are in the minority.

[Crystal Shards]

Don't judge all religious people just because some people (I believe you're talking about Jarly) don't get it.

The Bible expressly condemns homosexual "behavior," so it's completely reasonable to assume that its followers do as well, unless they say otherwise.

The Bible is also extremely outdated and proves to be a better description of society back then than it does a moral compass for today. Many Christians do not see the Bible as a literal fact book, but more of the Aesop's Fables type--learn the morals through the stories. Looking at the whole "men lying with other men" thing from an anthropology or sociology viewpoint, that line in the book was probably only put in there because children rarely survived childhood, if they even survived childBIRTH. Men laying with men was a waste of time if you're trying to keep the society alive. It was probably seen as immoral not because homosexuality itself was "wrong as determined by God" but because that's not going to result in kids. That idea has dissolved for many societies because childbirth and rearing children has become decidedly less risky. (This explanation doesn't make gay marriage any more acceptable to many Christians, but...)

There are several other examples of this throughout the Bible, including Noah's Ark and other statements that the Popes have retracted/changed throughout the years in light of social change or scientific breakthroughs, but I'm not going to get into it because, well, it's not really relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is we do not read the same Bible they read 2000 years ago, for good reasons and for bad, and in the end the main determining factor is that it was written by men, and men aren't perfect.

I know that's not really where you were going with that, but I wanted to toss it in there.

[California Mountain Snake]

On the whole majority/minority thing, I would guess that the majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Think about it, if thwe majority of Americans are Christian(like 60% or so) and the majority of Americans are against gay marriage(see Prop 8, which was in California...not exavtly a conservative hotspot), it makes sense to assume that most Christians are against gay marraige. Of course there are athiests/agnostics against gay marriage as well, but they're the minority, especially when most of the arguments agaisnt gay marriage are religion based in the first place.

So yeah, I'm going to say that most of the followers are also against gay marriage. Of course that doesn't mean all, but if gay marriage advocates have one group of people standing in the way, it's Christians.

Christian.

Support gay marriage, right 'ere.

You seem to act as if those two statements are mutually exclusive, or that by some power the fact that you support gay marriage contradicts Cynthia's statement that most Christians don't.

Look at you, trying to change other people's moral prerogatives. I smell a hypocrite.

Do you even know what you're talking about? There is no contradiction. In the other debate I said that people have no right to interfere in matters which are entirely personal in nature, and here I'm saying exactly the same thing. In the words of Wanda Sykes "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one." Even if there were strong religious grounds to argue against gay marriage, and even that is only shaky and relies on a honed in focus on a few set phrases of the bible while forgetting the rest of the fucking book which talks about tolerance and love, it doesn't change the fact that it's still none of their fucking business no matter how good the grounds. But perhaps I am foisting one belief onto other people; the belief that all people are created equal, and thus the individual is the only one who can have a say on personal matters, but I doubt you're going to see many people jumping up to contradict this statement, especially since it's so well written into American founding documents and legal philosophy.

Regardless, yes they should not be allowed to discriminate. But that doesn't mean you should assume every follower of Christianity to be a Gay-hating son of a bitch, just because their religion is stupid enough to take an official stance like that. They aren't ignoring or doing nothing about it, but religion as a whole tends to be a stubborn old goat that resists change. Do you fucking realize how long it took to get an official apology from the Catholic church about Galileo? The officials are to blame. The followers are not. Religion is something of a label. Just like political parties. Republicans mostly are against gay rights. Does that mean I hate every republican from the start, before I know them, because they're belonging to a party that generally identifies themselves with the most socially backwards policies? No. Every republican is different. I have friends that are Republicans that support gay rights openly. Just as I have friends in the Catholic church that openly say they have nothing against gays, and even like them more because they tend to have more of an open mind due to the oppressive nature of society when dealing with gays.

Fine, you can make up a response to a narrative that was never written and tear that to shreds. Or you could respond to what's actually being posted. Unless this is more of your problems with the "you" pronoun, I have never said anything about assuming that every Christian was a Gay-hating sonovabitch, but if you want to keep telling that lie over and over again until it comes true, you can still keep trying.

The only thing that's been said is that if people are willfully unaware (or even ignorantly unaware) of the policies of their church but still get bent out of shape when someone who is subjected to the business end of these policies speaks harshly of their institution, then they can shove a stick up their ass.

[Gordon Freemeow]

You seem to act as if those two statements are mutually exclusive, or that by some power the fact that you support gay marriage contradicts Cynthia's statement that most Christians don't.

What are we basing this off of, love?

Where I'm from a lot of the people here don't give a damn if gays want to be together or be gay. They don't sit there and tell them it's wrong. Probably 'bout 90% of the people in me town are Christian too, and I never hear many folk up in Scotland talk about how homosexuality is "wrong." In fact, a good chunk of me school is either bisexual or gay. So is this idea based off of America or somethin'?

[quanta]

Where I'm from a lot of the people here don't give a damn if gays want to be together or be gay. They don't sit there and tell them it's wrong. Probably 'bout 90% of the people in me town are Christian too, and I never hear many folk up in Scotland talk about how homosexuality is "wrong." In fact, a good chunk of me school is either bisexual or gay. So is this idea based off of America or somethin'?

Probably, there is some cultural gap between the U.S. and Britain.

On the whole majority/minority thing, I would guess that the majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Think about it, if thwe majority of Americans are Christian(like 60% or so) and the majority of Americans are against gay marriage(see Prop 8, which was in California...not exavtly a conservative hotspot), it makes sense to assume that most Christians are against gay marraige. Of course there are athiests/agnostics against gay marriage as well, but they're the minority, especially when most of the arguments agaisnt gay marriage are religion based in the first place.

Careful with that sort of statistical reasoning. In this case, you've got prior knowledge, but it's technically possible (using your example of a 60/40 Christian/Not-Christian split) that the 40% of Americans who aren't Christian could oppose something and only 1/3 of the Christians oppose it, creating a majority of Americans who oppose it but a minority of Christians. Like I said, you've got some prior knowledge in this case, but in this case it's so good you don't even need to guess. You can probably find statistics for what percent of Christians living in the U.S. oppose gay marriage rather than guessing from other information.

You can hardly blame anyone for it. Sure, it was only a fraction of the Nazi's which perpetrated the most heinous crimes known in history, and most of them were normal people fighting for what they thought was an injustice against their country, or were conscripted soldiers, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start telling Jewish people that they should really give Nazis a second chance. Yes, you're right, there are a lot of respectable, accepting religious people out there, perhaps even a majority, but despite this fact all (no exaggeration) of the opposition to homosexuals getting fair treatment or receiving beneficial changes in the law, comes from the religious front, it makes it kind of hard for homosexuals at large to feel sorry for the nice religious people in all of this.

There's a huge difference between not letting someone do something legally that never should have been a legal issue in the first place and rounding up, killing them, and burning the bodies. Comparisons between Christian treatment of homosexuals and Nazi treatment of Jews completely ignore several orders of magnitude of difference between the two problems, and make it more difficult to discuss anything that actually matters. With Nazis, it's fair to assume the negative because they both espouse and commit violence against those they disagree with; you're justified in assuming that all Nazis are dickwads out of the practical consideration of not wanting to die. That's not even vaguely an issue with the vast majority of Christians (the whole risk of being murdered or attacked for wanting to screw someone of the same sex), so it doesn't make as much sense to assume one way or the other about any individuals beliefs. You can just ask them; they're not going to stab you.

But this is a retarded tangent. Can we all just agree to let colloquialisms or generalizations slide even if not 100% correct and just assume we are capable of distinguishing between when we mean all the people in a certain group do something and most of the people in a certain group do something?

I don't feel this way in my own life, having met many tolerant religious people. But if a person is a member of an organization in the religious community which actively promotes discrimination, and they do nothing to change it or remain ignorant to it, but still expect fair treatment, I say fuck you.

So can I assume that every community you have belong to is a community where the majority agreed and supported only what you considered both moral and ethical or you were spending significant time trying to change that community over every issue you disagreed with its majority's stance on?

In most cases, you should treat people fairly regardless of what group they belong to until they themselves give you reason otherwise. Exceptions occur when them belonging to that group implies that you might risk significant additional harm by treating them fairly. You don't in this case.

To make a really overboard example: By your logic, if we assume that people who go to more expensive schools tend to have richer families and that progressive tax rates are good, it's completely valid for me to assume that since you go to harvard, your family is rich and thus they should be taxed at a higher rate until they prove otherwise (not that this would be hard, merely inconvenient, just fill out a few forms and stuff, keep them on file, be prepared for an audit if something is fishy). This logic is so obviously backwards in these cases that I'm stunned you could take such a position.

Edited August 15, 2009 by quanta

[Crystal Shards]

Fuck yeah/you DC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html

https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=637&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr004=dhbmawisq2.app304a

[Defeatist Elitist]

Fuck yeah/you DC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html

https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=637&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr004=dhbmawisq2.app304a

Fucking no. This can't be happening.

Seriously, "We'll stop our social services if you let homosexuals have rights""? Really?

[Der Kommissar]

That should be hardly surprising coming from the Catholics. This is the church with representatives in Africa telling the people there that condoms cause AIDS because they find contraceptives religiously objectionable.

Considering that the city government already funds a portion of their charity, the impact shouldn't be as severe as one might fear.

[Crystal Shards]

Well it turns out that they backed down on that, but the fact they even threatened it pisses me off more than anything.

[Parrhesia]

That should be hardly surprising coming from the Catholics. This is the church with representatives in Africa telling the people there that condoms cause AIDS because they find contraceptives religiously objectionable.

Considering that the city government already funds a portion of their charity, the impact shouldn't be as severe as one might fear.

Yeah, religious people should keep their religions to themselves, and missions, whilst helping a lot of people, really need to be secular. I have nothing against those of any faith, as long as they aren't trying to convert/chastise people, or if it impacts negatively on people. Speaking out against contraception in a continent that needs it badly...with that much infleunce, that's a lot of impact.

[Kirbyiscool19]

Gay marriage/intamacy is not only against my religion, it's against nature! I mean, come on... Does a plug fit into a plug? Does an outlet fit into an outlet? No. A plug fits into an outlet, and vice-versa. People can be gay if they want, I am tolerant. But I definitely do NOT approve. It is against nature for 1 man and 1 man, or 1 woman and 1 woman.

It makes sense for it to be 1 man and 1 woman. That's my counter-argument.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Kirbyiscool19

[Kirbyiscool19]

Yeah, religious people should keep their religions to themselves, and missions, whilst helping a lot of people, really need to be secular. I have nothing against those of any faith, as long as they aren't trying to convert/chastise people, or if it impacts negatively on people. Speaking out against contraception in a continent that needs it badly...with that much infleunce, that's a lot of impact.

I missed this, but the whole point of my religion is pretty much to bring people to a knowledge of the truth and teach them about God. If you truly reject/ignore/hate my religion,are NOT sorry for your sins and wrong-doings,and truly harden your heart against God, then there is no hope for you, and I am forced to quit. I find there is nothing wrong for someone trying to convert you to their religion. If it is something you will not trust in, or know that it is not true, then you can simply ignore their requests, no harm done.

[Mousefire]

You've just made me like you a little less. For one thing, it is not against nature, if you believe there is a thing as unnatural. There are homosexual animals. It is natural. Do you not approve of someone with a birth defect(though homosexuality is not a birth defect, it isn't something anyone can choose)?

[BK-201]

If it's done it's natural.

[uguu]

ok, homosexuality is supposedly unnatural. And?

Do you know what else is unnatural?

The internet.

Why don't you have any issues with use of the internet?

Edited February 14, 2010 by Hikarusa