Religion and the LGBTQ community.

[Herskerstad]

Here's an interesting question.

The western powers when they enforce their cultural norms on lesser powers in their sphere tends to be somewhat direct and blunt about it, and this is going beyond cultural imperialism which is a much softer phenomonon. An example would be the Obama administration and Uganda over LGBT rights.

How are western powers to enforce their cultural norms on regional powers that do not find themselves as dependent? A good example would be Saudi Arabia on a more friendly note and Iran on a less friendly note. Is it fair to accept compromise or even run by a timetable for them not to kill gays?

[Khasinkonia]

There are many religions that are homophobic and transphobic towards members of the LGBTQ community saying that 'it's not god's will.' to them I say, 'was it's god's will for you to be hateful towards a large section of the human race?' God doesn't hate anyone, that's like, his thing.
I think that it's horrible that some people are so hateful.
what are your thoughts on this?

To answer the original question, the fact that some religious organisations are so hateful to the LGBT community (most notably ISIL and the Westboro Baptist Church) is partly why I currently do not have a positive view of religion in general, although there remains absolutely no excuse to assume that “all Muslims are evil” or similar.

However, it is obvious that education is important to try and build bridges between LGBT rights and the original principles of any given religion, which sadly I am not an expert on and I do not wish to suggest anything that might backfire terribly.

This is, after all, why we have different denominations. Sexual orientation, gender, these things are not so important in Judeo-Christian tradition when you really dig into the messages within the scriptures. There’s a reason we’ve only now even bothered to look at sexual orientation in particular in scripture, because for the longest time shoving two folks with opposite sexual organs into a bed together and telling them to have a family was essentially the sum of what was truly expected out of marriage. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that as the common view of marriage, being more about love and attraction rather than procreation, has changed so that questions that formerly did not exist about marriage now do. In the older view of marriage, the procreation-centric view, it’s without a doubt that marriage between a man and a woman only makes sense. But nowadays, the view towards what marriage fundamentally is about lends itself to validating love between two men, love two women, and so on.

Very few churches really focus a great deal on sexuality because, fundamentally, that’s not what being Christian is about. There’s a reason Sunday school teaches about the stories of the Old Testament and focuses on the parables of jesus that it does. Because to be Christian is to believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and to love others as you love yourself, and treat them as such. The former part of that is the most basic thing separating Christianity from Judaism, and the latter is one of the biggest common teachings throughout the entirety of Christian scripture, particularly in the New Testament. I can’t speak for other religions, but I think any churches so preoccupied with sexuality and gender that they are known solely for their rhetoric on it are gravely misunderstanding what the point of being Christian is.

[Khasinkonia]

Here's an interesting question.

The western powers when they enforce their cultural norms on lesser powers in their sphere tends to be somewhat direct and blunt about it, and this is going beyond cultural imperialism which is a much softer phenomonon. An example would be the Obama administration and Uganda over LGBT rights.

How are western powers to enforce their cultural norms on regional powers that do not find themselves as dependent? A good example would be Saudi Arabia on a more friendly note and Iran on a less friendly note. Is it fair to accept compromise or even run by a timetable for them not to kill gays?

I think it’s one thing to push for acceptance, another to push for human life. I think insisting nations not kill people on the basis of their sexual orientation is not an unreasonable demand in the modern day. Insisting they vocally support it, is another. It is not at all unreasonable, I think, to insist that homosexuality be globally decriminalised. Globally legalised? I believe that’s a different story. It’s one thing to try to get these countries to not go out of their way to harm people in the LGBTQ+ community. It’s another to try to get them to be permissive. Ideally, we could, but it simply isn’t yet feasible. The best steps we can take at the moment are harm reduction.

[Lovitzi]

I just find it wrong are two people of the same sex ment to be together in nature? Evidently not i honestly fail to see why society accepts this (Mods this is just my honest opinion and from stuff i have researched) mental illness. I also think the same about transgender and how people try to claim that there are more than two genders.

This is something i feel very strongly about but i am open to seeing the other side of things.

[Alvecia]

I just find it wrong are two people of the same sex ment to be together in nature? Evidently not i honestly fail to see why society accepts this (Mods this is just my honest opinion and from stuff i have researched) mental illness. I also think the same about transgender and how people try to claim that there are more than two genders.

This is something i feel very strongly about but i am open to seeing the other side of things.

Not everything natural is right, and not everything unnatural is wrong.

[Vassenor]

I just find it wrong are two people of the same sex ment to be together in nature? Evidently not i honestly fail to see why society accepts this (Mods this is just my honest opinion and from stuff i have researched) mental illness. I also think the same about transgender and how people try to claim that there are more than two genders.

This is something i feel very strongly about but i am open to seeing the other side of things.

Homosexual behaviour is in fact incredibly common across Kingdom Animalia.

[United Imperial Systems]

I just find it wrong are two people of the same sex ment to be together in nature? Evidently not i honestly fail to see why society accepts this (Mods this is just my honest opinion and from stuff i have researched) mental illness. I also think the same about transgender and how people try to claim that there are more than two genders.

This is something i feel very strongly about but i am open to seeing the other side of things.

Following your logic, should we stop accepting autistic people? I mean, they do have a mental illness afterall, so how dare society accept them.
Just because you find something wrong or unappealing, doesn't mean that, first, others have the same opinion, second, that is it actually wrong to do.
Not to mention the fact that it's not a mental illness.

[The New California Republic]

I just find it wrong are two people of the same sex ment to be together in nature?

What do you mean by two people "in nature"?? That just seems like an empty phrase. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of different species, so it is a hard-sell to prove that it is "unnatural": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex ... in_animals

Evidently not i honestly fail to see why society accepts this

Perhaps because they are human beings, just like you, who are engaging in this behavior with other consenting human beings? Hm?

[Lovitzi]

I just find it wrong are two people of the same sex ment to be together in nature? Evidently not i honestly fail to see why society accepts this (Mods this is just my honest opinion and from stuff i have researched) mental illness. I also think the same about transgender and how people try to claim that there are more than two genders.

This is something i feel very strongly about but i am open to seeing the other side of things.

Following your logic, should we stop accepting autistic people? I mean, they do have a mental illness afterall, so how dare society accept them.
Just because you find something wrong or unappealing, doesn't mean that, first, others have the same opinion, second, that is it actually wrong to do.
Not to mention the fact that it's not a mental illness.

Depends on the type of autism if they are low functioning and they cannot contribute to society then i dont think they should be accepted but put into a institution if they on the otherhand are able to function as a member of society then i see no issue

[United Imperial Systems]

There is nothing disrespectful of a cross in and of itself to non-Christians. It's a symbol of sacrifice at the very least, and if they want to take offense to it, that's their own fault.

Pardon? Last time I checked the cross was a symbol of christianity, at least, the crosses that are put on graves, as a matter of fact, I couldn't find a specific "Symbol of sacrifice", different people find different things as a symbol of sacrifice.
But were we to put a different religious symbol to remember dead christians, you people would be the first one to find it offensive.

"Inclusiveness means not including Christians or any other religious group in particular no matter how important it is to people" :^))))

Never said that, never implied that, never meant that.
You're putting words in my mouth.

And again, there are many monuments to the non-Christian contributors to WWI, so they are included.

Yeah, and my point is that they are a complete waste of space, why not have a uniform monument that represents all people instead of a specific group?

[Vassenor]

Following your logic, should we stop accepting autistic people? I mean, they do have a mental illness afterall, so how dare society accept them.
Just because you find something wrong or unappealing, doesn't mean that, first, others have the same opinion, second, that is it actually wrong to do.
Not to mention the fact that it's not a mental illness.

Depends on the type of autism if they are low functioning and they cannot contribute to society then i dont think they should be accepted but put into a institution if they on the otherhand are able to function as a member of society then i see no issue

What does this have to do with religious acceptance of the community?

[The New California Republic]

Following your logic, should we stop accepting autistic people? I mean, they do have a mental illness afterall, so how dare society accept them.
Just because you find something wrong or unappealing, doesn't mean that, first, others have the same opinion, second, that is it actually wrong to do.
Not to mention the fact that it's not a mental illness.

Depends on the type of autism if they are low functioning and they cannot contribute to society then i dont think they should be accepted but put into a institution if they on the otherhand are able to function as a member of society then i see no issue

Let's stop using autistic people as an allegory or point of comparison regarding homosexual people, the conflation is a bit disturbing to say the least.

[United Imperial Systems]

Following your logic, should we stop accepting autistic people? I mean, they do have a mental illness afterall, so how dare society accept them.
Just because you find something wrong or unappealing, doesn't mean that, first, others have the same opinion, second, that is it actually wrong to do.
Not to mention the fact that it's not a mental illness.

Depends on the type of autism if they are low functioning and they cannot contribute to society then i dont think they should be accepted but put into a institution if they on the otherhand are able to function as a member of society then i see no issue

Ok, so are gay people unable to function and contribute to society then?

[Valentine Z]

Dragging it back to topic, with some degree of determination, I found some interesting statistics by Pew about the acceptance of homosexuality by religion:

>Buddhists: 88% believe it should be accepted; 10% think it shouldn't; 1% said either; the rest don't know

EDIT: Although, the question used by Pew was "Homosexuality should be accepted by society", which gives little wiggle room for weird interpretations.

(I snipped the rest)

Hmm, that's actually pretty interesting! I admit, for the Burmese society, being predominantly Buddhist, the stats surprised me a little. While we accept the gays, it's kinda seen as unnatural by most. It's accepted, but at the same time, I have never heard of a gay marriage in Burma (probably because it's made illegal).

We are generally conservative given the sheer influence of Buddhism in our society, so same-sex marriage and sexual activities between the LGBT are illegal, as well as organised pro-LGBT groups. At the same time, an individual can be gay (openly if they have the gall to) and will not fact that much of a repercussion. Keyword being "not much", so while looked down upon, they will not face prosecution for being gay alone. (If you're travelling to Burma, and you're LGBT, do be careful though!)

As for myself, I just accept anyone for who they are. Be it religion or sexual orientation, I am good as long as you're a nice person in general.

[The Free Joy State]

Can we please get off the subject of war memorials? The thread's going to end up locked.

I just find it wrong are two people of the same sex ment to be together in nature? Evidently not i honestly fail to see why society accepts this (Mods this is just my honest opinion and from stuff i have researched) mental illness. I also think the same about transgender and how people try to claim that there are more than two genders.

This is something i feel very strongly about but i am open to seeing the other side of things.

Not everything natural is right, and not everything unnatural is wrong.

Homosexuality is commonly found in nature, though (outside humankind, I mean). Just take a look at bonobos, some of humans' closest biological relatives (sharing 98.7% DNA).

It's been found that same-sex behaviour exists among animals, even when they have been orphaned and had no older animals to learn it from, which suggests nature not nurture.

[Alvecia]

Can we please get off the subject of war memorials? The thread's going to end up locked.

Not everything natural is right, and not everything unnatural is wrong.

Homosexuality is commonly found in nature, though (outside humankind, I mean). Just take a look at bonobos, some of humans' closest biological relatives (sharing 98.7% DNA).

It's been found that same-sex behaviour exists among animals, even when they have been orphaned and had no older animals to learn it from, which suggests nature not nurture.

I figured I’d just attack the Naturalistc Falacy head on tbh

[The Free Joy State]

Can we please get off the subject of war memorials? The thread's going to end up locked.


Homosexuality is commonly found in nature, though (outside humankind, I mean). Just take a look at bonobos, some of humans' closest biological relatives (sharing 98.7% DNA).

It's been found that same-sex behaviour exists among animals, even when they have been orphaned and had no older animals to learn it from, which suggests nature not nurture.

I figured I’d just attack the Naturalistc Falacy head on tbh

Fair enough. I figured I'd go for an attack the idea that homosexuality is unnatural to begin with.

With no inferences that it's unnatural to fall back on, the "appeal to nature" kind of falls flat. Likewise, without the fallacy, why does it matter whether behaviour is considered "natural" or "unnatural"? So, why not go for both arguments?

[Valentine Z]

Fair enough. I figured I'd go for an attack the idea that homosexuality is unnatural to begin with.

With no inferences that it's unnatural to fall back on, the "appeal to nature" kind of falls flat. Likewise, without the fallacy, why does it matter whether behaviour is considered "natural" or "unnatural"? So, why not go for both arguments?

Being natural seems like a perspective thing. What is natural for us, might not be natural for some people. I'm pretty sure if we go back in time, showing bare legs and ankles to one another would be considered unnatural.

[The Free Joy State]

Fair enough. I figured I'd go for an attack the idea that homosexuality is unnatural to begin with.

With no inferences that it's unnatural to fall back on, the "appeal to nature" kind of falls flat. Likewise, without the fallacy, why does it matter whether behaviour is considered "natural" or "unnatural"? So, why not go for both arguments?

Being natural seems like a perspective thing. What is natural for us, might not be natural for some people. I'm pretty sure if we go back in time, showing bare legs and ankles to one another would be considered unnatural.

I was talking in a strictly biological, rather than sociological sense (my previous post -- before the quote -- referenced homosexuality in orphaned bonobos, which share the majority of their DNA with humans).

I think -- when it comes to showing ankles -- you're talking about social norms. IMO, we should be careful not to confuse -- especially now we can actually test hypotheses better without the unpleasant, and not especially useful (when talking about neural processes) vivsection of former times -- actual biological human nature with social norms.

The two don't always correlate, and social norms can sometimes be designed to actively repress human nature.

[Valentine Z]

Being natural seems like a perspective thing. What is natural for us, might not be natural for some people. I'm pretty sure if we go back in time, showing bare legs and ankles to one another would be considered unnatural.

I was talking in a strictly biological, rather than sociological sense (my previous post -- before the quote -- referenced homosexuality in orphaned bonobos, which share the majority of their DNA with humans).

I think -- when it comes to showing ankles -- you're talking about social norms. IMO, we should be careful not to confuse -- especially now we can actually test hypotheses better without the unpleasant, and not especially useful (when talking about neural processes) vivsection of former times -- actual biological human nature with social norms.

The two don't always correlate, and social norms can sometimes be designed to actively repress human nature.

Oh right, my bad. I definitely confused between the two.

[The Parkus Empire]

Kind of, given that it keeps being hammered into us that every single Muslim is homophobic as hell and would throw a given homosexual off the nearest rooftop given the opportunity.

Sadly, the figures for Evangelical Protestants isn't surprising. When you think of all the people chanting that god hates everything and everyone, they're usually evangelical Protestants.

But I was pleasantly surprised by the figures for Catholics, though. Because Catholics aren't usually thought of as accepting on the whole, and the church is still quite strongly anti-LGBT.

EDIT I have actually known some liberal Muslims, IRL, so I wasn't too shocked by the figures for Muslims.

I expect Catholic numbers would be lower if it only included practicing Catholics

[Vassenor]

Sadly, the figures for Evangelical Protestants isn't surprising. When you think of all the people chanting that god hates everything and everyone, they're usually evangelical Protestants.

But I was pleasantly surprised by the figures for Catholics, though. Because Catholics aren't usually thought of as accepting on the whole, and the church is still quite strongly anti-LGBT.

EDIT I have actually known some liberal Muslims, IRL, so I wasn't too shocked by the figures for Muslims.

I expect Catholic numbers would be lower if it only included practicing Catholics

#notruescotsman

[The Parkus Empire]

I expect Catholic numbers would be lower if it only included practicing Catholics

#notruescotsman

I mean

Research among self-identified Roman Catholics in the Netherlands in 2007 showed that only 27% could be regarded as theist; 55% as ietsist, deist, or agnostic; and 17% as atheist.[11] In 2015 only 13% of self-identified Dutch Catholics believe in the existence of heaven, 17% in a personal God and fewer than half believe that Jesus was the Son of God or sent by God.[12]

Do you consider these sorts actual Catholics?

[Khasinkonia]

#notruescotsman

I mean

Research among self-identified Roman Catholics in the Netherlands in 2007 showed that only 27% could be regarded as theist; 55% as ietsist, deist, or agnostic; and 17% as atheist.[11] In 2015 only 13% of self-identified Dutch Catholics believe in the existence of heaven, 17% in a personal God and fewer than half believe that Jesus was the Son of God or sent by God.[12]

Do you consider these sorts actual Catholics?

Catholic...Atheist?

[The Free Joy State]

#notruescotsman

I mean

Research among self-identified Roman Catholics in the Netherlands in 2007 showed that only 27% could be regarded as theist; 55% as ietsist, deist, or agnostic; and 17% as atheist.[11] In 2015 only 13% of self-identified Dutch Catholics believe in the existence of heaven, 17% in a personal God and fewer than half believe that Jesus was the Son of God or sent by God.[12]

Do you consider these sorts actual Catholics?

You're talking about Dutch Catholics. Dutch Catholics are taught different beliefs. From the same Wikipedia article:

After 1970 the emphasis on catholic concepts like hell, the devil, sinning, the taboo on divorce and remarrying of widows and catholic traditions like confession, kneeling, the teaching of catechism and having the hostia placed on the tongue by the priest rapidly disappeared and these concepts are nowadays seldom or not at all found within contemporary Dutch Catholicism.

They are Catholic, and clearly consider themselves Catholic. They've just been taught a different version, a version where they are allowed to be open about their doubts without fearing eternal damnation.