Religon and Homosexuality

Nebbie · Post by **Nebbie** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:47 am

I second that!!

metalhead24 · Post by **metalhead24** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:50 pm

Well said!

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:39 pm

You know, I always think of titling all my posts "Religion and Homosexuality" just so everyone will read them. It'd be a nice way to get some good recipes.

That last sentence in no way implies that I am gay.

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:13 am

Best First wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Sounds sensible- I've never understood why some people (mainly men) feel threatened by homosexuals.
i feel threatened by homosexuals. They dress better than me.

class!

Armorwind · Post by **Armorwind** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:54 am

Pretender, I really feel that you are oversimplifying things. Also, it seems that you are committing the same generalizations against people that dislike homosexuality that many homosexuals are against. It's not just "Bible-thumping" Christian literalists that have opinions against homosexuality.

There are some moderate views out there that accept a compromise from both sides. The institution of civil unions is a perfect example (in fact it is the example). Our government (US) has come to use the term "marriage" in a very secular manner. Many religions define marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. The problem clearly lies here for the majority of people. Although there are some people that would like to have their ceremonies in churches, I'm sure that the majority of homosexuals are fighting for their shared rights. If the term civil union was used, hence making the institution a lot more secular, then the majority of people and religious leaders would be happy, especially now that the Church can make its own decision as well. As a Catholic, I see this as the best option for both sides. Each side maintains its freedom and its rights without interfering with the other.

Post by **Best First** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:26 am

Armorwind wrote:Many religions define marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

and how is that anyone else's problem? What you are advocating is forcing your faith on the rest of society.

There is nothing to stop YOU from defining marriage thusly, but equally there is nothing to stop others from defining it differently and acting accordingly.

Still, its just a crappy smokescreen for bigortry anyway, eh?

Armorwind · Post by **Armorwind** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:43 pm

But, if we allow the term "marriage" to be used, then other people are then forcing their views on the Church. So, what you are advocating is hypocrisy. Instead, there should be a compromise which allows both sides to maintain the freedom of choice by using the secular term "civil union." Afterall, if most homosexual couples simply want their rights, why can't we then satisfy both sides? It really can't be all or nothing for either side.

Pretender Bumblebee · Post by **Pretender Bumblebee** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:08 pm

Armorwind wrote:But, if we allow the term "marriage" to be used, then other people are then forcing their views on the Church. So, what you are advocating is hypocrisy. Instead, there should be a compromise which allows both sides to maintain the freedom of choice by using the secular term "civil union." Afterall, if most homosexual couples simply want their rights, why can't we then satisfy both sides? It really can't be all or nothing for either side.

What will happen exactly if "WE" (don't know who this we is as I don't take sides in this) use marriage for all people rather then just go church going types? What exactly will happen? Will the world come to an end? Will God come down and flood our country? what exactly will happen? Why is this such a problem. Like was already said.. this is nothing more then people control. Making sure that the good chruch going people are on the right side and those that they don't agree with aren't associated with. You don't want any mistakes when looked down at by God and that is all this comes down to. Other countries allow rights to gay people and they have a lower crime rate and murder rate then the US which is supposed to be so holy and religous all of the sudden.

It's very sad that homosexuals have taken the place of racism now in our country. For a country that claims they are so religous they have a lot to learn about being open and carring to other people who are good people and deserve to be treated as such. They shouldn't have to settle for scraps. Two people love each other, whatever sex they happen to be , they should be allowed to be married. I don't think its all about sharing the same privlages that married couples do. I think its just them wanting to feel like they are equals and have the same posibilities that others in the US do. Afterall isn't that the American way.. freedom, rights and opportuinies for all people? I didn't know that only refered to those who can recite versus from the bible and believe fully in Jesus. Thats the real hypocracy here. Preach a lot of things but it is only addressed to those who follow what those who are preaching believe.

Sorry its time the US take a page out of another countries books on how to do things as we now live in a country divided and the fact that people can find versus that continue to support the anti gay views is just adding more to a wound that never had to be opened in the place. You have been hoodwinked. There shouldn't be compromises. Why should non-christians or good folks have to be told what they have to do when they don't even believe in Jesus. Folks can live their Jesus enlightend lives all they want. Stop forcing it on others that don't follow that same path. Why is that so complicated for some to understand?

No compromises in the name of Jesus. Only open mindedness and equality I say.

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:15 pm

But I would suggest that marriage is not purely a Christian/Religious term- in the first instance because many cultures (including the various pagan sects) practice marriage, and call it as such, and in the second instance because marriage has numerous politico-legal states which imo outweigh it's religious significance to those who are interested.

Creating a separate form of marriage in my view has two problems- it opens itself up to the charge of creating a 'lesser' marriage to appease people whom in the end many don't want to appease (and imo Homosexuals want equality, not gestures which only serve to highlight how divided people really are) and it poses the question of why does religion, which is an opinion, have so much power and argument in how all people live their lives including those who have no luxury of aspects of their lives being opinion in terms of being able to dictate what legal and social rights a couple may have, or indeed who can be a couple.

In the end I suppose I'm asking- why are we safeguarding as an institution which I think condemns and divides people based on "God says so" which, given no direct evidence of God or his wishes, equates to "We said so", with precious little care for those whom it might be harming. Personal opinion is an entirely different issue, but I can't quite justify in my mind protecting such a large, social machine as organised religion- I find it incredibly ironic that a group which has such extreme wings as to promote damnation and hatred to many many groups in society has to go running to the state for aid whenever its power comes into question, in this case the power to continue discrimination based upon sexual orientation (another entry on a long list of things which various churches have advocated discrimination for).

Post by **Best First** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:06 pm

Armorwind wrote:But, if we allow the term "marriage" to be used, then other people are then forcing their views on the Church. So, what you are advocating is hypocrisy.

no it isn't, pay attention and see if you can follow the logic - christian bigots would remain free to define marriage as they wish within their own circles while others would remain free to define marriage as they will within theirs.

Lots of words and concepts have different meanings for different people in and across different cultures - there is no logical reason why homophobic hate mongers should have the right to take a concept (that clearly pre-exists the religion they claim to subscribe to) and define it solely according to their own hateful beliefs.

Still - i respect the oh so clever attempt to dress up bigotry as something else. well done.

Armorwind · Post by **Armorwind** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:04 pm

What exactly will happen? Will the world come to an end? Will God come down and flood our country? what exactly will happen? Why is this such a problem.

Honestly, I'd like to have this whole "civil union" resolution so that there can be as little confrontation as possible. There are people who are very sensitive about this on both sides, so a fair compromise would really prevent any big conflicts. If you're an advocate of the separation of Church and State, then you'd probably want to accept this. The term "civil union" would be secular, meaning this would be the legal term for "marriage." Anybody could have a civil union by law. But, it would then be each church's decision on who can get married within the institution. Both sides maintain what they want, and so everybody this should be a fair resolution. I really don't think this is just "settling for scraps." Afterall, both sides gain what they want.

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

The Church isn't against homosexuals in general, but it is intercourse between them that is against the teaching. It's basically hate the sin and not the sinner. Just a little clarification there.

(and imo Homosexuals want equality, not gestures which only serve to highlight how divided people really are)

Actually, a lot of homosexuals that I've seen in this type of debate at Seibertron are for civil unions. You could probably stop by there and look under the Philosophy forum for more info. on that.

Civil unions will not have any form of discrimination (well in a legal sense). All types of couples will receive these through the government, making this strictly a secular institution. It would then be up to each Church whether to accept a couple into "marriage" as defined by the Church.

In my short time here, I've seen a lot of generalizations about Catholicism/Christianity (and afterall, "all generalization are false"

). Although there will be some extreme conservatives in the Church, the fact is the statements of "homophobic hatemongers" and "Christian bigots" (just using examples from Best First here) in substitution for "Christian" are extremely out of term.

Best First, I understand what you're saying about the different definition circles. Thanks for pointing that out.

Still - i respect the oh so clever attempt to dress up bigotry as something else. well done.

You're acting as if every Christian/Jewish/Islamic person is homophobic and has an intolerance and prejudice against homosexuality. This just isn't true. Once again, I'll restate how you are generalizing everybody. Anyways, the institution of civil unions is not an act of bigotry. Clearly, Christain/Jewish/Islamic/other are accepting homosexual rights. There'll be some form of prejudic, sure, but many people are accepting all sexual orientations.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:35 pm

Besters, I believe that you should take the time to consider where all of these so-called "bigots" are coming from. They seem to legitimately follow their religion and it's that religion that commands them to find homosexuality an abomination. It's a tricky subject when thousands of years of biblical "we-said-so" are incorporated into people's core beliefs. None of the people I've seen in this thread have advocated preventing civil-unions for homosexual couples and certainly none of them have suggested violence against same-sex couples. They simply have a problem with calling it marriage. While you and I personally disagree with their beliefs, I wouldn't immediately label them as bigots.

I see the items in the bible that prescribe exclusion of certain people and advocate violence towards them in a similar light to the ever-popular additions to government laws. The "homosexuality is an abomination" line in a book prescribing peace and tolerance is similar to adding huge tax-breaks for the rich on a bill intented to help raise money for the poor. What's supposed to be a work that helps everybody is tainted by a small number of people who want to add something to it for their own gain.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:07 pm

Actually, a lot of homosexuals that I've seen in this type of debate at Seibertron are for civil unions. You could probably stop by there and look under the Philosophy forum for more info. on that.

Unfortunately I don't see how it is not a gesture highlighting discrimination because some gay guys think otherwise. I've used the example before and I'll use it again: go to South Africa and you'll find some black guys there who will want to bring Apartheid back. That, obviously, doesn't make it all tickety-boo. Having a concurrance of opinion regarding a minority from a section of said minority does not make your opinion conceptually any less unfair in the eyes of others.

People believe in X,Y and Z. Great. Why is it that these beliefs, no matter what sections of society (in this case homosexuals) they might discriminate against must be protected? imo laws should apply to everyone equally, including marriage laws.

Why not go and read some of our previous threads on this subject? I have discussed at great length with others everything you're highlighting- including what I consider to be the rather hollow generosities of "we'll let you into heaven if you don't actually touch any other guys" and "we don't hate you just the sin".

This thread includes pretty much all angles from all sides, I believe (although it starts on a different theme).

Not to sound lazy but a lot of the concepts take much explaining and I don't really fancy doing it directly atm, so I'll just point you to it instead.

ProfS- I think what Besty is aiming at is that saying "I'm not a biggot, my God is." {to quote Master Denyer} doesn't make a lot of logical sense in many people's eyes, including mine.

I would say people believe these things because they choose to, including the aspects regarding homosexuality.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:25 pm

Siebertrons posters... well if they say...

essentially if i were to follow a religon, i wouldnt follow one that condems homosexuality.
Because its ******* dumb. - seriously. its just ******* dumb.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:21 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Siebertrons posters... well if they say...

essentially if i were to follow a religon, i wouldnt follow one that condems homosexuality.
Because its ******* dumb. - seriously. its just ******* dumb.

You've picked one of the flaws of the religion and used it to demerit all the positive aspects of it. Personally, I find that line of thinking dangerously close to the arguements for the other side.

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:04 am

Let me try and get this straight (no pun intended) in my head-God considers homosexuals to be an abomination. God created man. Karl is a man. Karl rocks. God is a closet homosexual?

Seriously people, as Burt Bacharach said-"What the world needs now, is love, sweet love-it's the only thing there's just too little of".

Merrilly chrimbo.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:24 am

Professor Smooth wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Siebertrons posters... well if they say...

essentially if i were to follow a religon, i wouldnt follow one that condems homosexuality.
Because its ******* dumb. - seriously. its just ******* dumb.
You've picked one of the flaws of the religion and used it to demerit all the positive aspects of it. Personally, I find that line of thinking dangerously close to the arguements for the other side.

imo the flaws in it do demerit its positive aspects, the difference I would say is that my definition of flaw in this circumstance I think is somewhat more rational than 'God said so'. Nor have I condemned anyone to hell for thinking it. I haven't called them sinners or said that thinking it is an abomination. If I've implied that then I'm very sorry.

I did observe and highlight what I think are irrational ideas given the state of the world as we know it, primarily the question which I've not had answered to my satisfaction of "Why do you choose to think that I am a sinner?" Although whether an answer which is ever likely to satisfy me actually exists is another argument.

I think all I've done is question why they think these things given the state of the world and the impacts on those whom their thoughts affect and tried to find some rational reasoning.

And indeed I do rock. And roll. All day long. Sometimes all night too.

Post by **Best First** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:25 pm

Armorwind wrote:If you're an advocate of the separation of Church and State, then you'd probably want to accept this. The term "civil union" would be secular, meaning this would be the legal term for "marriage."[/qoute]

Marriage is already a secular term. What you are advocating remains letting one group define a word that has meanings for everybody. Its a corruption of democracy.

Still - i respect the oh so clever attempt to dress up bigotry as something else. well done.
You're acting as if every Christian/Jewish/Islamic person is homophobic and has an intolerance and prejudice against homosexuality. This just isn't true. Once again, I'll restate how you are generalizing everybody.
no - i'm just generalizing the tossers who use their 'faith' to peach hatred and intolerance. At no point do i state that this is true of all Christains or any other denomination. I know Christains who don't give a rats ass about homosexulaity - and well doen to them for having the facalties to realise that hatred and prejudice are just plain wrong no matter what their origins. Nice attempt to put words in my mouth tho.

Anyways, the institution of civil unions is not an act of bigotry.

no - and i'm sure having seperate wash rooms for black people wasn't an act of bigotry either... mmm, i think thats what we call a parallel.

And the negative aspects of any line of philosophy are always going to act to the detriment of the positive aspects. Instead of using the positive aspects to defend the negative ones the aim should be to remove the negative ones. I would have though that was ****ing obvious.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:52 pm

Best First wrote: Instead of using the positive aspects to defend the negative ones the aim should be to remove the negative ones. I would have though that was ****ing obvious.

Sadly, BF, when thousands of years of religous belief are brought it the table what is ******* obvious ceases to be an issue. I agree that it would probably be benefitial to simply remove the negative aspects, but that's a problem in and of itself. Who gets to decide what the negative aspects are? Even if it was to be put to a vote (which it won't), who would be eligable to vote? All people or all people who follow the religion? It seems to me that religions are, essentially, just clubs with massive number of official and unofficial members. If they want to decide the rules for their club, then I say let them.

However...

They do not want to decide the rules for their club and its members, they want to decide the rules for everyone in the country. Which I am as against as is humanly possible. I'm not a catholic, christian, jew, muslim, or any other faith that reqests that I live according to their moral template. I have my own moral values that I've worked out and am fairly pleased with. I'm sure many others have done the same.

Bottomline:

If the church wants to ban homosexuals from getting married in their churches, then I have zero problem with that. But when government law (law that is applicable to everyone no matter their faith) is made based on the rules of a religious group, then I have a huge problem with it.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 7:00 pm

thier Churchs?

i thought a church was just a gathering off ppl? - the building being a place to meet?

Does it matter if two gay ppl get married in building that looks a bit different to another, its brick and mortar in the end....

Considering the bible has been re-written so many times to meet current trends then perhaps they should just re-write it again to meet current views.
and stop being so stuck in the past.
Female Vicars? whatever next!!!

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 7:07 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Does it matter if two gay ppl get married in building that looks a bit different to another, its brick and mortar in the end....

It matters to them. Some would feel their eternal everlasting soul would be in danger for allowing such a thing. Powerful motivator, that.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 7:11 pm

I just dont understand that tho - its thing made of bits of stone and stuff. it just doesnt matter. to think otherwise is just ilogical - ah yes logic and religon.

end of the day, they have changed the bible so many times it doesnt matter. just a few years ago we couldnt have female Vicars - now we have Female Vicars and even Gay vicars openly practising. so adding gay marriage inst gonna make much difference.

If you can be preached the Lords words by a Gay Vicar then why not let them get married?

end of the day it will change within the next few years. so its all moot really. they change the bible to fit the time, or interpret it to suit ones needs.

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:27 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I just dont understand that tho - its thing made of bits of stone and stuff. it just doesnt matter. to think otherwise is just ilogical - ah yes logic and religon.

end of the day, they have changed the bible so many times it doesnt matter. just a few years ago we couldnt have female Vicars - now we have Female Vicars and even Gay vicars openly practising. so adding gay marriage inst gonna make much difference.

If you can be preached the Lords words by a Gay Vicar then why not let them get married?

end of the day it will change within the next few years. so its all moot really. they change the bible to fit the time, or interpret it to suit ones needs.

Well thing is, religion changes, but some stuff MUST BE set in stone, otherwise it would be too chaotic and it would lose many followers.

I just don't understand these Bible-citings. Many non-believers think we religious people consult the Bible even before we go to pee. That's not so. Only 'Vitnesses of Jehovah' take the Bible seriously by letter, and frankly, who takes them seriously?

If a person is gay, that's fine by me. His/her life, live it as he/she likes. But if that person is a member of a religion, then live by the rules. Its similar to the military - you have to accept some things, or you quit. Thats so simple.

Like say, I would like to become an orthodox jew rabbi - but I can't, unless I prove I'm jewish descendant and get my self circumcised.. (ugh.

) Either I accept it, or I quit. Similary, if a gay person wants to be catholic, try living a straight life, or quit. There are literally thousands of religions out there... many of which accept diferring sexual tendencies.

Besides, the old religions (catholic, protestant) are losing followers every year already. Way I see, all this is a further attack to further weaken them, and the attackers are simply using these gay people.

Let me tell you a story that happened recently in Hungary. A lutheran vicar-student professed that he's gay, and was forced out of the vicarate before graduating. He had (obviusly) good connections 'cause he sued the universtity with the help of the Ministry of Equal rights, but ultimately lost. Why? Cause when he applied there, he knew that the Lutherans don't allow gay vicars (at least here in our country, they don't). So he knew the rules, he accepted it with his signature - case closed.

There are certain prequisites to belonging to a group, religious or otherwise. If you don't want to fullfill them, fine, find another.

I know, that's hardly fair. But so is life. It's cold, drastic, and unfair, and Alternator Tracks is yellow. Deal with it.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:58 pm

Unfortunately religion is not a self-contained club with no affects or influences on its externalities. What religion decides invariably manifests its way through society and affects societies rules.

The laws of the country have to come first, imo, and individual/group belief can then do whatever within that. i.e. If a religion contains ritual forced sacrifice of its members, is that alright too if the members know what they are signing up for? I can think of arguments both ways.

Unfortunately human beings can't be trusted to just 'not accept homosexuals and leave it at that'. Their intolerance has direct affects on society and causes pain. That apples to all religion.

I'm curious also to know how you address what happens to young men and women who discover their true orientation only during puberty and have been brought up in strongly religious houses? It often isn't pretty.

Similar arguments apply when you have entire communities within a society made up of die-hard religious believers. Are they to be allowed one law whilst the rest of the nation enjoys another?

AFAICS religion is not a self-contained belief, it can and does affect society at large.

I'm also interested in the fundamental motive for destroying established churches you're alluding to. My motives are that I would like to contest and question people who, having never met me or know anything about me, believe they can condemn me [to an eternity of damnation] for something that they have decided is wrong on a purely arbitrary basis.

I'd finally suggest that the reason for declining church attendance numbers are quite simply to religious faith being optional in the modern Western world. We don't need it to explain life, death and most everything in between. Similarly the churches' powers have declined massively over the last 100 years, although their current influence is still a significant factor: particularly amongst muslims in Britain.

Many have become aware that laws and morals need to be founded on something more than just say-so, and that allowing people to be different actually surrounds you with a diverse, fun and strengthening group of associates.

Though then of course you have the usual bunch of ne'er-do-wells (who all read a certain newspaper in the UK...) who hear that sort of thing and scream "POLITCAL CORRECTNESS!!!" like nazgul, as if it's some sort of hard-hitting condemnation of a dreadful crime, probably molesting children

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:31 am

Karl Lynch wrote:Unfortunately religion is not a self-contained club with no affects or influences on its externalities. What religion decides invariably manifests its way through society and affects societies rules.

That's true. However, we catholics don't "teach" our young to hate homosexuals or abhor them. The worst thing that can happen is that a catholic tries to talk a gay off his 'way of error' - no harm in that, yes? Of course I cannot comment on how the jewish or muslim view homosexuality.

The laws of the country have to come first, imo, and individual/group belief can then do whatever within that. i.e. If a religion contains ritual forced sacrifice of its members, is that alright too if the members know what they are signing up for? I can think of arguments both ways.

Ahh, now you exaggerate. Surely, a religion can only be allowed to function in the boundaries of a state if it doesn't contradict the major, IMPORTANT national laws. That's why satanism isn't allowed anywhere, you know...

However, minor things like dressing or nourishment styles should be accepted.

Unfortunately human beings can't be trusted to just 'not accept homosexuals and leave it at that'. Their intolerance has direct affects on society and causes pain. That applies to all religion.

Sure thing, but you don't have to be religious and still not accept gay people. I know many who are atheists and yet they think homosexuality is
'bad'. In fact, they are the majority of the anti-homos.
And what would you propose as a solution? Hammering it into the kids heads in school that gays are normal people? (as they do it in some places?) That would be no better then teaching the kids to hate them. Face it, there are no methods for solving this problem that would be ethical or right. Only time can do it, slowly.

I'm curious also to know how you address what happens to young men and women who discover their true orientation only during puberty and have been brought up in strongly religious houses? It often isn't pretty.

I haven't seen any of this, but I know what you mean. Still, 500 years ago almost everyone in Europe was raised in a strict religious atmosphere, and yet people didn't forget how to have sex.

Instincts are stronger then beliefs, no matter what the church says. I'm a catholic, but I'm also a biologist, and I observed it often how we are sometimes ruled purely by our instincts.

Similar arguments apply when you have entire communities within a society made up of die-hard religious believers. Are they to be allowed one law whilst the rest of the nation enjoys another?

Well, what about the Amish? Or the Witnesses of jehovah? The latter for example don'T allow blood transfusion on them since a small, well-hidden paragraph in the Bible says something similar. Even if the transfusion would save their lives... Now the doctors could force their will on them, and then later get sued... So they let them die after they sign their will that they don't want any help. In our 'brave new' world, where everyone has a right to be stupid, that's normal.

I agree with you that this is not a perfect solution. But if people have the rights to do this, or to commit euthanasia, then why are others trying to kick into the already diminishing rights of the great religions?

AFAICS religion is not a self-contained belief, it can and does affect society at large.

What does AFAICS mean, sorry? I'm not born english...

However, that's no longer the case - except in countries which have a state religion, and there are less and less by year. Europe, above all, is turning into a really atheist part of the world. And how does a vaning religion affect society significantly? Political parties affect it more... and no-one tries to lower THEIR influence, funnily.

I'm also interested in the fundamental motive for destroying established churches you're alluding to. My motives are that I would like to contest and question people who, having never met me or know anything about me, believe they can condemn me [to an eternity of damnation] for something that they have decided is wrong on a purely arbitrary basis.

Well, I'm gonna burn in hell if the Muslims are right and only they will go to Heaven... I don't see your point. Many religions condemn people for their sins (the Calvinists even go as far as to say we are predestinied to either be damned or saved) but most of the atheists don't even think about this.

Also, I was only saying that many behind-the-scenes powers would like to completly remove the established churches as political powers. These are mostly political parties or buisness enterprises. Our (ex-communist/now billionaire) Prime Minister even went as far as to tell the Pope to keep the Hungarian catholic church out of politics.

AS if that would matter. If someone truly believes in a religion, he/she will not vote on a party that has ethics totally opposing the religions moral codes.

I'd finally suggest that the reason for declining church attendance numbers are quite simply to religious faith being optional in the modern Western world. We don't need it to explain life, death and most everything in between. Similarly the churches' powers have declined massively over the last 100 years, although their current influence is still a significant factor: particularly amongst muslims in Britain.

True, but see above. Of course you in the West don't have to deal with (ex)communists who would like religion to completely vanish without a trace (and of course be replaced by something THEY control). Trust me, many, many people have been taught to see religion as something greedy and evil during those 40 years of communist opression.

Many have become aware that laws and morals need to be founded on something more than just say-so, and that allowing people to be different actually surrounds you with a diverse, fun and strengthening group of associates.

If you read the 10 testaments, you can see they are freakin' logical for usage in a normal society. In fact, they are also ethologically a successfull lifecourse-startegy (you propably heard about these theories)

Otherwise, on a personal level, I prefer order of the law to the chaos--- just think why I choose Shockwave as my alias. So that's how I prefer life, of course I understand if others like the freedom of chaos more.

Though then of course you have the usual bunch of ne'er-do-wells (who all read a certain newspaper in the UK...) who hear that sort of thing and scream "POLITCAL CORRECTNESS!!!" like nazgul, as if it's some sort of hard-hitting condemnation of a dreadful crime, probably molesting children

Funny, here in Hungary the liberals use political correctness to promote the rights of lesbians, gypsies (oh sorry, now we have to call them 'romas') and drug addicts. As with many things, PC is a two-edged blade, and ultimatly just a tool for a powerfull group to achive its goals, not that they would ever care for the people they use in their campaign.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:40 am

BB Shockwave wrote:The worst thing that can happen is that a catholic tries to talk a gay off his 'way of error' - no harm in that, yes?

That depends. Do you really think that could work? What are the chances that you'd be convinced to become gay if it was the other way round?

BB Shockwave wrote: And what would you propose as a solution? Hammering it into the kids heads in school that gays are normal people? (as they do it in some places?) That would be no better then teaching the kids to hate them.

Um, what exactly is a normal person? I'm not exactly normal. What makes someone normal? Skin colour? Religious belief? Or is it just sexuality to you?

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:43 pm

I think perfectly misunderstood what I said.

So...

1- I didn't said it would work, I said that it's what can happen, and nothing worse (IE: beating someone because he's gay).

2. Under normal, I meant 'average', 'like everyone else','nothing out of the ordinary' etc. And that's how the general public views things, not I.

Sorry if I can't explain terms better, as said, I'm not born english and sometimes don't know what's the correct phrase to use.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:20 pm

BB Shockwave wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Unfortunately religion is not a self-contained club with no affects or influences on its externalities. What religion decides invariably manifests its way through society and affects societies rules.
That's true. However, we catholics don't "teach" our young to hate homosexuals or abhor them. The worst thing that can happen is that a catholic tries to talk a gay off his 'way of error' - no harm in that, yes? Of course I cannot comment on how the jewish or muslim view homosexuality.

I disagree- there is a fundamental harm in that. I've been brought up to the "No, you're wrong- you should be straight" line of thinking and it is quite simply damaging.

The laws of the country have to come first, imo, and individual/group belief can then do whatever within that. i.e. If a religion contains ritual forced sacrifice of its members, is that alright too if the members know what they are signing up for? I can think of arguments both ways.
Ahh, now you exaggerate. Surely, a religion can only be allowed to function in the boundaries of a state if it doesn't contradict the major, IMPORTANT national laws. That's why satanism isn't allowed anywhere, you know... However, minor things like dressing or nourishment styles should be accepted.

Not when they are inflicted on people who do not want them yet cannot escape them- I don't believe Muslim women should be forced to cover their bodies head to foot in clothes, I think that is merely sexism wrapped up under the banner of 'its our belief'. That justifies nothing imo.

I'm also hurt that you don't think psychological harm against homosexuals is important.

The fact what I said was an exaggeration is an irrelevancy, the point is that your standpoint makes no allowance for its possibility.

Unfortunately human beings can't be trusted to just 'not accept homosexuals and leave it at that'. Their intolerance has direct affects on society and causes pain. That applies to all religion.
Sure thing, but you don't have to be religious and still not accept gay people. I know many who are atheists and yet they think homosexuality is
'bad'. In fact, they are the majority of the anti-homos.
And what would you propose as a solution? Hammering it into the kids heads in school that gays are normal people? (as they do it in some places?) That would be no better then teaching the kids to hate them. Face it, there are no methods for solving this problem that would be ethical or right. Only time can do it, slowly.

Show me where the majority of homophobes are atheist.

More to the point show me where the majority of atheists are homophobic and a minority of the religious are homophobic.

As to your assertion of "We shouldn't teach people that being gay is NORMAL!" I can offer no rebuke to that. From my perspective your fundamental attitude to life needs altering if that is your honest opinion on the issue.

I'm curious also to know how you address what happens to young men and women who discover their true orientation only during puberty and have been brought up in strongly religious houses? It often isn't pretty.
I haven't seen any of this, but I know what you mean. Still, 500 years ago almost everyone in Europe was raised in a strict religious atmosphere, and yet people didn't forget how to have sex. Instincts are stronger then beliefs, no matter what the church says. I'm a catholic, but I'm also a biologist, and I observed it often how we are sometimes ruled purely by our instincts.

I can't see any relevance to what I asked. That answers nothing.

Similar arguments apply when you have entire communities within a society made up of die-hard religious believers. Are they to be allowed one law whilst the rest of the nation enjoys another?
Well, what about the Amish? Or the Witnesses of jehovah? The latter for example don'T allow blood transfusion on them since a small, well-hidden paragraph in the Bible says something similar. Even if the transfusion would save their lives... Now the doctors could force their will on them, and then later get sued... So they let them die after they sign their will that they don't want any help. In our 'brave new' world, where everyone has a right to be stupid, that's normal.
I agree with you that this is not a perfect solution. But if people have the rights to do this, or to commit euthanasia, then why are others trying to kick into the already diminishing rights of the great religions?

You have a right to be homophobic? That is rather flawed logic imo. You have a right to your opinions, you do not have a right to have it written into law that your views are a. worth more than mine or b. that your views should be the basis of government or have such profound influence on society.

Similarly Jehovah's Witnesses can preach what they wish about their own bodies- they are not telling me I am a sinner because I would accept a transfusion. That is one person's decision about their own body. Great.

You're hardly in a position to call it stupid, or leastways if you are then I am in an equally strong position to make the same accusation at you for insinuitating I am some sort of bizarre freak for being gay.

AFAICS religion is not a self-contained belief, it can and does affect society at large.
What does AFAICS mean, sorry? I'm not born english...

As Far As I Can See.

However, that's no longer the case - except in countries which have a state religion, and there are less and less by year. Europe, above all, is turning into a really atheist part of the world. And how does a vaning religion affect society significantly? Political parties affect it more... and no-one tries to lower THEIR influence, funnily.

Because political parties are, in theory, electable and accountable. Unless your church is now giving us a choice of preachers with differing views and we can elect the one we feel best represents our interests you're onto rather a losing argument, I think.

Again I see no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that "Well we don't really influence anyone so let us preach against who we like!"

I'm also interested in the fundamental motive for destroying established churches you're alluding to. My motives are that I would like to contest and question people who, having never met me or know anything about me, believe they can condemn me [to an eternity of damnation] for something that they have decided is wrong on a purely arbitrary basis.
Well, I'm gonna burn in hell if the Muslims are right and only they will go to Heaven... I don't see your point. Many religions condemn people for their sins (the Calvinists even go as far as to say we are predestinied to either be damned or saved) but most of the atheists don't even think about this.

You don't see the fundamental flaw I consider to be condemning people as bad for what you have conceieved as an arbitrary failing? Or alternatively that its okay because Muslims and others do it as well?

I'd finally suggest that the reason for declining church attendance numbers are quite simply to religious faith being optional in the modern Western world. We don't need it to explain life, death and most everything in between. Similarly the churches' powers have declined massively over the last 100 years, although their current influence is still a significant factor: particularly amongst muslims in Britain.

True, but see above. Of course you in the West don't have to deal with (ex)communists who would like religion to completely vanish without a trace (and of course be replaced by something THEY control). Trust me, many, many people have been taught to see religion as something greedy and evil during those 40 years of communist opression.

I don't need to see above, I read it and understood it. I made the point that there are other more fundamental reasons for declining church numbers than unproveable conspiracy theories.

Many have become aware that laws and morals need to be founded on something more than just say-so, and that allowing people to be different actually surrounds you with a diverse, fun and strengthening group of associates.
If you read the 10 testaments, you can see they are freakin' logical for usage in a normal society. In fact, they are also ethologically a successfull lifecourse-startegy (you propably heard about these theories)

No they are a repition of:
Don't kill.
Don't sleep around when you're married.
and most importantly
Do what your leaders tell you.

Sounds more to me like an exercise in keeping your head down, not making trouble and doing whatever those in authority tell you to maintain the status quo.

[qipte]Otherwise, on a personal level, I prefer order of the law to the chaos--- just think why I choose Shockwave as my alias. So that's how I prefer life, of course I understand if others like the freedom of chaos more.

Because the absence of religious doctrine would result in chaos? I don't see how that could possibly be, and its a rather poor argument to defend bigotry.

Though then of course you have the usual bunch of ne'er-do-wells (who all read a certain newspaper in the UK...) who hear that sort of thing and scream "POLITCAL CORRECTNESS!!!" like nazgul, as if it's some sort of hard-hitting condemnation of a dreadful crime, probably molesting children
Funny, here in Hungary the liberals use political correctness to promote the rights of lesbians, gypsies (oh sorry, now we have to call them 'romas') and drug addicts. As with many things, PC is a two-edged blade, and ultimatly just a tool for a powerfull group to achive its goals, not that they would ever care for the people they use in their campaign.

We have been discussing the rights of lesbians, unless you've not been told that a lesbian woman is a homosexual. You may not consider us to have 'rights' and that somehow giving them would make PC a two edged blade but others disagree.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:14 pm

UK 2004.

The government passes a bill making it illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This applies to everyone.

Oh, except the churches. Why? Because discriminating against people who are different is what the churches do. It's time they ******* grew up and joined the rest of us in the 21st Century. Instead of making a special case for them we should apply the law fairly across everyone and send the bigots to prison, where hopefully they will get a whole new perspective on homosexuality

Armorwind · Post by **Armorwind** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:29 am

There are just too many quotations for me to respond to, so I'll go post by post

.

No response to Smooth's first post.

Karl Lynch, you do point out a flaw when you use that Apartheid example. But, there is really one problem: though the two deal with discrimination, I would not compare the Apartheid, an institution opressing almost every right of Africans, to what's going on with this same-sex marriage issue. That can really offend some people, but it can also be good rheoteric just as you used it. But, now I must ask you something: how do you know only a minority of homosexuals want civil unions? You claim that what I am advocating is supported by the minority, but really you have no proof yourself. Also, I'm too lazy to read the other thread right now

. But, as you said, it is ultimately up to each person to choose.

Impactor, you're acting no better than these "so-called bigots" that make up Christianity. Also, you're generalizing Christianity just some people generalize homosexuality. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Karl, honestly if that is in my religion then it is what I believe to think that you are a sinner. Of course, everybody in general is a sinner anyways, and there haven't been many who were without sin. The point is, if you are a good person, then according to Catholic Tradition you still are not condemned. Ultimately it's God's decision, though. But, I agree that you have done nothing wrong with bringing up a question against my faith and what I believe. It's these types of questions that help the Church define its beliefs more explicitly and helps straighten out what is right and wrong.

Best (like the name by the way), to many people marriage is how I have defined it. Really, if a vote was taken today, then what I just said wouldn't be a corruption of democracy. The people choose, and ultimately the majority wins. Since only about eleven states in the US have anything against banning same-sex marriage, it seems that the majority is against it. Also, I apologize for misunderstanding what you said. But, what you're describing relates to my response to the Apratheid example. It's an extreme, and the situations don't really line up. For instance, can homosexuals not interact with heterosexuals in society? Can they not get a job with heterosexuals more and more everyday? As you will see later in my post, same-sex couples get the exact same rights that heterosexuals do with civil unions. Also, what you believe is negative is coming from my God. As a Christian, I have to believe it, but I also choose to. I am in no way going out and persecuting every homosexual person I see. I am very acceptant of others' beliefs. This would be a completely different situation if the inverse of my two situations was true. That's why I believe we should have a compromise for both sides.

Smooth, that's what I'm basically getting at with civil unions, just a little bit of a different approach.

Impactor, the Bible hasn't been rewritten since about he mid third century. The Canon became official around 1546. We can't just change what it says, but we can interpret it differently. Also, my religion makes sense to me. If you wish, we can have another topic discussing this.

BB, I agree with what you said about the things set in stone. Some things must remain constant, though they can be flexible.

Karl, that situation you present can be tricky. As BB and Smooth explained, to be in the religion, you have to accept and abide by the rules. If you've been raised in a religious atmosphere, there is not reason you have to all of a sudden stop believing in God. If your religion excommunicates you, then you can still live a life in accordance to the earlier religion. Even if you aren't religious, you still can be a good person. As stated earlier, Catholic doctrine states that if God can be seen in the works you do, meaning you're a good and considerate person, you can be accepted into Heaven.

To your next post, I in no way advocate that you show hide your ways. You should accept yourself for who you are and you have every right to not listen to that mentality (the whole "you have to be straight" thing).

You don't see the fundamental flaw I consider to be condemning people as bad for what you have conceieved as an arbitrary failing?

This applies to all of you have generalized Christiantiy and reduced it to an issue of homosexuality, as I said above in this post.

No they are a repition of:
Don't kill.
Don't sleep around when you're married.
and most importantly
Do what your leaders tell you.

Sounds more to me like an exercise in keeping your head down, not making trouble and doing whatever those in authority tell you to maintain the status quo.

I'm not sure how much you know about Christian history, but there was a lot of martyrdom and rebellion against certain powers at certain times. The Ten Commandments only relate this obedience to God. Of course, if your religion is to follow God, you must obey Him. But, please do not misrepresent my religion in describing how it is just a big institution of conformity to anything.

Metal, as earlier pointed out, the Church is an institution that can accept and reject whomever it wants, just like any school. If you don't follow the rules, then you get expelled. A hospital won't accept me as a doctor if I don't have the qualifications. Once again, please try not to generalize any religion or Church. You're limiting your scope of the Church to the issue of homosexuality (this doesn't just apply to you, of course, but to everybody on every subject; "all generalizations are false"

).

But, I can also understand that since this is such a large topic, it can change people's opinions. This is very understandable, and if I was looking from the outside in, then I might be doing the same.

Now, on to Vermont here in the States. Here is the bill in the state that allows civil unions:

"Civil marriage under Vermont's marriage statutes consists of a union between a man and a woman."

"...many gay and lesbian Vermonters have formed lasting, committed, caring and faithful relationships with persons of their same sex. These couples live together, participate in their communities together, and some raise children and care for family members together, just as do couples who are married under Vermont law."

"The state has a strong interest in promoting stable and lasting families, including families based upon a same-sex couple."

"With this act, Vermont builds on a long tradition of respect for individual rights and responsibilities."

"Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage."

"A party to a civil union shall be included in any definition or use of the terms 'spouse,' 'family,' 'immediate family,' 'dependent,' 'next of kin,' and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law."

"A religious society, institution, organization or denomination in the state may choose whether to certify a civil union according to the rules, customs, canons and traditions of the society, institution, organization or denomination."

I would like to add that there are currently a thousand benefits that are denied to homosexual couples by the federal government, though same-sex couple share about 400 other benefits. Of course, this is being examined to see if it is constitutional (which I feel it is not). It will more than likely be revoked so that most to all of the 1400 benefits will be allowed for both types. I see this as the best compromise and solution to both sides. We have to consider the feelings of the two, not just of same-sex couples, but also of religious institutions. This would provide a smooth transition to progression and acceptance.