NationStates

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
A religion supporting homosexual relationships only doesn't sounds bullshit, sounds wonderful.
As long as it's a thing that involves just only its followers, why such religion should be a problem?

As far as I understand, Presbyterians and Lutherans are supporters of homosexual relationships. As far as I am aware last time I checked.

That is incorrect on the Lutheran front. It is group specific.

Sungai Pusat wrote:

Val Halla wrote:I think the main reason people used to be like, not for lesbians and gay males was simple productivity. Death rates in infants used to be high, and also the need for physical labour. Now we don't need that, you'd expect it'd go away, but because of some bizarre reason, people still become consumed by irrational hate.

I don't think religion can come into it. It is those who use religion for their own agendas, biased or hate.

Because it's ambiguous.

Or it makes things more confusing for them, being that it implies that a man's partner may not be a woman and vice versa. Plus the upbringing that a lot of people have that emphasised on homosexuality being a bad thing and the like.

Well yes. I think upbringing is a large part. A big reason people from less privileged backgrounds are often more bigoted because of poor education, so they learn a lot from parents who have a poor education who learned from their parents that homosexuality is bad.

Val Halla wrote:

Sungai Pusat wrote:Because it's ambiguous.

Or it makes things more confusing for them, being that it implies that a man's partner may not be a woman and vice versa. Plus the upbringing that a lot of people have that emphasised on homosexuality being a bad thing and the like.

Well yes. I think upbringing is a large part. A big reason people from less privileged backgrounds are often more bigoted because of poor education, so they learn a lot from parents who have a poor education who learned from their parents that homosexuality is bad.

Besides that, there are also communities in which the church is the only real place for communing; most larger cities probably have more than a pub, or two (maybe) and the church for people to gather and interact, so for all ages, the church it is.

There's also often a gulf in the kind of information that people from these places get/have compared to those living in the city, along with their tolerance for stuff beyond what they see within the immediate area. And, perhaps, beyond television.

Sungai Pusat wrote:

Val Halla wrote:Well yes. I think upbringing is a large part. A big reason people from less privileged backgrounds are often more bigoted because of poor education, so they learn a lot from parents who have a poor education who learned from their parents that homosexuality is bad.

Besides that, there are also communities in which the church is the only real place for communing; most larger cities probably have more than a pub, or two (maybe) and the church for people to gather and interact, so for all ages, the church it is.

There's also often a gulf in the kind of information that people from these places get/have compared to those living in the city, along with their tolerance for stuff beyond what they see within the immediate area. And, perhaps, beyond television.

Heh, fun fact with regards to communing: In my native area(southern Netherlands) and the neighbouring country to the South(Belgium), it's famous that near the church in a small village, there's a pub across the street.

And we're not so hung up about kids in pubs there either, just don't serve them alcohol.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Sungai Pusat wrote:Besides that, there are also communities in which the church is the only real place for communing; most larger cities probably have more than a pub, or two (maybe) and the church for people to gather and interact, so for all ages, the church it is.

There's also often a gulf in the kind of information that people from these places get/have compared to those living in the city, along with their tolerance for stuff beyond what they see within the immediate area. And, perhaps, beyond television.

Heh, fun fact with regards to communing: In my native area(southern Netherlands) and the neighbouring country to the South(Belgium), it's famous that near the church in a small village, there's a pub across the street.

And we're not so hung up about kids in pubs there either, just don't serve them alcohol.

Oooooohhh.

Well, here... we actually have plenty of places for communing, but obviously, being Singapore, only kids and old people use them very often and they're pretty disconnected, or it feels as much, from the communities they're in.

Liriena wrote:

Jumalariik wrote:Cultures that promote individual rights and oppose senseless murder are objectively better. NEXT

1. How are individual rights "objectively better" than the alternatives?
2. How would you define a "senseless murder"?

1. I mean I guess if you're a moral relativist you wouldn't agree with me. Feel free to think that the USSR and the UK are on an objective level equal.
2. Killing somebody who has done nothing to deserve it.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
A religion supporting homosexual relationships only doesn't sounds bullshit, sounds wonderful.
As long as it's a thing that involves just only its followers, why such religion should be a problem?

As far as I understand, Presbyterians and Lutherans are supporters of homosexual relationships. As far as I am aware last time I checked.

The US Episcopal church are supporters of same-sex relationships so are Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism.

Val Halla wrote:I think the main reason people used to be like, not for lesbians and gay males was simple productivity. Death rates in infants used to be high, and also the need for physical labour. Now we don't need that, you'd expect it'd go away, but because of some bizarre reason, people still become consumed by irrational hate.

I don't think religion can come into it. It is those who use religion for their own agendas, biased or hate.

Or, maybe we legitimately think it's a moral wrong. I don't deny that there are provocateurs, but there is a theology around the issue.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Val Halla wrote:I think the main reason people used to be like, not for lesbians and gay males was simple productivity. Death rates in infants used to be high, and also the need for physical labour. Now we don't need that, you'd expect it'd go away, but because of some bizarre reason, people still become consumed by irrational hate.

I don't think religion can come into it. It is those who use religion for their own agendas, biased or hate.

Or, maybe we legitimately think it's a moral wrong. I don't deny that there are provocateurs, but there is a theology around the issue.

It's only a moral wrong because God says so, rather than because of any vaguely justifiable notions of societal or personal good.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Val Halla wrote:I think the main reason people used to be like, not for lesbians and gay males was simple productivity. Death rates in infants used to be high, and also the need for physical labour. Now we don't need that, you'd expect it'd go away, but because of some bizarre reason, people still become consumed by irrational hate.

I don't think religion can come into it. It is those who use religion for their own agendas, biased or hate.

Or, maybe we legitimately think it's a moral wrong. I don't deny that there are provocateurs, but there is a theology around the issue.

Even if you consider it wrong, if there is not a secular reason to ban it, then LGBT people should have the same rights to marriage and adoption as heterosexual couples.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Val Halla wrote:I think the main reason people used to be like, not for lesbians and gay males was simple productivity. Death rates in infants used to be high, and also the need for physical labour. Now we don't need that, you'd expect it'd go away, but because of some bizarre reason, people still become consumed by irrational hate.

I don't think religion can come into it. It is those who use religion for their own agendas, biased or hate.

Or, maybe we legitimately think it's a moral wrong. I don't deny that there are provocateurs, but there is a theology around the issue.

To be frank, there's like four verses in the entire Bible that directly state homosexuality is wrong.

Two of which are in the Old Testament, which as far as I'm aware means it's just there for historical perspective, at least in terms of Christianity.

So two whole relevant verses in the Bible that directly state homosexuality is bad, out of the many thousands of others, some of which regard dietary restrictions, like not eating meat on Fridays (which many seem to ignore). Sure, there's a theological reason why many Christians dislike homosexuality, but in the grand scheme of things it has a lot more to do with personal opinion more than anything. If most people who say they oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds are truly being genuine, they'd be following far more biblical practices than just which parts of the Bible they agree with.

Sanctissima wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Or, maybe we legitimately think it's a moral wrong. I don't deny that there are provocateurs, but there is a theology around the issue.

To be frank, there's like four verses in the entire Bible that directly state homosexuality is wrong.

Two of which are in the Old Testament, which as far as I'm aware means it's just there for historical perspective, at least in terms of Christianity.

So two whole relevant verses in the Bible that directly state homosexuality is bad, out of the many thousands of others, some of which regard dietary restrictions, like not eating meat on Fridays (which many seem to ignore). Sure, there's a theological reason why many Christians dislike homosexuality, but in the grand scheme of things it has a lot more to do with personal opinion more than anything. If most people who say they oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds are truly being genuine, they'd be following far more biblical practices than just which parts of the Bible they agree with.

And that is the opinion of the Church. For example, people are not allowed to receive communion without undergoing to proper penance (fasting on Wednesday, Friday, and between confession and Communion).

Thermodolia wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
As far as I understand, Presbyterians and Lutherans are supporters of homosexual relationships. As far as I am aware last time I checked.

The US Episcopal church are supporters of same-sex relationships so are Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism.

The Episcopal Church allows it but not many Episcopal churches oppose it.

I am considering coming out to my parents as biromantic/possibly-bisexual but am unsure of their position on it.

They are centrist for the most part, but lean conservative (I think). No idea what to do.

The V O I D wrote:I am considering coming out to my parents as biromantic/possibly-bisexual but am unsure of their position on it.

They are centrist for the most part, but lean conservative (I think). No idea what to do.

Not an expert on coming out (though I have done it), but first, make sure you really want to do it, and then get it over with like you're tearing off a band aid.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
To be frank, there's like four verses in the entire Bible that directly state homosexuality is wrong.

Two of which are in the Old Testament, which as far as I'm aware means it's just there for historical perspective, at least in terms of Christianity.

So two whole relevant verses in the Bible that directly state homosexuality is bad, out of the many thousands of others, some of which regard dietary restrictions, like not eating meat on Fridays (which many seem to ignore). Sure, there's a theological reason why many Christians dislike homosexuality, but in the grand scheme of things it has a lot more to do with personal opinion more than anything. If most people who say they oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds are truly being genuine, they'd be following far more biblical practices than just which parts of the Bible they agree with.

And that is the opinion of the Church. For example, people are not allowed to receive communion without undergoing to proper penance (fasting on Wednesday, Friday, and between confession and Communion).

Perhaps the Orthodox are more strict on the matter, but I guarantee you most Catholic churches will give communion regardless of what practices you're currently observing. You can quite literally not attend church for several years (or observe any religious practices for that matter), walk in on a random Sunday and receive communion, no strings attached.

Sanctissima wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:And that is the opinion of the Church. For example, people are not allowed to receive communion without undergoing to proper penance (fasting on Wednesday, Friday, and between confession and Communion).

Perhaps the Orthodox are more strict on the matter, but I guarantee you most Catholic churches will give communion regardless of what practices you're currently observing. You can quite literally not attend church for several years (or observe any religious practices for that matter), walk in on a random Sunday and receive communion, no strings attached.

Orthodox Churches can be fairly strict about it. Like I said, you have to have taken confession that week, and have to fast for the allotted time.

But that's not the topic of the thread.

Sanctissima wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:And that is the opinion of the Church. For example, people are not allowed to receive communion without undergoing to proper penance (fasting on Wednesday, Friday, and between confession and Communion).

Perhaps the Orthodox are more strict on the matter, but I guarantee you most Catholic churches will give communion regardless of what practices you're currently observing. You can quite literally not attend church for several years (or observe any religious practices for that matter), walk in on a random Sunday and receive communion, no strings attached.

Yeah, in pretty much every Catholic church I've been to, as long as you're baptised you can receive communion. And it's not like they check to see if you're baptised, anyway.

Nature-Spirits wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Perhaps the Orthodox are more strict on the matter, but I guarantee you most Catholic churches will give communion regardless of what practices you're currently observing. You can quite literally not attend church for several years (or observe any religious practices for that matter), walk in on a random Sunday and receive communion, no strings attached.

Yeah, in pretty much every Catholic church I've been to, as long as you're baptised you can receive communion. And it's not like they check to see if you're baptised, anyway.

In fact (to bring this back around to the topic of the thread), some of the most staunchly catholic people I know are firmly pro-LGBT rights

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
A religion supporting homosexual relationships only doesn't sounds bullshit, sounds wonderful.
As long as it's a thing that involves just only its followers, why such religion should be a problem?

As far as I understand, Presbyterians and Lutherans are supporters of homosexual relationships. As far as I am aware last time I checked.

Kinda yes and kinda no. The PC(USA) does and that's one of the reasons I can happily find myself as a member of that denomination. Other Presbyterian denominations like PCA, ECO, EPC don't accept homosexual relationships as far as I know.

The Grene Knyght wrote:

Nature-Spirits wrote:Yeah, in pretty much every Catholic church I've been to, as long as you're baptised you can receive communion. And it's not like they check to see if you're baptised, anyway.

In fact (to bring this back around to the topic of the thread), some of the most staunchly catholic people I know are firmly pro-LGBT rights

How do they reconcile that?

United Marxist Nations wrote:

The Grene Knyght wrote:In fact (to bring this back around to the topic of the thread), some of the most staunchly catholic people I know are firmly pro-LGBT rights

How do they reconcile that?

By putting their own beliefs before the beliefs of the church.

The Grene Knyght wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:How do they reconcile that?

By putting their own beliefs before the beliefs of the church.

As in, not believing in doctrine?

United Marxist Nations wrote:

The Grene Knyght wrote:By putting their own beliefs before the beliefs of the church.

As in, not believing in doctrine?

People can do that, yes. No matter how much you try to invoke #notruescotsman and other such essentialisms.

Vassenor wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:As in, not believing in doctrine?

People can do that, yes. No matter how much you try to invoke #notruescotsman and other such essentialisms.

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"