LGBT rights discussion

[bldavis]

i guess all that can be done is wait until someone actually kidnaps a legally adopted/AI birthed child from a gay couple and claims this guy said it was right

[Skye1013]

[Melathys]

[Fivelives]

A lot of people bring up the Leviticus quote, but honestly - didn't Jesus himself say that he was the breaking of the old covenant and the forging of a new one? I'm a bit rusty on my Bible-ese, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned something along those lines. Which in turn would mean that Leviticus hasn't applied since Jesus came on the scene.

However, he also said something along the lines of "what you hold to be true on earth, my father holds true in heaven", so the teachings of Paul condemning homosexuality are valid, at least in a dogmatic sense. Until a current sitting Pope repeals them, that is.

Considering that we've got plenty of people on the planet as is, and the church still condemns birth control, I think it's going to be a pretty long wait for the church to fall into line with the human rights movements. Unless of course it directly benefits the church. Honestly, I can't help but think that some of the "stick" is caused by all the allegations about child abuse being fired at the church, and them raising a big ruckus about LGBT rights is either meant to draw attention away from those, or to try and show a "hard line" stance on the part of the church, since most of the molestation allegations are homosexual in nature.

And yes, I know that molestation is about power and dominance more than gender preference.

[Koatanga]

Paul also said:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

So that's also valid, at least in a dogmatic sense.

[katraya]

Paul also said:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

So that's also valid, at least in a dogmatic sense.

I freaking hate Paul.

[Skye1013]

A lot of people bring up the Leviticus quote, but honestly - didn't Jesus himself say that he was the breaking of the old covenant and the forging of a new one? I'm a bit rusty on my Bible-ese, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned something along those lines. Which in turn would mean that Leviticus hasn't applied since Jesus came on the scene.

That's basically what #8 is calling out in the above pic that I posted. The flow chart also calls it out (the second "why" from the left.)

[Fivelives]

It seems to me that #8 is more calling out hypocrisy and saying "well if you break these rules, then why can't you break THIS one?" more than the old testament/new testament thing.

[Koatanga]

Jesus pretty much crushed Leviticus, and didn't have much to say about homosexuality. I think pretty much every new testament reference to homosexuality is through Paul, who had quite a few ideas that aren't doctrine today.

Like with Leviticus, it comes down to people picking and choosing which things they are going to follow.

However...

"It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you."

[Skye1013]

For those who haven't already read about this on FB or Twitter (or however else you get your news ):

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/firs ... raid060812

[Nikachelle]

They're incredibly brave to do that. It makes me smile that they had the courage but it also makes me sad that this is still a problem in certain countries (even in supposedly well developed ones!).

[Shoju]

Jesus pretty much crushed Leviticus, and didn't have much to say about homosexuality. I think pretty much every new testament reference to homosexuality is through Paul, who had quite a few ideas that aren't doctrine today.

Like with Leviticus, it comes down to people picking and choosing which things they are going to follow.

However...

"It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you."

I have stayed away from this thread for a long time, but I just wanted to pop in and say two things.

1.) That quote from Firefly is amazing I love it. When he said that, it really connected with my disjointed belief system.

2.) Even Paul crushed Leviticus, stating the "Curse of the Law" in the new testament. (I thought it was in Hebrews that he expounded upon it, but my google fu is failing at finding that, but I'm finding the other part, in Galations. Basically, if you were still living under the old Law, and not under the Law of Christ, you were cursed.

We also need to remember that a lot of these things that Paul wrote need to be given historical context, as well as cultural context. Times and customs were a lot different 2000 years ago, and the laws of the land have changed with it. Some of Paul's writings have been "theorized" to also include teachings about the more civilized laws of the time, in writing to places that were not only in his eyes "godless", or on the cusp of "new christian movement", but also on the fringes of society, where laws, and culture were different. Some theorize that his writings were also with intent to bring these areas "ahead" in terms of Laws, customs, and culture, as well as "ahead" in terms of faith, love, and closeness to God.

Some of what I have just written here, isn't "popular" theology, because theologists claim that it makes it sound as though Paul was trying to "secularize" regions, and that Paul was avidly against that, which in some case is true. In other cases, it is claimed that he felt the culture needed to be improved, and "brought out of the dark" so to speak.

I personally think that he was not just trying to bring people to god, but that he was trying to give them culture, and faith at the same time. I'm not saying that women being subservient is right, I'm saying that it was a part of the prevailing culture at the time. Things change with the times, and I think that a lot of what was written, and then included in the bible needs a good bit of historical context along with it. Something that you don't get in a normal bible. You would need an expanded bible that contains this information (I've never seen a whole bible done this way, but I own a few books like this for specific books of the bible) to readily understand all of the information.

[Klaudandus]

[Skye1013]

The fight for gay marriage is, in reality, a fight for all of our rights. Without it, we will turn back the sexual revolution and return to an earlier, puritanical time. Today, in every instance of sexual rights falling under attack, you’ll find legislation forced into place by people who practice discrimination disguised as religious freedom. Their goal is to dehumanize everyone’s sexuality and reduce us to using sex for the sole purpose of perpetuating our species. To that end, they will criminalize your entire sex life...This is a religious nation, but it is also a secular one. … No one should have to subjugate their religious freedom, and no one should have their personal freedoms infringed. This is America and we must protect the rights of all Americans.

[Shoju]

@Klaud.

The picture had me, and then I realized they don't even know how to spell bigots.

The internet, lacking proof reading skills since 1993.

[Fridmarr]

@Klaud.

The picture had me, and then I realized they don't even know how to spell bigots.

The internet, lacking proof reading skills since 1993.

Well I don't know, it's a bit hypocritical and doing some framing of its own. Are the phrases "under God" and "in God we trust", which don't endorse any specific religion, really what people typically consider as extreme?

I will say though, the whole framing of the other side is very problematic. It's standard operating procedure for ALL of the major media outlets though. I've gotten so frustrated with them, I try to avoid as much as possible.

[Klaudandus]

And this is why I want churches taxed if they keep trying to intervene on how the government works
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepoliti ... rendum-74/

[Shoju]

@Klaud.

The picture had me, and then I realized they don't even know how to spell bigots.

The internet, lacking proof reading skills since 1993.

Well I don't know, it's a bit hypocritical and doing some framing of its own. Are the phrases "under God" and "in God we trust", which don't endorse any specific religion, really what people typically consider as extreme?

I will say though, the whole framing of the other side is very problematic. It's standard operating procedure for ALL of the major media outlets though. I've gotten so frustrated with them, I try to avoid as much as possible.

Actually, the use of the word God, when given a captial "G" to and used as a proper noun, is typically only used to reference the Judeo-Christian God, of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim faiths, and it's a little sketchy on Islam, since they normally reference him as "Allah", even though Allah and God are translations of the same word.

That leaves out some pretty "popular" religions throughout society.

{From here on, there will be some of my opinion interjected}

I think this "chart" tries to frame it with good intentions. The "Religious Right" (At least in this neck of the woods) takes the stance that this country was founded by Christians, for Christians, and that things like "Under God", and "In God We Trust" were platforms upon which the country was founded. I think the problem with this picture (besides the blatant and terrible spelling) is that it labels "Extremes" to try and push the point (like you said).

There is a general feeling by "liberals" in my neck of the woods that the Religious Conservatives do look at it as though we are trying to push the "anti-extreme" to their opinion, and this does do a good job of pointing out that we really aren't pushing the "anti-extreme".

I'm willing to agree that it is a little propoganda-ish (the picture), but I think that it has a "decent idea" that gets lost, in bad fonts, bad spelling, and poorly constructed sentences.

[Aubade]

http://www.back2stonewall.com/2012/08/a ... -boys.html

And not a single gay activist was suprised.

[Shoju]

Because I am shocked, does that mean I'm not a Gay Activist? Or does it mean that I don't buy in to the stereotype.....

[Aubade]

Means you don't buy into the stereotype. I was expecting it lol.

[Levantine]

Is it bad that I looked at the mug shot picture and thought "How are people surprised? Look at that dude." I may have a problem judging people on how creepy they look.

[Brekkie]

@Klaud.

The picture had me, and then I realized they don't even know how to spell bigots.

The internet, lacking proof reading skills since 1993.

Well I don't know, it's a bit hypocritical and doing some framing of its own. Are the phrases "under God" and "in God we trust", which don't endorse any specific religion, really what people typically consider as extreme?

I will say though, the whole framing of the other side is very problematic. It's standard operating procedure for ALL of the major media outlets though. I've gotten so frustrated with them, I try to avoid as much as possible.

It also specifically endorses Monotheism, which almost half the world's population doesn't subscribe to.
And those things were artificially inserted very recently, less than a single lifespan ago. The whole "this is a Christian nation" thing has no basis in history, it is purely revisionism as a backlash against rising secularism.

So yes, I do consider those things rather extreme. Not that they are really a big deal by themselves, but they are indicators of extremist sentiment.
Living in fundamentalist Muslim countries really opened my eyes about America. We act so horrified by Islamic extremism, but yet we do some of the exact same things and hold some of the exact same attitudes. Yet that is somehow OK because it's the "right" religion. Screw that.

[Sagara]

Living in fundamentalist Muslim countries really opened my eyes about America. We act so horrified by Islamic extremism, but yet we do some of the exact same things and hold some of the exact same attitudes. Yet that is somehow OK because it's the "right" religion. Screw that.

This is completely off-topic, but I'd love to hear more about that. It's so hard to imagine how life could be there - how mind-blowing would it be to realise how similar it would be?

[Brekkie]

I'll sit down and right you a PM later tonight.