GLBT Rights and Christianity

[lovehearty42]

I understand why a couple of threads have been shut down concerning this topic... but that's mostly because the thread got off topic, I think, and then there was some name-calling and people saying not-very-nice things, so here I am making a new topic. Please be nice to each other. We're all presumably human, or at least have some form of sentience.

Now, on to the actual topic!

I understand that the religious views of some include ones that are not so kind toward GLBT people. I also understand why there are some who feel that GLBT people are seeking "special" rights based on a "lifestyle choice". I think it's a bit misguided, but I get it. And it's the right of those who hold those beliefs to keep to those beliefs.

However, I like ideas. Ideas can change over time when new information presents itself, whereas beliefs are impenatrable to all forms of logic and reason. As for myself, can you imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance I felt coming to terms with the fact that I was trans while still trying to maintain a very overt, outspoken Christian identity, with very strong beliefs like any good "Christian" should have? Strangely enough, I think it was my transition that opened my eyes to other ideas and other points of view. All of a sudden, there I was at the business end of the Apostle Paul's proverbial stick of beating (the one with Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 etched into it). It was a real shift for me. I had to learn how to operate in a world with no arbitrary rules about what it meant to dress and act like a Christian rather than just being human. I had to learn how to live outside of a congregation, as at the time, I thought there were no congregations who would want me. It was a strange experience, being a Christian, but being shunned by Christian congregations for something that was truly completely outside of my control (suffice it to say that my transition wasn't facilitated by a "choice" to be a woman, but a need to either live my life authentically or die in a cesspool of insanity and misery).

So, in all these arguments about whether or not GLBT people should be accepted as non-second-class citizens in American society and the world at large, many Christians leaders seem to forget that being a GLBT person and being a Christian are not two mutually exclusive things. Furthermore, it is a perfect example of cherry-picking the Bible to suit their needs. It seems like they need a "them" for their "us" with which to scare people into pews with. They scare people with images of Sodom and Gomorrah while they ignore all the passages that explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not mutually consensual relationships between people of the same sex, but inhospitality toward strangers and travellers. The Bible is littered with passages about uplifting the oppressed, feeding and clothing those in need, looking out for the widows and the orphaned... and yet, GLBT youth who are thrown out of their homes for trusting and loving their parents enough by coming out to them aren't reached out to by the Church. They are shunned and told that the only help they will recieve will come at the cost of so-called "reparative" therapy.

I know this is a long post, and I understand if the admins feel a need to shut it down or delete it (although I hope you don't! ^.^) I just felt like I needed to say a few things on the topic from a more... I guess I could consider mine a moderate perspective? I hope so. Hippe love and hair grease.

Edit: I fixed an out-of-place closing parenthesis.

[Alpha]

I have never thought that being gay/bi/trans/asexual/anything is mutually exclusive with Christianity. With some Christian leaders, yes, but not Christianity. I know a handful of openly gay, practicing Catholics.

There is a huge diversity of perspective within Christendom that I feel is constantly ignored. I generally hate debates on gay marriage (for example) because people make sweeping generalisations about people's positions. 'Oh, you're Christian, you must hate gay people'. It's absurd, of course, because there are a lot of Christians who are gay, support gay people, are perfectly OK with gay marriage, etc. etc. In fact the single most homophobic and misogynistic person I know is an ardent atheist (I'm not saying it's because of his atheism, or that atheists are generally like this... just an observation given the expectation that it would be a Christian).

Jesus was willing to hang out with the lepers, not shun them.

EDIT: Oh yeah, there's also this bad ass Church in my city, A Scots Presbyterian one, run by a female minister which has a disclaimer to the left of the door that it will not discriminate on the basis of sexuality, gender identity, race, etc... printed on a rainbow card, no less. St Andrew's on the Terrace. Although I'm nominally Catholic (after my mother, but self-described as Christian Humanist or just an agnostic), my dad is a non-practicing Scottish Presbyterian.

[lovehearty42]

I generally hate debates on gay marriage (for example) because people make sweeping generalisations about people's positions.

That's what I was hoping to avoid and combat with my post. It's one thing to be Fred Phelps (if you notice, very few people had a problem with him until his congregation started picketting the funerals of soldiers; he did it to GLBT people first). It's a completely seperate thing entirely to say it's a sin because it says to in certain English translations of the Bible. I don't have a problem with leaders teaching there flocks that being a GLBT person is sinful. They are well within their religious freedom to do so. I think it's a misguided way to view the Bible, and I will say I disagree with it. However, when they use their speech to back up initiatives to keep people from being equal (as in, fighting anti-discrimination in jobs, housing, and public accommodations), then I have a problem with it. Especially if they bring up slippery slope arguments about pedophilia, zoophilia, or toasters (ALWAYS WITH THE DAMN TOASTERS! lol).

So... I guess I'm tired of seeing free speech only being a one way street, and I'm tired of people thinking that they don't have to be accountable for their words. To my understanding, in ancient Greece, it was a crime to back down from a public debate. I don't think we should go that far, but I think it would be nice if people would stop saying things they have to backpedal away from. As in "I didn't really mean that I want to put GLBT people in electric fences, what I meant was..." I mean, if anyone on any issue says something stupid, and they are called on it, they should at least have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say "Yeah, I was stupid," and move on with their lives. They'd at least get a little more respect, I think.

[Rowan]

There is a huge diversity of perspective within Christendom that I feel is constantly ignored. I generally hate debates on gay marriage (for example) because people make sweeping generalisations about people's positions. 'Oh, you're Christian, you must hate gay people'. It's absurd, of course, because there are a lot of Christians who are gay, support gay people, are perfectly OK with gay marriage.

This is new age christianity you are talking about. The old testament condemns such behaviour (one of the few things I wouldn't even consider as bad as what else is written) but the idea of christianity has changed over time to fit the views and expectations of modern society, wouldn't you agree? And if the bible truly is the word of god, then that would mean its lost even more of its validity. Im not arguing that christians shouldn't be allowed to marry, leave that upto the maesters and priests who have the power to marry, im arguing the bible to a muddled up complex of edits that confuses people into not knowing what to think.

[Alpha]

I just think it shows the reasonable expectation that a thousands-year old book (less for the NT), handed down first orally, having faced countless translations, mistranslations, transcriptions, mistranscriptions, having been controlled primarily by males for most of that time (and thus intersecting with gender and other forms of politics and power), the subject of debate, book burnings... would have been subject to a huge diversity of opinion.

There is no one reading of ANY book, and this applies to the Bible more than anything. Word of God or not, it's PEOPLE who have been interpreting it. And I think a Biblical justification for gay marriage is absolutely plausible.

[lovehearty42]

There is no one reading of ANY book, and this applies to the Bible more than anything. Word of God or not, it's PEOPLE who have been interpreting it. And I think a Biblical justification for gay marriage is absolutely plausible.

Right. The passages I mentioned earlier could easily have referenced relationships where people take advantage of each other rather than mutually consensual relationships. Those passages with Paul's laundry lists of sinfulness seemed to be most interested in people doing things that hurt themselves or each other. As far as the plausibility of a Biblical support for gay marriage is concerned, I think it's interesting that this is a book that overtly denies such things from being acceptable, but then one reads a passage in 2 Samuel about David's love for Jonathan surpassing David's love for women. How can David's love for Jonathan be comparable to David's love for a woman? I don't say that my love for my best friend surpasses my love for my fiancee. I love them both in different ways, and for different reasons. I don't think it's a far leap of logic (or faith) to say that David and Jonathan were probably madly in love with one another... which would make one of Jesus' primary ancestors bisexual (and judging by his hundreds of wives and concubines, David suffered no shortage of the womens).

As far as the New Testament is concerned, why is it so hard to apply the same ideas for hetero couples as for gay and lesbian couples? I mean, sure our ideas on relationships have changed over the years (women have the power to say "NO!" lol), but that doesn't mean that the Bible's definition of love (1 Corinthians 13 comes to mind) can't be used as a measuring stick for relationships, both romantic and otherwise, as long as all involved are Christians. If not, they can trailblaze and find their own definitions for things like love! As far as I can tell, Paul was probably struggling to maintain his Jewish identity (they were still calling Christians "Jews" at that point) while trying to avoid any same-sex contact, even though I think he wanted it very much. I think it's very telling considering that a lot of anti-GLBT leaders are continually being caught in compromising situations with baggage handlers, or in airport bathrooms, or with altar boys, or with random hook-ups with strangers...

[Dranzer]

This is something I've researched, so here are my two cents. Rowan mentioned the Old Testament's reference to homosexual behavior. First of all, you should know that those passages in the book of Leviticus are a part of what is called the Law of Moses. As a Christian, I (or any other person that believes in Jesus Christ) am NOT under that law. My belief in my savior puts me under what is called grace. If we want to talk more about that law, I will also say that that particular book was addressed to a certain peoples, at a certain time, in a certain place. Unless you're an Israelite headed into Israel from Egypt after the parting of the Red Sea, then this is really a historical document. Nothing more, and nothing less. Anyone who makes an argument against homosexuality using the book of Leviticus has no argument whatsoever. Period.

Furthermore, the homosexual behavior that the book is referring to is very different behavior from what we know homosexuality to be today: two people of the same gender in love. Leviticus is referring to shrine prostitution, which was commonly practiced by pagans during that time period to worship Molech. There were orgies, etc. There were infant sacrifices to a fertility goddess. God is a jealous God, this pissed God off, therefore a law was put in place to help the Israelites not do those things. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with me, or any other homosexual who believes in Jesus Christ. Period. Those practices were disgusting to say the least. I would never sacrifice a baby. I'm too selfish to have an orgy. I don't share like that. Period. There's also the wording that is used that's interesting as well. "Man should not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman." I was born a homosexual. I've never had sex with a female, and I never would. How does that even apply to me? You're right, it doesn't.

In regards to the New Testament, let's take a look at all the words our Savior said. Did he ever mention homosexuality being a sin? No. He didn't. He actually exempted homosexuals from the "Adam and Eve marriage paradigm" in the Gospel according to Matthew. He refers to them as "eunuchs", which back then was the equivalent to what we call "gay" today. He even says that some are born eunuchs, and not the traditional man made common knowledge eunuchs that most people think of. There are historical references to this term as well. In Roman times, homosexual practices weren't uncommon. There is also a passage in the Gospel according to Luke that give plenty of reason to conclude that Jesus healed a homosexual slave. <- This is an argument a lot of homosexuals don't like to delve into because it goes into a type of slavery called "Pederasty." This is pretty much a type of pedophilia, which is disgusting. However, that was a different time period. Young teenage boys would be given to older men as apprentices. Their masters, for lack of a better term, would train them in their trade, but they would also have sexual relations with them. This was the kind of slave I was referencing in the Gospel according to Luke. The master in question asks Jesus to heal his slave whom he cares for greatly. Interesting.

Now, onto Corinthians and Romans. Corinthians in the King James Version (KJV) uses the term "effeminate." Back then, when it was written before all those translations, effeminate was a term used to describe someone subject to great vanity and all around pretentious behavior. It wasn't until a few centuries later when a bishop who hated homosexuals changed its meaning to suit his bigotry. Shocker. The book of Romans refers to some homosexual behavior that is also related to pagan worship. Shrine prostitutes would cross dress and participate in illicit sexual behavior to worship gods and goddesses, etc. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual behavior that we know of today.

As far as same sex marriage is concerned, I really don't care what you call it. I'll call it my marriage whenever it happens for me, and the person I marry will be my husband. To avoid that term and call it something else is ridiculous in my opinion. IDGAF if it was strictly a religious term for thousands of years, or even six months. The fact of the matter is Webster's Dictionary now includes terms like "lol", etc. The word "gay" also meant happy fifty years ago. So, you mean to tell me that those terms can change and be added/edited/whatever, but the term "marriage" can't be redefined? On that, my friends, I call bullshit. Complete bullshit.

My two cents.

[Lacquer Head]

I never have much to say to this other than...human rights and Christianity will never go hand in hand. Hypocrisy is a big problem as well, I mean, people hate so hard on gays, yet getting a tattoo is considered a sin. As for various people changing things in the bible, from what I remember, Christ is said to have said that any law his followers make shall be upheld in heaven. More than likely added in after his death, but there you go. But typical Christians tend to pick and choose what they want to believe anyway. For instance: hating gays but considering a woman equal, or attacking people of other believe systems whilst covered head to toe in tattoos lol

People today that consider themselves Christians yet want to help gays, women and religious tolerance aren't truly following the teachings of Christ. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I mean, believing he was the son of god and died for our sins means you believe in the Christian pantheon. Like a satanist.

[Dranzer]

People today that consider themselves Christians yet want to help gays, women and religious tolerance aren't truly following the teachings of Christ. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I mean, believing he was the son of god and died for our sins means you believe in the Christian pantheon. Like a satanist.

I fail to see how someone doing those things isn't following the teachings of Christ. His message was love, plain and simple. He told his disciples to love one another as he had loved them. He even said this after washing their feet. He used the analogy of the good shepherd and told his disciples to take on such a role to spread his message. Where in the Bible does Jesus remark on any of those issues that you've just referenced? I've never read them. Ever.

Also, tattoos are another thing mentioned in the book of Leviticus. Again, this doesn't apply to a follower of Christ. I disagree with your last few statements completely. In fact, I think doing those things are following his teachings. They involve not judging others and trying to deem those considered to be inferior as equal. How does this contradict anything that Christ taught?

EDIT- I'm going to add right now that I'm absolutely not a fundamentalist. I don't like discussing religion, but I thought it'd be interesting to share my findings with any member of the GLBT community that might not have known some of them.

[Lacquer Head]

I don't mean judging, I mean giving them equal rights and such. Forgiving them and not judging them is one thing, but to say their beliefs and sexual orientation is also pretending is rejecting the belief that it's a sin or whatever.

But yeah, I was using the OT as a reference...I need to stop doing that. But as I said, Christs beliefs are respectable imo, but the scriptures don't quite reflect that "judge not lest thou be judged" mentality anymore lol

Matthew 16:19 is what I was referencing about what is held true on Earth...which means change for gay rights is theoretically possible, but convincing the church to make the change is another matter entirely...

"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."

Which seems like a shitty translation now that I look at it...THIS being another translation makes me wonder

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[lovehearty42]

In regards to the New Testament, let's take a look at all the words our Savior said. Did he ever mention homosexuality being a sin? No. He didn't. He actually exempted homosexuals from the "Adam and Eve marriage paradigm" in the Gospel according to Matthew. He refers to them as "eunuchs", which back then was the equivalent to what we call "gay" today. He even says that some are born eunuchs, and not the traditional man made common knowledge eunuchs that most people think of.

Actually, I think people being "eunuchs who were so from birth" probably referred to intersex people (people born with ambiguous genitalia). However, I have been told by my pastor, and I agree with her, that it was a passage that may have been meant to subvert patriarchy, in that Jesus was blessing everyone who falls outside gender norms (whether they be gay, bi, trans, or just a little queer in one way or another). In Isaiah 56:3-7 and Acts 8:26-40, there are similar passages to the one in Matthew 19.

[Dranzer]

Actually, we're both correct. A born eunuch still had working organs of one sex or the other that were fully functional, and they were capable of reproduction. I have to be honest with y'all, I really don't get a lot out of reading scripture. I hate when people use it to validate their prejudices though, which is why I shared such information. The message is simple: love God, love yourself, and love your neighbor. There are no exceptions.

Anywho, cheers! <3

[Lacquer Head]

I'm kind of interested in reading the bible for the **** of it, but how to find one that hasn't been twisted and dumbed down by Joel Osteen >_>

[Rowan]

I would have thought the religion identifies itself within the teachings of the holy bible. Some of the problems I have with religion itself is that it that the 'morally correct' christians would tend to ignore all the bad within the bible and only ackownledge the good. The bad being the slavery, sacrifice etc. The good being the ten commandments (which reflect the laws of society anyway). Why not just throw away the guidebook and live by your own rules, the way it makes sense to you. You dont need a religion to know its not okay to kill people or be nasty. You just need a grasp on reality, something that religion is constantly trying to distance you from. If you keep living your life under the assumption that by not confessing your sins, you would spend an eternity in hell is not only harmful to your state of mind and the way you're being forced to live your life, but its harmful to others who are impressionable and need that reassurance that when they die they will be comfortable. Religion is very much like government law in the sense that it will use fear to control you. Otherwise, theres absolutley no reason you would go into church and tell a priest who you f***ed on the weekend. By the way, sex before marriage is a sin.

No sex before marriage? You gotta try the car before you buy it.

[Lacquer Head]

People use religion as a crutch and a coping mechanism. It's just natural, humans HAVE to know things, so people cling to religions as a way to not have to fear death. Religions aren't brainwashing groups ran by crazed power hungry people (well...as a whole, Catholicism is a different story) the people truly have the power. If they wanna follow some one else interpretations, that's their own decision. Some people do use the bible as a loose guideline and consider themselves Christians, but that's the difference between Evangelicals and others.

I don't see why sex should be considered in marriage anyway, but that's my personal opinion, sex just doesn't interest me that much. Overrated as...overrated things.

[Alpha]

I don't agree with that line of argument Rowan. You don't know better than soneone to tell them that they'd be better off without their religion. If that were true, they'd leave it. Religion to many people is their primary reason for being. They couldn't envisage happiness without it. And all your argument posits in reply is, "lol you're wrong".

[Rowan]

I don't agree with that line of argument Rowan. You don't know better than soneone to tell them that they'd be better off without their religion. If that were true, they'd leave it.

I dont accept that. I'm also not arguing people be better off as much as you are saying people experience better lives for having a religion. "if that were true, then they'd leave it" try telling that to any religion that punishes apostasy by death.

eg.

Religion to many people is their primary reason for being. They couldn't envisage happiness without it.

I met a man once whilst walking through the city. He was preaching religion and was very forward. I was with 2 of my friends at the time. The guy looked somewhat desperate , as if he needed some sort of validation from us to support his beliefs. He explained to us that he had been in prison for murdering someone and that inside the cell he had found god and jesus and that was what ultimately saved him. I asked him how and he couldn't tell me why, he just said I have to have faith, at which point I was ready to tell him to **** off,(if he hadn't told me prior that he had killed someone before). He wouldn't let us walk off and continued talking to us for a furthar 20 minutes and at which point I 'd hoped he hadn't found religion because I would have rather been murdered than listen to his nonsense any longer. I thought long and hard about whether or not religion was responsible for 'saving' him, then I gave up because I realised that once you experience prison, the last thing you would ever want is to go back there. I decided that was the reason he chose to abide by the law. For all I know he could be back in prison right now for killing someone else, possibly someone who didnt agree with him. For all I know, that story could have been all BS and just a way to get our attention. I guess the thing is, you never can really know anything, but make the best possible decision based on your judgments and experiences. In my experience, theres no reason why any person should need to believe in a god anymore than a child needs to believe in santa to get his presents. I have considered the idea of god, and I have rejected it based on lack of evidence. What I'm saying Alpha, is that most people that cant imagine a life without religion or god, have never tried to. I imagine that its painfully hard to reject a belief thats held by not only your immediate family, but relatives as well. Its hard to admit to yourself after being forced to church every sunday as a child, that you dont believe what you've been told for the past 15 years of your life. Imagine the amount of courage you would need to admit that you are the only one who doesnt share those beliefs held by your family and loved ones. Why should anyone have to feel that kind of pressure thats put upon them by a religious environment?

[lovehearty42]

What I'm saying Alpha, is that most people that cant imagine a life without religion or god, have never tried to. I imagine that its painfully hard to reject a belief thats held by not only your immediate family, but relatives as well. Its hard to admit to yourself after being forced to church every sunday as a child, that you dont believe what you've been told for the past 15 years of your life. Imagine the amount of courage you would need to admit that you are the only one who doesnt share those beliefs held by your family and loved ones. Why should anyone have to feel that kind of pressure thats put upon them by a religious environment?

I have experienced all of that, in a sense. When I was a teenager, I found a Church that was a safe place for me to not feel on edge all the time. My home life was a piece of shit, and my parents made it very clear that I was the reason for everyone's unhappiness. Call it God, call it a psychological stimulator, call it whatever you want. I was specifically told not to go back to that Church on the basis that my parents thought it was making me rebellious and unsociable with them. Their idea of my sociability was that I should watch craptastic sitcoms with them, even though, as I said before, they made it abundantly clear that I was not wanted.

Funny things happen as time passes. No one from that congregation talks to me any more. Why? Maybe because I was never really wanted there in the first place. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that they all have families now, and they don't want some icky tr*nny corrupting their precious children (which is funny, considering that I was told that I "exude a motherly presence" yesterday, which I was told is why my friends' children wanted me to carry them while we were at the zoo). I'll probably never know.

I spent a few months trying out atheism. It made sense. I made my own rules for living my own life, and damn what some religious nutjobs may or may not think of me. It was really fantastic. And really scary. Like I said in my initial post, "I had to learn how to operate in a world with no arbitrary rules about what it meant to dress and act like a Christian rather than just being human." Except, it was different from when I transitioned. It was more... chaotic. I was in an ethics class at the time, and my professor had a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" pin on his lanyard. I scared Christians in that class. "This table is real," I would say. "I can see it, I can feel it, it is holding my books and papers, which I can also experience in real time." I would then go on to explain that we shouldn't be basing our moral ideas on what an entity who may or may not exist might think of us. There was a pothead in that class who got so angry with me when I kept shooting down his arguments against the moral permissibility of homosexuality that he left and didn't come back for three class sessions.

In time, I realized that I really liked the Church environment. I just didn't like the hate, though, and I didn't like they way they tended to sweep issues under the rug that really needed to be talked about. So, I ended up becoming a member of the United Church of Christ. Christian theology and theory is wonderful. However, the way it is usually practiced is deplorable. That's what I think I like about the UCC, they put into practice the actual theory of what it means to be a Christian by giving to those in need and reaching out to people on the margin. I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes, people are shunned by their families for having any faith at all. Other times, people who were formerly had a faith find themselves at a spot in their lives where it is a burden rather than a blessing. Sometimes, this even happens with religious leaders (a la The Clergy Project). There's a whole world of diversity out there, and sometimes, things are stranger than they seem. I get along with pagans and atheists better than I do with Christians most of the time (most Christians are shocked to hear that there is a difference between the two).

[Heartless Angel]

I imagine that its painfully hard to reject a belief thats held by not only your immediate family, but relatives as well. Its hard to admit to yourself after being forced to church every sunday as a child, that you dont believe what you've been told for the past 15 years of your life. Imagine the amount of courage you would need to admit that you are the only one who doesnt share those beliefs held by your family and loved ones. Why should anyone have to feel that kind of pressure thats put upon them by a religious environment?

It's not as hard as you might think. Least it wasn't for me. But then I was never really committed to a religion to begin with. I was always right on the verge of rejecting what I'd been taught, because it never really clicked with me. I had pretty high standards for logic, even as a kid. I may not have known all the fancy Latin terms for fallacies back then, or the appropriate form of a valid deductive argument, but I'd always had a pretty strong sense for when somebody was using erroneous reasoning. Never really bothered me to fall outside of the family's beliefs. Whenever somebody tried to call me out for something I believed, I challenged them to prove me wrong. Thus far, none have succeeded and have been forced to accept that I don't agree with them.

[Lacquer Head]

I dont accept that. I'm also not arguing people be better off as much as you are saying people experience better lives for having a religion. "if that were true, then they'd leave it" try telling that to any religion that punishes apostasy by death.

That's not religion, that's personal prejudice. People like that would hate others for another reason if it weren't religious.

I met a man once whilst walking through the city. He was preaching religion and was very forward. I was with 2 of my friends at the time. The guy looked somewhat desperate , as if he needed some sort of validation from us to support his beliefs. He explained to us that he had been in prison for murdering someone and that inside the cell he had found god and jesus and that was what ultimately saved him. I asked him how and he couldn't tell me why, he just said I have to have faith, at which point I was ready to tell him to **** off,(if he hadn't told me prior that he had killed someone before). He wouldn't let us walk off and continued talking to us for a furthar 20 minutes and at which point I 'd hoped he hadn't found religion because I would have rather been murdered than listen to his nonsense any longer. I thought long and hard about whether or not religion was responsible for 'saving' him, then I gave up because I realised that once you experience prison, the last thing you would ever want is to go back there. I decided that was the reason he chose to abide by the law. For all I know he could be back in prison right now for killing someone else, possibly someone who didnt agree with him. For all I know, that story could have been all BS and just a way to get our attention. I guess the thing is, you never can really know anything, but make the best possible decision based on your judgments and experiences. In my experience, theres no reason why any person should need to believe in a god anymore than a child needs to believe in santa to get his presents. I have considered the idea of god, and I have rejected it based on lack of evidence. What I'm saying Alpha, is that most people that cant imagine a life without religion or god, have never tried to. I imagine that its painfully hard to reject a belief thats held by not only your immediate family, but relatives as well. Its hard to admit to yourself after being forced to church every sunday as a child, that you dont believe what you've been told for the past 15 years of your life. Imagine the amount of courage you would need to admit that you are the only one who doesnt share those beliefs held by your family and loved ones. Why should anyone have to feel that kind of pressure thats put upon them by a religious environment?

You could have just walked away, it's not hard. But people really do change and feel "the touch of god" whether or not he was lying or not is irrelevant. Some people truly feel a change, a moment of clarity in life that suddenly sheds light on how they have been living life.

However they wish to label their experience is irrelevant as well. As for atheism, is it not the same? Do atheists not push their beliefs just as hard? It IS a belief as well, it's exactly the same as theism. You're still taking a side based on faith. There may not be proof that god exists, but there is no proof to say there isn't a god. You can take it either way.

It doesn't take courage to change your beliefs, it takes life experience. It does take courage to not run from your beliefs. What you find may be horrifying. Personally, I would rather know and embrace knowledge rather than deny it, but I can see why a person would. But that is their own business.

You can't blame "religions" for hatred and persecution, but you can blame humans. As I said before, it isn't a religious belief that spurs such actions, it's the human psyche. Wars, murders, attacks, persecution and so on are done from fear, greed, pride and power. Without religion, it would be patriotism, race or what ever. The dark sides of humanity will never disappear.

As for my own opinion on a god and such, I don't think about it much. I have yet to find reason to believe one way or the other, so I will keep on living my life til I find such a reason. The funny thing is, a few months ago I signed up online to become a church ordained minister for the lulz, but the more I think about it, the more I want to embrace the title, not for religious belief, but to help people. To do what religions were MEANT to do but fail due to the greed of man. Obviously I can't make much of a difference, but the smallest things can really make you think and give you perspective on how to lead a good life. No matter who is right, I believe the reason for life is coexistence, to help and care for your fellow human beings. It's one reason I like the idea of religion, but also why I do not like organized belief systems of any kind.

I kinda went on a rant there >_>

[Rowan]

That's not religion, that's personal prejudice. People like that would hate others for another reason if it weren't religious.

Im not sure I understand what you mean in reference to what I said. Are you talking about death by apostasy? its in the quran, if you need proof.

You could have just walked away, it's not hard. But people really do change and feel "the touch of god" whether or not he was lying or not is irrelevant. Some people truly feel a change, a moment of clarity in life that suddenly sheds light on how they have been living life.

Yes and why should that mean it was because of some divine miracle?

However they wish to label their experience is irrelevant as well. As for atheism, is it not the same? Do atheists not push their beliefs just as hard? It IS a belief as well, it's exactly the same as theism. You're still taking a side based on faith. There may not be proof that god exists, but there is no proof to say there isn't a god. You can take it either way.

Ive heard this argument hundreds of times. What you're saying is that it takes as much faith to disbelieve than it does to believe. Does it take as much faith to disbelieve the claims about bigfoot than it does to believe them? And it almost sounds like you're saying disbelief and belief are the same thing... Also, just because theres no proof to say there isn't a god (i would argue there is multitudes of evidence contradictory to the existence of such a being) it doesn't give you any validation to believe in it. Just because you cannot explain something, it doesnt give you any proof or evidence that it COULD have been ANYTHING. It gives you nothing.

It doesn't take courage to change your beliefs, it takes life experience. It does take courage to not run from your beliefs. What you find may be horrifying. Personally, I would rather know and embrace knowledge rather than deny it, but I can see why a person would. But that is their own business.

Before you can apply logical thought you need to be able to differentiate between knowledge and fantasy. If you are willing to embrace knowledge then we should probably discuss how it was possible that a man managed to gather 2 of every animal onto a boat without them savving each other (amoung countless other reasons)

You can't blame "religions" for hatred and persecution, but you can blame humans. As I said before, it isn't a religious belief that spurs such actions, it's the human psyche. Wars, murders, attacks, persecution and so on are done from fear, greed, pride and power. Without religion, it would be patriotism, race or what ever. The dark sides of humanity will never disappear.

I can blame religion for many things. Afterall, religious belief is a belief. Beliefs have an inherit impact on peoples decisions, behaviours and actions. Perhaps im just focusing on the negative, but it seems religion has done more bad than good in this world. As society has become more civilized, religious texts have be forced to change in order to keep up with what people believe to humane and decent. evidence of this includes slavery, sacrifice, homesexuality etc.

As for my own opinion on a god and such, I don't think about it much. I have yet to find reason to believe one way or the other, so I will keep on living my life til I find such a reason. The funny thing is, a few months ago I signed up online to become a church ordained minister for the lulz, but the more I think about it, the more I want to embrace the title, not for religious belief, but to help people. To do what religions were MEANT to do but fail due to the greed of man. Obviously I can't make much of a difference, but the smallest things can really make you think and give you perspective on how to lead a good life. No matter who is right, I believe the reason for life is coexistence, to help and care for your fellow human beings. It's one reason I like the idea of religion, but also why I do not like organized belief systems of any kind.

If you want to help people, why not help everyone instead of excluding atheists? Also, what is it about the idea of religion that you like, but why you dont like organized belief systems? You do realise that the dominating religions in this world are dominating because they are organized religions?

[Lacquer Head]

Im not sure I understand what you mean in reference to what I said. Are you talking about death by apostasy? its in the quran, if you need proof.

Yes, yes I do. Not sure what the sentence is for. WHY are people sentenced to death. Not saying I don't believe you or anything, but I'm not very versed in Islam.

Yes and why should that mean it was because of some divine miracle?

It's his belief, who are you to say it wasn't?

Ive heard this argument hundreds of times. What you're saying is that it takes as much faith to disbelieve than it does to believe. Does it take as much faith to disbelieve the claims about bigfoot than it does to believe them? And it almost sounds like you're saying disbelief and belief are the same thing... Also, just because theres no proof to say there isn't a god (i would argue there is multitudes of evidence contradictory to the existence of such a being) it doesn't give you any validation to believe in it. Just because you cannot explain something, it doesnt give you any proof or evidence that it COULD have been ANYTHING. It gives you nothing.

There is no validation to make a claim either way. It's faith, pure and simple. It may not be a good reason to make a decision, but it is faith on both sides. You have faith there isn't a god. There is nothing to say there isn't one. As for bigfoot, it's a similar thing. If you grow up being told there is a bigfoot, but there is no proof, you will eventually think it's silly. But then you're walking in the woods one day and you see some big ass dark animal run by. Your brain jumps to "OMG BIGFOOT" now, whether or not you decide to say definitely one way or the other is up to you. But it's a person trying to explain the unexplained without proof. Either it was or it wasn't.

Before you can apply logical thought you need to be able to differentiate between knowledge and fantasy. If you are willing to embrace knowledge then we should probably discuss how it was possible that a man managed to gather 2 of every animal onto a boat without them savving each other (amoung countless other reasons)

Not every religious person is an evangelical. Some people treat such stories as fables. Now, science can disprove the Earth wasn't covered in a flood, BUT, that hardly proves the religion as a whole wrong. It does prove there was a severe lack of knowledge. It might have started as a fable with a message, but mistranslations and such could have warped it. It's just a case of truths being lost over time. If a person wants to take such unreliable stories as fact, oh well.

I can blame religion for many things. Afterall, religious belief is a belief. Beliefs have an inherit impact on peoples decisions, behaviours and actions. Perhaps im just focusing on the negative, but it seems religion has done more bad than good in this world. As society has become more civilized, religious texts have be forced to change in order to keep up with what people believe to humane and decent. An example would be gay marriage, homosexuality. Thats evidence of that.

The fact that they are changing is a wonderful thing. But as I said before, religion is just a scape goat for the bad people do. Religion or no, the Earth would hardly be in a different state. It's not like religions have done nothing but bad and atheists nothing but good.

If you want to help people, why not help everyone instead of excluding atheists? Also, what is it about the idea of religion that you like, but why you dont like organized belief systems? You do realise that the dominating religions in this world are dominating because they are organized religions?

Who said anything about picking and choosing who to help? I want to help people because they are fellow human beings, nothing more.

I like the deep down meaning. Religious belief is meant to spread equality and love, but it has been badly twisted by various leaders and evil people. There is no way a religion, or any institution for that matter, can remain pure. THAT is why I feel the idea of religion is great, but impossible.

[Order]

So I was requested to lay down my two cents here and I take that as troll-bait seven days a week.
I'm going to go ahead and disappoint you all immidiately,
I don't give a shit about your sexual orientation. I don't care if you prefer blondes, brunettes, hispanic, black, asian, boys or girls. Hell, I don't even care if you prefer dogs.

In modern American society, it is unacceptable to discriminate against or for a person based on their sexual preference within the confines of the law and moral standards (under 18 is too young for anyone over the age of 23, like wise those who are equally mentally immature or otherwise incapable of direct, informed consent are out of the question). I adhere to those standards pretty closely.

However, there is no moral or social standard which restricts my ability to voice my opinion on the issue outside of a workplace.
I don't like men who act like women.
I don't like women who act like men.
I don't like it when a gay person who I have never met or even had a conversation with approaches me directly and states that they are gay and I have to respect that.

I don't have to respect shit aside from the law and my superiors at work.
Most of all, I will respect any person much less when they begin telling me what I am required to respect.

Here are the facts on the issue and those who are on the fence or can't commit to a side might not have thought of it this way:

1. The Christian church is not required to respect your sexual orientation.
2. A church's rules and moral standards are shaped by it's congregation. It's a matter of a society deciding it's collective values and establishing moral guidelines to fit those values.
3. Nobody (in the US) has the right to tell a religous group who it will and will not marry. They are free to worship their God the way they choose within the confines of the law.
4. What is so great about being married under a Christian God who does not want you to be married?
5. What gives the gay community the right to force a specific church to marry them when there are many churches throughout the country that will do so willingly?
6. Why not join a church which is comprised of, or at least accepts homosexuality?

Simple as that.

As far as a church which does accept homosexuality as morally acceptable; good. Why not?
Religious freedom is one of the core beliefs which makes up American society.

You can be gay all you like. You can be gay and Christian if you want. There are plenty of Christians who do not follow the moral values of the bible exactly and there are plenty who even intentionally violate some of those values.
They are still Christian.

That's the point.
Gay and Christian are just ways of describing a person's behaviour and beliefs.
It's about an individual's opinion, compaired to a social group's opinion.
And I could not give a crap less than I do now.

Think what you want, it doesn't effect me.
Society can think what they want, it hasn't stopped me from doing what I do.

If you agree with popular opinion, great. If not, great.
Be a rebel without a cause or a sheep or whatever.

Your sexual orientation does not make one shred of difference until you force it to become a topic of controversy.

Bing, bang, boom,
Now you know what to think.

EDIT::
Now, hopefully, this thread will fizzle out and die. There is no controversy here.

[lovehearty42]

This has little to do with individual congregations. This has to do with the various "traditional values" organizations that wish to impose their views of Christian morality on the whole of society. It also has to do with how the message that GLBT people are somehow broken or disordered leads to violence against the people of our community. It's nice that you don't care about my orientation. The only person who should rightly be worried about that is my partner, for hopefully obvious reasons.

I don't expect you to "respect" me because of the fact that I'm trans* or pansexual. I only ask for respect where none is given when it is deserve. In the example of the workplace, if you're shirking your responsibilities and I have to pick up your slack, I expect you to thank me for doing your job (or at the very least, apologize for the fact that you are slacking). Furthermore, I'm not "proud" of those things. I've never once been to those silly pride parades. To me, they seem like a cheap rip-off of Mardi Gra. I'm proud of my life accomplishments, though. I'm proud of the fact that I was a soldier. I'm proud of the fact that I'm in school working toward (hopefully) a medical license. However, immutable character traits are simply things one is born with, and not something to take pride in. To do so is nothing short of vanity.

However, this is something that is used against us. That's why there is a controversy, and healthy, intelligent discourse on that controversy will help reduce the controversy and allow otherwise decent people to just live their lives in peace. However, many people on the wrong side of the discussion have chosen to say that it is perfectly right to treat us like second-class citizens, or that it would be morally sound to execute us for being queer.

At one point, you said the following:

I don't like men who act like women.
I don't like women who act like men.

I am curious to know what you mean by this. It seems like a very... antiquated way of thinking about things.

EDIT: After thinking about it a bit. I think "childish" would be a better word to describe your views on gender norms. I mean, you have every right to have that opinion. However, it seems to me like you're saying that boys shouldn't like Easy Bake ovens and girls shouldn't like GI Joes (along with the adult parallels concerning gender norms).

[Order]

However, it seems to me like you're saying that boys shouldn't like Easy Bake ovens and girls shouldn't like GI Joes (along with the adult parallels concerning gender norms).

Whatever, mary.
See what I did there?

But seriously,
The fact that I dont like a submissive, indecisive, emotionally exaggerated, irresponsable, easily influenced man does not make me childish.
It may make me a harsh judge of character, but childish would imply that i dont understand what Im seeing.

Likewise, I dont like a controlling, instigating, woman who attempts to bully other females.

Say childish to me one more time, mary.
See what I did there?


I can appreciate that direct personal threats are immoral and illegal. But you can't be concerned about the fact that there arepeople who want you dead.
there are plent of groups and individuals who want me dead. You aren't in a unique or special case because of the cultural stigma of some groups of extremists.

And this is about isolated incidents. Society has accepted homosexuality for decades now. If someone threatens you, call the cops. Thats what I do on the occasion I am directly threatened.

So you get funny looks from people and extremists want people like you to die.
Me too, mary. Me too.

See what I did there?

[Lacquer Head]

The fact that I dont like a submissive, indecisive, emotionally exaggerated, irresponsable, easily influenced man does not make me childish.
It may make me a harsh judge of character, but childish would imply that i dont understand what Im seeing.

Likewise, I dont like a controlling, instigating, woman who attempts to bully other females.

Oh look, outdated stereotypical gender rolls...

[Pete]

I look at things very simply, and to be honest, I only glazed over everyone elses posts, so I'm sorry if I'm just beating a dead horse.

I don't care what anyone does, so long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way. I don't see how another person could get so offended by the life of another. You can't go about grouping all people together, saying how all gays are this, or all transformers are that. It just doesn't fly, at least not in today's society. Granted, just because you're here and queer, doesn't give you the right to get in everyone's face about it and force others to accept you or your lifestyle. Some people don't get it or just don't want to. You have to respect that as well.

As for religion, I think it's up to whatever institution to determine if they want to perform weddings and ceremonies for gay couples. It's not discrimination if they don't, because they're not discriminating against any one person; it's a demographic, and a belief. If an institution believes that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, then so be it. That's doctrine. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it just is. Now, there would be a severe problem if a Church would deny people based on the color of their skin, then that's a problem. However, if a church doesn't believe in allowing a marriage between the same gender, then fine. You can't force a church to change their own standards for what they consecrate.

As for being a Christian and looking at the gay population, I can only think of the Golden Rule, and treating others how you'd like to be treated. I'd say it's pretty misguided to go protesting soldiers funerals with signs that say God hates fags, because they found a few lines in a book. Yes, this book is the Bible, but in all honesty, isn't it better, or doesn't it make a person more Christian to follow Jesus' example, as opposed to blindly hating others because they just don't like the same thing you do.

As for civil unions and the like, (yes, I know I'm getting into stately matters, but I'm hitting my stride), I think this is a violation of the separation of Church and State. If the term marriage doesn't float your boat, why not use civil union or domestic partnership? All it does is give the spouse or partner, whatever, the same benefits like healthcare and even the right to visit their partner in the hospital and to make the important decisions that need to be made should anything happen. So what if that person likes the same gender, if love is love, why should two people be denied the same rights that others are.

After all, isn't God love?

[Order]

Oh look, outdated stereotypical gender rolls...

Thats what I'm saying.
Apparently, it is considered barbaric for a man to do his job, make his money and use it to pay his bills. Its archaic for a man to decide which neighborhood his family will live in or which car his child will drive.

I am guilty of being a traditionalist. Outdated. Old fashion.
I dont take it as an insult.
When its time to make tough choices, i make them. When those choices result in consequences, I stand by my descisions and accept the flak.

When I see a duck, i call it a duck.
You can have your aqauadic fowl with gregarious tendencies.
Its a damn duck to me.

[Lacquer Head]

Thats what I'm saying.
Apparently, it is considered barbaric for a man to do his job, make his money and use it to pay his bills. Its archaic for a man to decide which neighborhood his family will live in or which car his child will drive.

It's barbaric if his wife doesn't get a choice in the matter.

I am guilty of being a traditionalist. Outdated. Old fashion.
I dont take it as an insult.
When its time to make tough choices, i make them. When those choices result in consequences, I stand by my descisions and accept the flak.

When I see a duck, i call it a duck.
You can have your aqauadic fowl with gregarious tendencies.
Its a damn duck to me.

I am old fashioned in plenty of ways, but I don't consider something I don't understand as inferior and ignore it. I try to understand other people. Gender rolls are moronic and outdated systems. They have as much validity as racial stereotypes.

[Order]

but I don't considersomething I don't understand as inferior and ignore it. I

Society has accepted homosexuality for decades now.

There is nothing to ignore because there is no issue here.

You can be gay all you like. You can be gay and Christian if you want.

See, I didn't say anything in the least sexist or offensive.
You can overgeneralize and project steriotypes on me all you like. It doesn't change the fact that there is no controversy here.
This thread is like me making a thread about how I know there are unnamed individuals in daily life whom I interact with who secretly want bad things to happen to me.

Gender rolls are moronic and outdated systems. They have as much validity as racial stereotypes

Oh, they are?
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
I guess I should release all of my concubines and stop kicking my racially different neighbor every time I see him.
Thank you for imposing a new process of thought on me!
Where did you aquire such wisdom?
Douche.

I am old fashioned in plenty of ways

Oh look, steriotypical, outdated fence standing. After certain aspects of each side of an arguement those who are undecided (or, more accurately, unable to think for themselves) begin comprimising. Picking and choosing attractive ideas and points from both sides of a debate, reguardless of overall logic or fundamental moral values.

My point is, I understand that gay people exist and arent a problem as a cultural group. What you fail to understand, Laquer Head is that the fact that there is no problem and therefore no controversy is what bothers you.
You believe that there should be a problem.
But I, clearly one of the more conservative members, am telling you. Suck as much **** as you like. Suck **** while reading the bible, if you are so talented.
It makes no difference to anyone or anything but to you personally.

You're welcome.
Now you know what to think.