Homosexuality and Religion

Erm, racism and homophobia are bang out of order as opposed to 'anti-religious' (I'm not sure when I've ever been this, but whatever) which most people are these days.

I would lose my job in a heartbeat if my work knew I was racist or homophobic, put it that way. 'I don't like gays' or 'I don't like blacks' would result in instant dismissal. 'I don't like Christianity' would result in nodding heads.

Please don't tell me I'd need to explain to someone why racism is wrong...

Oh, sod it, I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. To buggery with it, I'll play Medieval 2

 

The KKK were racist and homophobic and thought it was obvious why. It doesn't mean people allowed them to say what they believe in public.

It's not a question of what people believe and disbelieve, it's a question of what's right and what's wrong.

Sure, freedom of speech is great and people should be allowed to say what the want (to a degree) on a message board, otherwise there would be no discussion. But it only goes so far. You know what I mean?

Maybe racism and homophobia is much more of a 'taboo' thing in England than it is in the US. Just put it this way, I don't know any other public boards where this kind of thing is allowed .

 

If a person shares his opinions that are considered to be intolerable or irrational, then so much worse for him.

I'm just pleased when in an argument the opposition shoots themselves in the leg by saying something they really shouldn't have.

Frowning upon homosexuals on religious basis is pretty flimsy. But I can't help but bring this up again: sexuality is almost not any more well defined than religion.

So what we've got here is an ongoing argument about something vague concerning some other aspect of human life which is even more vague.

Please, define me sexuality first. Then define me religion. Then we might have a chance of making a conversation about homosexuality and religion.

 

On that last paragraph, BTA, I'll give you the ground . It is better to face off about things and try and sort them, than let them simmer and grow underneath the surface.

 

Pedophilia vs Statutory rape. It's simpler to label them both as perverts and condemn them both. But I fear that such tolerance will increase as morality is eroded...

I believe that there was a political party in Holland that wanted age of consent reduced. We discussed that this past spring or summer here in AoDA. Also, I note that different states have different ages of consent. Wouldn't someone be lobbying for where those ages were sent? In Canada, someone tried to say that the laws prohibiting the posession of Child Pornography were unconstitutional. This was a few years ago, and was shot down, but how long before some activist judge feels he's been handcuffed on that one?

That's the kind of statement that will be challenged when someone goes to trial for having sex with a 12 year old.

This is where I lack skill. I keep trying in hopes that I will get better at it...

Exactly. We just don't like same sex relations. WE don't suggest mortal punishment for it...

These things are more defined personally for those on the inside. Then when we disagree with someone without that understanding it doesn't help that we don't know how to translate to those that understand things differently...

Basically who you choose to have sex with.

That's one I've never been asked. Basically it is a set of beliefs derived from divine works (like the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other works specific to other faiths).

Basically, sexual relations, by my religion, are to be restricted to those to whome you are legally and lawfully wedded. This means that fornication and adultery, even with a partner of the opposite sex, age of consent and who agrees to the act is just as sinful as homosexuality and statutory rape. Rape, in any form, is worse because it combines sex with aggression.

 

What does 'to have sex' mean?

So any set of belief derived from these books and other books that are similar with these are religion?

So aggressive sex is just as wrong as rape?

 

This is another topic entirely. I believe many religious groups think having sex to be interaction with one of your partners sexual organs with the intent to give pleasure and/or impregnate a female. The sexual organs are probably [a female's] breasts and nipples, penis, vagina and anus.

This is strange though since if having consentual sex with somebody of whom you are not married to is equal on the... uh... 'sino-meter' as a homosexual relationship why don't Christians who take such a heavy stance against homosexuality also try and change legislation to prevent de-facto relationships from being legally enforced? Preventing homosexuals from being married (I'm getting sick and tired of having to use the term 'civil-union' to describe what is esentally the same godsbedamned thing) won't stop them from having sex. It does nothing to prevent the so called sin, it only prevents homosexuals from having the legal rights and responsibilities as a married heterosexual couple.

As far as I can see it would prevent sin to allow homosexuals to be married. If somebody is a homosexual they're going to be a homosexual whether they are married or not and they are going to have homosexual sex whether they are married or not. However in having homosexual sex outside of marriage the person is sinning twice, once for the homosexual sex and once for having sex outside of marriage. Allowing homosexuals to marry will if anything at least reduce the amount of sin going on if only by a fraction.

The other argument is the obvious one that homosexuals getting married has nothing to do with a Christian's life since it only affects the parties directly involved. Democracy is built on the ideal that a minority group will not be oppressed for the benefit of another and will especially not be oppressed where there is no tangiable benefit to any other group. Homosexuals don't demand that Christians stop being Christians, homosexuals are happy to let Christians get on with their Christian lives upholding their own Christian values even if the homosexuals disagree with those values but homosexuals would hope Christians would show homosexuals the same respect in return.

Basically I would hope Christians would realise that they aren't the only people in this world, that there are other groups that just want to live their lives not affecting other groups. Christians are doing nothing for their cause by trying to bring their divine law into the real world since in the scheme of things according to Christianity only God is the judge, jury and executioner and no person has the authority to impose His will on others. Let people live in sin if they so wish to, I'm quite certain they know that according to your religion what they are doing is wrong but it is unreasonable to expect them to do as you say without providing proof that you are correct.

So let them sin, we'll all find out in the end who was right but till we die nobody will know so it's unfair to prevent somebody for living a happy life when nobody honestly knows who is right. One person 'knows' (through faith) that homosexuals will be punished for their lifestyle yet another person 'knows' (through faith) that homosexuals will not be punished for their lifestyle. The only way we will ever know who was right and who was wrong will be when we die so where is the justification in not allowing those people to take that risk themselves, especially when it has nothing to do with anyone else bar the risk takers?

Apologies for the long post, I hope I didn't drone on too long.

 

Do yourself a favour and look up the term "statutory rape" in the dictionary, dude. I never said you were talking about rape. Statutory rape is what they convicted R Kelly for.....an adult having consensual sex with someone who is underage. You are right, though. You didn't compare homosexuality to statutory rape. You compared it to something even more asinine, baseless, and absurd. You compared it to pedophilia....when an adult has sex with a child who has not yet reached puberty. I brought up "statutory rape" because I thought perhaps you were misusing the word "pedophile" and didn't realise that a 20 year old having sex with a 12 year old is not necessarily a pedophile.

[ November 18, 2006, 21:25: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Well, it's a fallacy in many Christian faiths, that homosexuality is WORSE than fornication. They act upon that falacy, having conceded "de-facto relationships". Those "de-facto relationships", if they mean what I think you mean, are the State accomodating people within the framework of religious laws without interfering with religion. Gay rights can be accommodated in that manner. Please follow through with this seperation of Church and State that you keep telling me about and I think we may have our answer...

Here's an idea:

Marriage = sanctioned by church and state.
Civil union = sanctioned by state only.

This would open up the option of civil unions not only to gays, but to those that want the rights and priviledges as a married couples but would be offended by the religious connotations of actual marriage.

Church and state sometimes use different words for the same thing to imply a spiritual component as opposed to a secular component. Like Covenent versus contract, or sin versus crime. Using different words for the same thing helps maintain this church and state distinction.

Then allow for the seperation of Church and State (from what I hear, some homosexuals wouldn't want "religious influence" on their relationship anyway), and stop picking the fight with the church and let the state accommodate them.

Actually, no. If religion does not recognize them as married, then they are still sinning. If religion refuses to recognize these unions, the State can't trump this. But by this point, how many homosexuals would care? (Not trying to be rude, but really, how many care about religion?)

Actually, any sex outside of marriage is the same sin assuming mutual consent. There really is no difference on the offence as to whether the person is male or female. The difference is that Religion will not recognize homosexual unions.

I don't concede that point. Assuming that marriage is accepted as a religious ordinance (and the religious do claim that), any redefinition of marriage by the state is seen as the State altering religious doctrine. By the seperation of Church and State, that's a no-no.

That's why I again return to Civil Unions instead of marriage. Make it abundantly clear that it is the state accommodating them and leave religious doctrine alone. It will happen with a lot less kicking ans screaming...

The more you crowd the world, the harder it will be to avoid stepping on other people's toes. In a crowded pub (I hope you get the analogy, Abomination), you have to take that much more care that you don't shove, collide with or trample the toes of others in the pub. You don't need that much care when you are in your back yard with a few friends. These groups will come into conflict without realizing what they do in a corwded nation...

Ultimately, we have to, but we still have the obligation to state our beliefs and let them decide accordingly. If they believe that I'm full of manure, then they act as they otherwise would have. I've done as asked, and we both go our seperate ways at the end of why we're in the same place anyway.

I don't see where you could have cut anything out. It was a good post...

 

A de-facto relationship is two people who live together and are probably involved in a romantic/sexual relationship, are not married but are deemed by the state to be married. De-facto translating to 'in reality' I think.

The term 'marriage', although used in religious practice, isn't a religious concept. It simply means a union and when using the term marriage when talking about a pair of humans it means they have a romantic relationship and a legal duty of care to one another. Why claim the word anyway? How is it so important to distinguish the same thing just because your relationship is ordained by a religious organisation since in reality its the same damn thing as somebody's relationship that has only been recognised by the state.

...

It seems we're arguing semantics now. The claim is out that marriage can only happen via religious ceremony when it has been happening for quite some time before organised religion and outside organised religion. Believe it or not it is the state that deems somebody married, not organised religion since it would be impossible to enforce since there are various religious organisations.

 

I'd be more than happy with this. Granting equal rights and responsibilities seems more than fair. You do realise however, that people (specifically the media) are still going to call it "gay marriage" and "gay weddings"? They do in the UK, but it is still offically only a civil partnership (which is only open to gay couples).

 

And is this contempt for Gays, a slam at religion or simply ignorance or insensitivity on the part of those that still cling to the term? I wouldn't be surprised if there was some offence on both sides...

 

I'd guess it's because its fewer syllables and letters than "Civil Partnership" and therefore takes up less print space and air-time. i.e. it's easier.

At the end of the day, "Marriage" is just a word. In the UK, it's used to describe the legal partnership between two people and is no longer restricted to religious connotations - particularly with the quantity of weddings which don't occur in religious ceremonies.

If you agree to the concept of Civil Partnerships, I would guess that in less than 50 years time, it will become commonly know as "marriage", regardless of the legal definition of the term.

 

It's that fear that prompts the religious right to fight the concept hardest. Besides, Civil Union isn't as different from Marriage in print space and air time. For those of you that insist on the state granting "equality", can you please do it without trying to get the state to corrupt religious teachings...

 

As long as the religious teachings advocate different treatments of people, no. in fact does religeons should be forbidden

 

Now who is looking for a fight? We simply have the audacity to ask our members to live to a higher standard of morality, and refuse to recognize or give legitimacy to what we consider to be sins, but you want us outlawed? We simply WANT to be seperated from the state on a certain matter, now you WON'T do that? Then seperation of church and state is simply another thing to use to beat us in line without really protecting us.

 

Personally, I think its fine that the Church should want to have a "higher standard" of true marriage that only their members can achieve. And if you were to ban religion, what would that solve? People can't exist without beliefs, and what are religions but glorified beliefs? There will always be some form of common belief that people share; its in our nature to gravitate towards others and share in their opinions (the more subservient of us tend to do this, anyway).