LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nikachelle » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:03 am

Treck wrote:
Nikachelle wrote:Civil unions don't have the same rights/privileges as married couples, for one.

Over here its pretty much exactly the same thing.
I think the term civil union was even removed as they realized there was in essence no difference at all and calling it two different things didnt make sense.
People who have registered a partnership in another country, is officially counted as if they were married by all laws and regulation in sweden.

But "pretty much" is not "exactly" the same thing (although you've said in your country it is now the same thing). No one wants to feel like a second class citizen.
User avatar
Nikachelle
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8406
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:39 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Treck » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:28 am

Passionario wrote:But I wasn't talking about that. I was simply asking for some basic courtesy towards fellow Maintankadin posters. Is it really too much to ask for?

I read your last post but decided to leave it unanswered as I was having a hard time figuring out how to phrase myself but I felt like I atleast wanted to give you my view on it.

I agree that maintankadin is a very outstandingly civil forum on the internet for imo.
there's always some topic that go off topic ofc, keeping race/sex/orientation/religion out of a topic where it's irrelevant is usually followed.
But here it is not irrelevant, and I do not discriminate, any religion that sets aside facts and knowledge for superstition (Christianity, scientology and nordic/Greek mythology alike) are setting the world back.
The comment could be made that religion is to atleast a very big part a reason for this discussion in the first place, as they are usually the strongest and loudest opponents to this subject, and without .ao.much ignorance and medieval way of thinking ALL of us could be considered equal.
User avatar
Treck
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:10 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nikachelle » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:37 am

Treck wrote: any religion that sets aside facts and knowledge for superstition (Christianity, scientology and nordic/Greek mythology alike) are setting the world back.

This was the absolute best way to say it. And I agree wholeheartedly.
User avatar
Nikachelle
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8406
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:39 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:49 am

One of the worst sides of this marriage issue is how it treats transgendered people. In most countries where you are able to legally change your gender, doing so causes any existing marriage to be null and void. In the UK, they've addressed this by giving couples the ability to create a civil partnership to replace the marriage on the same day.

The situation this creates is one where a couple, between one day and the next, can go from being happily and legally married, to not only having the marriage nullified but also now finding it is illegal for them to be married. Just because one of them had the letter on their passport changed between M and F.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby theckhd » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:35 am

Nikachelle wrote:
Treck wrote: any religion that sets aside facts and knowledge for superstition (Christianity, scientology and nordic/Greek mythology alike) are setting the world back.

This was the absolute best way to say it. And I agree wholeheartedly.

It seems odd to include Greek mythology in that list. I'm unaware of any examples where Greek mythology forbade the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Keep in mind that many of these myths were created to explain things that humans didn't and couldn't understand at the time. We didn't have a clear idea how planets and orbits worked, so we made up gods that flew through the sky carrying the sun and moon. They were "gap fillers," as it were. The myths themselves aren't to blame for suppressing scientific advancement, it's the people who use those myths to try and prevent it.

Christianity is certainly guilty of that over the course of history, but I'm not aware of cases where Scientology or Nordic mythology did so. At best, you could say that the mere presence of those myths leads fewer people to try and study the science behind the effects the myths "explain," but I don't think that's a terribly significant effect.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Sagara » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:45 am

Shorthand: don't blame Christianity for people narrowing their worldview. Blame the people, and don't let them hide behind religion.
Then, love and tolerate them, as long as they love and tolerate you as an equal.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby theckhd » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:52 am

Sagara wrote:Shorthand: don't blame Christianity for people narrowing their worldview. Blame the people, and don't let them hide behind religion.
Then, love and tolerate them, as long as they love and tolerate you as an equal.

More to the point, out of the ones listed only Christianity and Scientology have a current hierarchical structure that has the ability to make decrees about scientific topics. It's still the people at fault of course - the bishops, cardinals, popes, etc. that decide "our religion feels that X is bad."

But the point I was making is that I'm unaware of any point where Greek myths were used to similarly justify interference with scientific research or topics. "Zeus says abortion is evil," for example. Although who knows, maybe they were used for such justifications when the religions were current. I doubt it though, simply because my understanding is that neither Greek nor Nordic mythology had a central organization dictating theology. You need a strong central organization (like Catholocism, for example) to be able to pull that off.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:03 am

Well the topic currently being discussed isn't of a scientific nature anyhow. That said Christianity and science aren't at odds nearly as much as people seem to believe.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Treck » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:15 am

theckhd wrote:It seems odd to include Greek mythology in that list. I'm unaware of any examples where Greek mythology forbade the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Keep in mind that many of these myths were created to explain things that humans didn't and couldn't understand at the time. We didn't have a clear idea how planets and orbits worked, so we made up gods that flew through the sky carrying the sun and moon. They were "gap fillers," as it were. The myths themselves aren't to blame for suppressing scientific advancement, it's the people who use those myths to try and prevent it.

Christianity is certainly guilty of that over the course of history, but I'm not aware of cases where Scientology or Nordic mythology did so. At best, you could say that the mere presence of those myths leads fewer people to try and study the science behind the effects the myths "explain," but I don't think that's a terribly significant effect.

Greek mythology was very interested in the persuit of knowledge indeed, and they used gap fillers since they didnt have an explanation at the time, and today we have explanations for a lot of things, people simply choose to ignore instead, or just God as an ever receding gap of knowledge (NDT quote).
But I really only included them as well as I look at them the same way as I do with "modern" religions, they make just as much sense and are just as absurd at explaining the world as the others, thats really all there is to it.
And nordic/greek mythology are obviously not the problem as they are not setting the world back, as they are pretty much dead.


Fridmarr wrote:Well the topic currently being discussed isn't of a scientific nature anyhow. That said Christianity and science aren't at odds nearly as much as people seem to believe.

I would argue that it is atleast a little it related.
Religion have many times claimed they "know" for sure some things.
Like they knew how the earth was flat, or the sun orbits the earth.
Now people believe the earth is 6000years old and that gays having sex will cause the apocalypse.
If they claim to know things that are proved to be bullshit, then why don’t question more of the things they “know”?
Like I said in an earlier post, anyone who choose religion (you cant help if you are brought up religious) simply cant do that without choosing to ignore facts and knowledge to some degree, and this makes me seriously question any scientist who call themselves religious.
Where does it end, what do you choose to accept as true and not?
But yes, the topic isn’t really about how scientific religion is, but if you claim to have all the answers but then change/modernize a religion, then what truth does it hold?
User avatar
Treck
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:10 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:10 am

Treck wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Well the topic currently being discussed isn't of a scientific nature anyhow. That said Christianity and science aren't at odds nearly as much as people seem to believe.

I would argue that it is atleast a little it related.
Religion have many times claimed they "know" for sure some things.
Like they knew how the earth was flat, or the sun orbits the earth.
Now people believe the earth is 6000years old and that gays having sex will cause the apocalypse.
If they claim to know things that are proved to be bullshit, then why don’t question more of the things they “know”?
Like I said in an earlier post, anyone who choose religion (you cant help if you are brought up religious) simply cant do that without choosing to ignore facts and knowledge to some degree, and this makes me seriously question any scientist who call themselves religious.
Where does it end, what do you choose to accept as true and not?
But yes, the topic isn’t really about how scientific religion is, but if you claim to have all the answers but then change/modernize a religion, then what truth does it hold?

This is unquestionably one of the most ignorant things I've read on these forums.

Religions are generally philosophical in nature, of course people may take those philosophies and draw scientific conclusions from them, but that is not obligatory.

If you choose to allow the poorest examples to define what religion is and further what that must mean about the people who follow them, then you are literally that which you claim to loathe.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Passionario » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:31 am

Treck wrote:But here it is not irrelevant, and I do not discriminate, any religion that sets aside facts and knowledge for superstition (Christianity, scientology and nordic/Greek mythology alike) are setting the world back.
The comment could be made that religion is to atleast a very big part a reason for this discussion in the first place, as they are usually the strongest and loudest opponents to this subject, and without .ao.much ignorance and medieval way of thinking ALL of us could be considered equal.


:shock:

First, I hope that either I'm seriously misinterpreting your post or there's something lost in translation here... because as far as bullshit justifications for bigotry go, "they are setting the world back" ranks somewhere between "they are stealing our jobs" and "they are polluting the gene pool".

Second, despite what some fundamentalist idiots may say, they don't speak for all Christians, much less all people who believe in God. Would you act like an asshole towards Lev, Skye and other LGBT posters just because prison rapists and NAMBLA activists exist? No? Then why do you think that it's OK to lump me and other theists together with Westboro Baptists and other militant jerks?

Fridmarr wrote:Well the topic currently being discussed isn't of a scientific nature anyhow. That said Christianity and science aren't at odds nearly as much as people seem to believe.


Personally, if I had to pick the greatest reactionary force blocking scientific progress, I'd have to go with "scientists of the previous generation".

Treck wrote:Religion have many times claimed they "know" for sure some things.
Like they knew how the earth was flat


Just for the record, that particular myth stems from an anti-clerical propaganda pamphlet, which had about as much in common with reality as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Invisusira » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:17 pm

The problem lies within the popular blanket statement, "I don't have any problems with you as an individual, but I do not condone your lifestyle."

Why does the speaker not condone the lifestyle? What opinions have they, themselves, formed about said lifestyle? In many cases, the answer is "none." They are simply copying and pasting words from others, often from decades or centuries ago.

In the modern day example, we have gay rights. Gays are really no different than women or blacks or any other group that has struggled with inequality. In this case, there is heavy rallying against gay rights from religion, which has absolutely no place in human rights. In this case, religion is holding society back as a whole because of its outdated, biased views.
User avatar
Invisusira
Moderator
 
Posts: 5848
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: alt-tabbed

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:03 pm

But it's not religion it's the people. There are also lots of religious people who are in favor of gay marriage both legally and within their church's frameworks. The problem with lumping it all under "religion" is the exact same problem that you get when you lump something under race. You could walk through our prisons and see that a vast majority of our prisoners are minorities and then suggest that minorites are criminals and holding us back. Of course doing so is incredibly ignorant.

Religious leaders may decree that their religion's concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals, but that's entirely different than saying that homosexuals shouldn't have access to the same legal standing that heterosexual couples do. People that can't make that seperation are the problem, not the religion.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Cogglamp » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:14 pm

I apologize if this isn't cogent or as thoughtful as many of the posters here, but here goes.

One personal rub is when people call homosexuality a lifestyle. I haven't met a homosexual human being that said they've chosen to be so. They've always said its been hard wired that way. Sure, they might have struggled to suppress it from societal/family pressures, but you can't deny what you are.

I'm unequivocally not satisfied with the state of human rights at the moment and the progress of change, though, I do realize that we live in a much better world than say 25, 50, or 100 years ago. I am grateful for that yet realize that I have to pick up where the previous generation left off and try to push that sisyphean-like rock up the hill. Will I see equal rights across our earth before I die? Probably not. Will I try to make this world a speck better than when I came into it? A yes with every fiber of my soul.

Even having this discourse points to a sense of hope that it will change for the better. The fact that the needle has even moved to "love the person, hate the sin" instead of "grab the noose/tar & feathers/shotgun" is an improvement. I still think it's fucking hogwash of an argument/opinion but we are still moving (albeit slowly) forward.

I grew up with christian theology and have come to readily acknowledge that it doesn't solve every problem our current world faces and it has many limitations in the society we live in. However, I hold near and dear some fundamental principles of christianity like loving thy neighbor, giving service to those in need, placing faith in something greater than yourself. A wise person will quickly point out that these just aren't christian principles and to that I will say, "Yep, they're life's principles or so I think they should be."
Not granting equal rights across the board is oppression in some degree. I'm not just talking about legal equality as the legal system can't always protect you from the bigotry or prejudice you might face on a daily basis.

I'm an eternal optimist and I believe in the power of the human spirit, love of man and love for another. There are rational and irrational actors on both sides of each argument. It's up to us to use our reason, logic, and knowledge to find the common ground. It's easy for the loud vocal minority on each side to be heard but that doesn't have to be the end of the discussion. I know I've found it. I pray to my god, hope for better things to come, and realize I have to play my part in bringing about a better world.

I truly believe we'll be in a better spot tomorrow than we were today. That doesn't mean we can rest. We still have to wake up each day and defend those that can't fight, speak for those that are silenced, and pick up those that can't walk.

So with that, I've probably used my maintankadin space quota for the week.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Treck » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:50 pm

Fridmarr wrote:This is unquestionably one of the most ignorant things I've read on these forums.
Religions are generally philosophical in nature, of course people may take those philosophies and draw scientific conclusions from them, but that is not obligatory.
If you choose to allow the poorest examples to define what religion is and further what that must mean about the people who follow them, then you are literally that which you claim to loathe.

As in asking yourself what the purpose of life is? Why we are here? Whats the point of everything?
You don’t have to be religious to ask yourself that, and that is certainly not all that religion is either, sure for some it is nothing more than that, for some it is less, and for some it is a whole lot more.
Those examples were bad for a reason, its was to point out that religions are trying to modernize themselves, meaning that in a way, its just an old way of living that isn’t keeping up with the modern world.

Passionario wrote: First, I hope that either I'm seriously misinterpreting your post or there's something lost in translation here... because as far as bullshit justifications for bigotry go, "they are setting the world back" ranks somewhere between "they are stealing our jobs" and "they are polluting the gene pool".

NO!
Now, I don’t know what religion you follow, but from your post I assume you are religious, so these things might not be anything you have a problem with.
A few examples of “setting the world back”.
Creationism, Adam and Eve, World is 6000years old, Sinners will go to hell, a talking snake? Noas Ark.
These are things thought to kids who don’t know how to think for themselves, in essence indoctrination, putting so much ignorance into young people is imo setting the world back since the next generation is always our future, not to mention child abuse.
None of these make sense, none of them have any facts to support them, instead mountains of evidence against them (except the heaven/hell part I guess) but If there is no evidence needed to prove it, there is no requirement to need evidence to disprove it (C.Hitchens)
What I have a problem with is when religion says they have all the answers, or teaches us to be satisfied with not knowing the world, and teaching young children that. That is the part of religion I wholeheartedly hate.
Passionario wrote:Second, despite what some fundamentalist idiots may say, they don't speak for all Christians, much less all people who believe in God. Would you act like an asshole towards Lev, Skye and other LGBT posters just because prison rapists and NAMBLA activists exist? No? Then why do you think that it's OK to lump me and other theists together with Westboro Baptists and other militant jerks?

Sure, all fundamentalist idiots doesn’t speak for all christians, just like I don’t speak ABOUT all christians.
There are like millions of different brances of christianity alone, all with different opinions and ideas, or different interpretations of the bible, you can obviously not include all every time you mention christianity.

Cogglamp wrote: There are rational and irrational actors on both sides of each argument. It's up to us to use our reason, logic, and knowledge to find the common ground. It's easy for the loud vocal minority on each side to be heard but that doesn't have to be the end of the discussion. I know I've found it. I pray to my god, hope for better things to come, and realize I have to play my part in bringing about a better world.

I really like the very first part of your sentence, there is no denying that is a fact.
But you lost me at the bolded part.
And I completely love the text in Italic, and that is pretty much words to live by.
User avatar
Treck
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:10 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Invisusira » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:51 pm

(sorry, quoting this out of order for better context)

Fridmarr wrote:The problem with lumping it all under "religion" is the exact same problem that you get when you lump something under race. You could walk through our prisons and see that a vast majority of our prisoners are minorities and then suggest that minorites are criminals and holding us back. Of course doing so is incredibly ignorant.

Correct. However, there is no "Minority's Creed" that people interpret to mean "criminality is ok and should be embraced." In the case of religion, there IS a credo that people have interpreted to mean "homosexuality is a sin and should be punished."

Fridmarr wrote:But it's not religion it's the people. There are also lots of religious people who are in favor of gay marriage both legally and within their church's frameworks.

And there are lots of religious people who aren't.

Fridmarr wrote:Religious leaders may decree that their religion's concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals, but that's entirely different than saying that homosexuals shouldn't have access to the same legal standing that heterosexual couples do. People that can't make that seperation are the problem, not the religion.

And unfortunately, when you're taught from birth that faith is everything and to question the will of God is to step unto the gates of Hell itself, you find yourself facing a vicious cycle. Yes, there are many religious leaders and individuals who are more forward-thinking and see a little more clearly. But there are many who are not, and the reason for it is their religion.
User avatar
Invisusira
Moderator
 
Posts: 5848
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: alt-tabbed

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:52 pm

Invisusira wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:The problem with lumping it all under "religion" is the exact same problem that you get when you lump something under race. You could walk through our prisons and see that a vast majority of our prisoners are minorities and then suggest that minorites are criminals and holding us back. Of course doing so is incredibly ignorant.

Correct. However, there is no "Minority's Creed" that people interpret to mean "criminality is ok and should be embraced." In the case of religion, there IS a credo that people have interpreted to mean "homosexuality is a sin and should be punished."
Generally, folks think it is a sin, I'm not sure about the punished part, I've never once heard of that. In fact many who think it is a sin of their religion still believe that it should be legal, as that is separate.

In any event, that was merely an example to illustrate that this train of thought towards religion, is no different than their train of thought towards homosexuality. The semantic of what I chose isn't really important, I could have chosen poverty or any number of things.

Invisusira wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Religious leaders may decree that their religion's concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals, but that's entirely different than saying that homosexuals shouldn't have access to the same legal standing that heterosexual couples do. People that can't make that seperation are the problem, not the religion.

And unfortunately, when you're taught from birth that faith is everything and to question the will of God is to step unto the gates of Hell itself, you find yourself facing a vicious cycle. Yes, there are many religious leaders and individuals who are more forward-thinking and see a little more clearly. But there are many who are not, and the reason for it is their religion.

No, the reason for it is their own failing. These are not particularly difficult concepts to grasp, and people are responsible for themselves. It's almost like you are trying to excuse them. Also, I would guess that the number of folks that fit that description is pretty small.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:06 pm

Treck wrote:As in asking yourself what the purpose of life is? Why we are here? Whats the point of everything?
You don’t have to be religious to ask yourself that, and that is certainly not all that religion is either, sure for some it is nothing more than that, for some it is less, and for some it is a whole lot more.
Those examples were bad for a reason, its was to point out that religions are trying to modernize themselves, meaning that in a way, its just an old way of living that isn’t keeping up with the modern world.
And what about where religions have advanced technology and continue to advance tolerance and human rights. As I said, judging religion by those examples is to employ the same prejudicial logic that you seem to be rallying against. Honestly, you question "any" scientist that is also religious? That's deplorable.

Treck wrote:Sure, all fundamentalist idiots doesn’t speak for all christians, just like I don’t speak ABOUT all christians.
Actually with the generalizations you were making, you did exactly that.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Invisusira » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:10 pm

I'll be the first to admit that I have no real numbers on either side and no intention of digging deeply into it, but would venture to guess that the numbers on both sides are sizable simply from personal observation. The question becomes, at what point are you no longer part of "that group?" What defines who is "correct" from a strictly religious standpoint? How far away from the Bible can you veer and "re-interpet" as you find more contradictory elements and backwards-thinking passages and still call yourself Christian? If the answer is, "all you have to do is believe in God," then why do people still cling to the Bible and continue to cite passages as proof of their arguments?
User avatar
Invisusira
Moderator
 
Posts: 5848
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: alt-tabbed

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:15 pm

Invisusira wrote:If the answer is, "all you have to do is believe in God," then why do people still cling to the Bible and continue to cite passages as proof of their arguments?

I hope people don't take this as an attack on religion, but from my view on things, logic rarely factors in when it comes to most religious faiths...
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:44 pm

Invisusira wrote:I'll be the first to admit that I have no real numbers on either side and no intention of digging deeply into it, but would venture to guess that the numbers on both sides are sizable simply from personal observation. The question becomes, at what point are you no longer part of "that group?" What defines who is "correct" from a strictly religious standpoint? How far away from the Bible can you veer and "re-interpet" as you find more contradictory elements and backwards-thinking passages and still call yourself Christian? If the answer is, "all you have to do is believe in God," then why do people still cling to the Bible and continue to cite passages as proof of their arguments?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm willing to guess it's far more contentious than our current conversation. I've heard many a baptist say that Catholics are not Christians (I don't know why) and that shit gets flat out heated. However, that doesn't really matter. If you deem yourself a christian, which I'd assume means you believe you follow the teachings of christ, why would you need validation from a group that you disagree with? I'm not a biblical scholar, but having read some of the retorts about what the bible says on gay marriage, I don't think it requires much of a "re-interpretation". But keep in mind, it's entirely reasonable to believe that homosexuality is a sin and still support gay marriage.

Then there's all the other religions of the world...

In any event the polling data among religions people, if I remember right, shows that the acceptance of a concept of civil unions is fairly high, and gay marriage is growing. It's inevitable, which I'm sure is little consolation to those unable to get married at this point, but it is progress.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:55 pm

Passionario wrote:
Koatanga wrote:If only being heterosexual did not entitle people to make decisions for homosexual people...


Alas, this is an unfortunate systemic flaw of virtually all governments: the segment of the population that has the greatest influence over any given policy is, more often than not, vastly different from the segment most impacted by said policy. Immigration rules are written by people who are not themselves immigrants, bans on video games are issued by people who neither play nor make video games, etc.

But I wasn't talking about that. I was simply asking for some basic courtesy towards fellow Maintankadin posters. Is it really too much to ask for?


I suppose that all depends if atheists are the majority or not. If atheists have the greatest influence then they make the policy and that's a-ok according to what you wrote, right?

After all, we're talking about the religious majority not allowing homosexuals to marry, which is quite a bit more than merely being discourteous, don't you think?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:27 pm

You lost me, are you referring to what you quoted? Passionario refers to that situation as "unfortunate", which doesn't mean "a-ok." He's merely making an observation, not advocating a position.

Also, I'd disagree with him in this case because there are protections in place to stop a religious majority from imposing religious rule here, and that has proven out many times. This isn't totally a religious issue. As the gay marriage issue escalates to the courts they don't consider religious arguments. There is a religious component to it on the political side, but letting the legal system deal with the issue through the standard process gets around all that.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fivelives » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:32 pm

A surprising amount of things we know today about science originated with Catholic monks. Genetics traces its roots back to a monk and some pea plants - Gregor Mendel, aka "the father of genetics".

In fact, two Christian orders are entirely devoted to scientific pursuits - the Jesuit order of the Catholics and the Knights of the Rosy Cross (aka Rosicrucians) of the Protestants.

Church and science have never been as at odds as people would like to think. That's a myth.

Back on topic, civil unions (in states that recognize them) have the exact same legal rights in the US as marriages do. There are a few states that have "domestic partnerships" or "limited domestic partnerships" though, instead of civil unions. I also agree that every "marriage" should be termed a civil union for legal and civil purposes, and let the religious folks have the term marriage. Once the US does it, the rest of the world would most likely follow suit; mostly because we'd raise a big enough stink about it that other countries would be pretty much browbeaten into at least tolerating it.

And the first step towards acceptance is, and always has been, tolerance.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Sagara » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:32 pm

Related:

Image

KInda depressing :-/
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest