Gay Rights in Churches

Dre89 · Jan 8, 2012

So random question do you think Churches should be forced to give communion to gays and other supposed sinners?

It's kind of the same principle.

Bob Jane T-Mart · Jan 8, 2012

Dre. said:
So random question do you think Churches should be forced to give communion to gays and other supposed sinners?

It's kind of the same principle.

To some extent yes. Discriminating on the basis of skin colour is very similar to discriminating on the basis of sexuality.

Dre89 · Jan 8, 2012

So what you're saying is that their moral theology should be ignored in their own institution?

It's kind of setting a double standard to say that gays can do whatever they want in their private lives, and that Christians shouldn't invade their functions and protest, but Christians can't do what they want in their private institutions, and gays are allowed to come in and force them to give them communion.

Does this mean I have to let all black people in my own house too? If it's my house, I should be able to pick and choose who I let into my house.

To me what you're suggesting is like a guest going to a person's house where they remove their shoes before entering the house, but the guest refusing to remove his shoes and insisting he is entitled to wear them in the host's property.

rvkevin · Jan 8, 2012

Dre. said:
So what you're saying is that their moral theology should be ignored in their own institution?

It's kind of setting a double standard to say that gays can do whatever they want in their private lives, and that Christians shouldn't invade their functions and protest, but Christians can't do what they want in their private institutions, and gays are allowed to come in and force them to give them communion.

Does this mean I have to let all black people in my own house too? If it's my house, I should be able to pick and choose who I let into my house.

To me what you're suggesting is like a guest going to a person's house where they remove their shoes before entering the house, but the guest refusing to remove his shoes and insisting he is entitled to wear them in the host's property.

The relevant distinction is when the institution is performing a public service, then protected classes can't be discriminated against in principle. If you are renting part of your house to the public, then yes, you have to let black people apply for that service. Otherwise, this doesn't apply to you. If you are selling something on your property, then yes, you have to let black people use that service. Otherwise, this doesn't apply to you. If you have a prayer service that is open to the public, then you have to let black people attend. Otherwise, this doesn't apply to you. So, if you have a prayer service that is invite only (i.e. friends only), then this doesn't apply to you. Also, since the refusal to remove shoes is not a protected class, then this example doesn't apply. However, if it can be shown that you adopted this policy in order to discriminate against a certain community based on a protected class, then it would be relevant if you're performing a public service. This is the distinction between de jure and de facto discrimination; the former being illegal and the latter being legal. There is no double standard here; this is actually fairly established law, so it shouldn’t be too controversial.

Nicholas1024 · Jan 8, 2012

Bob Jane T-Mart said:
To some extent yes. Discriminating on the basis of skin colour is very similar to discriminating on the basis of sexuality.

Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.

blazedaces · Jan 8, 2012

Nicholas1024 said:
Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.

Every reputable psychologist disagrees with you. (SOURCE)

No one is talking about whether or not people commit homosexual acts on their premises. Nor are we even discussing people who commit acts of homosexual intercourse. All we are discussing is discrimination based on one's sexual orientation. That is absolutely not a choice.

-blazed

Aesir · Jan 8, 2012

Nicholas1024 said:
Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.

What is this? I don't even.

You do realize homosexuality isn't a choice right? You can't help who you're attracted to, and tell those who are a bit different that they're wrong is a bit silly to say the least.

Nicholas1024 · Jan 8, 2012

I'm not arguing whether the attraction's a choice or not, I'm saying that the actual act is definitely a choice, and that's what I'm calling wrong. This is based on the Bible stating that sex is meant to be only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, so I don't expect you to agree with me. However, I do expect you to understand how it's different from discrimination with respect to race.

Aesir · Jan 8, 2012

Nicholas1024 said:
I'm not arguing whether the attraction's a choice or not, I'm saying that the actual act is definitely a choice, and that's what I'm calling wrong. This is based on the Bible stating that sex is meant to be only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, so I don't expect you to agree with me. However, I do expect you to understand how it's different from discrimination with respect to race.

It's not actually, at the end of the day you're discriminating against a person for who they are. By saying "yeah it sucks you're like that, but just ignore it." So in reality what you're saying is these people need to live unhappy lives lying to themselves?

This is one of the main reasons why in a secular world we don't use religion to make policy decisions.

blazedaces · Jan 8, 2012

Nicholas1024 said:
I'm not arguing whether the attraction's a choice or not, I'm saying that the actual act is definitely a choice, and that's what I'm calling wrong. This is based on the Bible stating that sex is meant to be only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, so I don't expect you to agree with me. However, I do expect you to understand how it's different from discrimination with respect to race.

The bible mentions rules about slavery and says you can't eat pork or shellfish too... I'm willing to bet you don't follow every part of the bible exactly.

-blazed

GoldShadow · Jan 8, 2012

Nicholas, you're conflating sexual orientation with the act of sex.

Being homosexual and actually having sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex are two different, albeit related, things.

Similarly, being heterosexual and having sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex are two different things.

The topic at hand is discrimination against someone based on their sexual orientation--whether they actually have sex or not (ie, whether they are promiscuous or prudish or virgins or sexually active) is irrelevant. A homosexual doesn't stop being a homosexual just because he or she avoids sex.

Bob Jane T-Mart · Jan 8, 2012

Nicholas1024 said:
Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality.

Tanning and make-up. Being of a particular skin colour is a lifestyle choice. Being gay is not.

Dre89 · Jan 9, 2012

Rv- So if I make a church, and invite all white people, does that count as a public service or not?

Also, saying that asking gays to not act upon their sexuality because it's hard on them is a poor argument because we ask this of many types people, such as pedos and serial killers and we find it reasonable that they manage to do it.

Now of course even if practicing homosexuality is immoral, gays aren't in the same league as killers or pedos, but the point is we ask the same things of them as Christians are asking of gays.

In fact, Christians ask of their priests and unmarried the same as they ask if gays.

I find what they ask totally illogical, inconcistent and in complete conflict with human biology, but the argument from inconvenience is a terrible argument.

Bob Jane T-Mart · Jan 9, 2012

Dre. said:
Rv- So if I make a church, and invite all white people, does that count as a public service or not?

That depends on whether you put up a sign saying, "Communion for WHITES ONLY Inside" or if you actually contact people (who happen to be white) directly and invite them in.

Dre. said:
Also, saying that asking gays to not act upon their sexuality because it's hard on them is a poor argument because we ask this of many types people, such as pedos and serial killers and we find it reasonable that they manage to do it.

Now of course even if practicing homosexuality is immoral, gays aren't in the same league as killers or pedos, but the point is we ask the same things of them as Christians are asking of gays.

Gays do not go around ****** children or killing people, like serial killer and paedophiles do. What they do is an expression of love (just ask Stephen Fry). And I don't think it is reasonable to ask them to not engage in sexual activity, just because. We may be asking the same thing of paedophiles and serial killers, but we have a whole lot better reason to. Why ask someone to stop doing something that they enjoy for no good reason at all?

Dre. said:
In fact, Christians ask of their priests and unmarried the same as they ask if gays.

Yeah, but you choose to be a priest. You don't choose to be gay. Who would do that? With all the stigma that they have attached to them, why wouldn't you want to be heterosexual?

Dre. said:
I find what they ask totally illogical, inconcistent and in complete conflict with human biology, but the argument from inconvenience is a terrible argument.

No, it's a sound argument. These people are being discriminated against because of what they are. It's not their fault, and they don't harm anyone so why the hell should we care?

rvkevin · Jan 9, 2012

Dre. said:
Rv- So if I make a church, and invite all white people, does that count as a public service or not?

If you make it invite only and only invite white people, then this is de facto discrimination and is legal. If you make it open to the public with the condition that only white people are allowed to attend, then this is de jure discrimination and is illegal. However, lets say that you have a really good reason to discriminate on the basis of someone's melanin content, then you can. But no such reason exists for a Church service, so no.

Basically, you are allowed to create a rule. This rule can disproportionately effect a protected class. However, this rule cannot be put into place simply to disproportionately effect said protected class. This means that if it does disproportionately effect a protected class, it must perform a specific purpose. For example, it is legal to create a rule which will limit the number of women from becoming a firefighter. However, not all rules are legal. If you say that you must weigh X, then this rule will be illegal because it does not serve said purpose. If you say you must be able to carry X amount of weight through a building, were X is the median or 85th percentile weight of the population, then this is reasonable given the purpose of the rule to discriminate against people unable to perform said job. Even though both rules favor males (i.e. a greater proportion of males will pass than females), one is legal and the other is not.

If you enact a rule that says a pastor must not have sexual relations when not married, and this is applied to everyone equally (i.e. enforced equally), then this would be legal barring any de jure discrimination objections. You would have to argue that celibacy is required for that position. However, since (most) Christian doctrines say that Jesus is the only person who hasn't sinned and that all sins are equally blasphemous to a perfect being, then it would be ad hoc to discriminate on the basis of any single sin. This is evidence that said rule was enacted simply to discriminate against homosexual couples who would otherwise be married. At most, you would be able to have a rule that said that a pastor must repent upon sinning, and that this could be applied to homosexuals barring any de jure discrimination. As for conditions for attendance, most churches preach that they are open to anyone who repents, which would make just about make any rule illegal (with the exception about repentance). However, I'm not sure how much weight non-secular reasons have in the court of law, so this might not even qualify as a valid reason.

Dre89 · Jan 9, 2012

Bob- But you've changed your argument now.

Before it was simply the idea of asking someone to ignore their sexuality that you said was wrong, now you've changed it to 'well it doesn't harm anyone'.

The fact that killers harm other people doesn't make their sexuality any easier to ignore, yet we still expect the same thing of them.

Of course whether or not homosexuality is immoral isn't the topic. Simply not harming others isn't always enough, as drugs are outlawed yet technically don't harm others.

The fact you think something not harming others automatically makes it permissable shows you're assuming a specific moral thought, but this isn't a homosexuality debate.

Rv- So if I send invites to every white person in the country, is that allowed?

What if the mayor of a town displays a public notice saying that everyone in the town is invited to a party. Is that discrimination against people who don't live in the town?

AltF4 · Jan 9, 2012

The line seems pretty clear to me:

If you take public resources (which in the US, churches do by being tax exempt) then you are not allowed to discriminate. If you are a place of public business, (IE: You ARE a public resource) ditto. If you are a strictly private institution which takes no public resources, then you can accept whoever you want with as much discrimination as you want.

So a Catholic church which pays no taxes and is in effect subsidized in part by gays and lesbians, must be open to gays and lesbians. Similarly, the Boy Scouts (a Christian orginization) who receives preferential treatment and free rousources from the state should not be allowed to ban gays and atheists from membership nor leadership position.

Sucumbio · Jan 9, 2012

AltF4 said:
So a Catholic church which pays no taxes and is in effect subsidized in part by gays and lesbians, must be open to gays and lesbians. Similarly, the Boy Scouts (a Christian orginization) who receives preferential treatment and free rousources from the state should not be allowed to ban gays and atheists from membership nor leadership position.

Heh. Being an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scout Master (way back when) I can attest that this is truth, and harshly overlooked. If you go up for your board of review and are asked "do you believe in God?" and say "No," you will NOT be promoted.

The scout law: A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and -reverent-. (Can't believe I still remember that, lol)

The scout oath: On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty, TO GOD, and my country; to obey the scout law; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and -morally straight-.

That last bit is definitely meant to be taken in as a pledge of sexual purity (abstinence before marriage, and to be heterosexual).

So in essence, it is an organization that requires you to be a straight, god-fearing male.

As it turns out, we had a few members in our troop that were neither straight, nor christian. They still got promoted, but only so long as they kept the truth of themselves quiet. A literal don't-ask-don't-tell policy. It's no secret that the Scouts have always been a precursor to military service. One day my scoutmaster actually said "I hope we don't turn into a 'gay' troop." I really didn't know what to say. He was my friend, my mentor, he'd taught me a lot about wilderness survival and marksmanship... about being a man. He'd given me my first real job. Was I to turn to this father figure and proclaim the injustices of his rhetoric?

Yes. It'd be years before I learned this, of course. I was young then, just out of high school. The opportunity missed to stomp out a bigot.

Now I do see where Dre.'s question comes from, and I have to agree in part with the sentiment of the question. But it's more a question of specifics.

In a Catholic Church, communion is technically a privilege. true anyone can walk in off the street and receive the "body of Christ" and the "blood of Heaven." But you're supposed to be confirmed Catholic, for one... and you have to have confessed your sins, two. Only by this should you accept communion. Obviously you can lie, to yourself more than the priest, as they won't ask you if you're a confirmed Catholic, or if you've received confession lately. But you'd be in error in terms of Catechism.

So the point here is an obtuse one, but one that priests indulge. If you're gay, and have acted on your gay sexuality, you have committed a sin. Unless this is confessed, you should not take communion. Even if you haven't acted on the impulse, you still must confess the "impure thoughts."

However, if you are gay, and a Catholic, and you have confessed... there's no reason to be denied communion. If a priest did, the person in question could complain to the arch bishop that though they are gay, they have confessed their sins, and are confirmed, and are yet still being denied communion, and the priest would be censured.

Now if it's a Protestant church, then communion is a given. Though the priest may feel uncomfortable doing so, they are technically obligated.

rvkevin · Jan 9, 2012

Dre. said:
Rv- So if I send invites to every white person in the country, is that allowed?

Not likely. Like I said earlier, "However, this rule cannot be put into place simply to disproportionately effect said protected class." If it is obvious that you are doing this on purpose, it would be de jure discrimination barring a good reason. This is the same as having it be public with the condition of being white for eligibility. This would be like instead of a firm putting a job listing on a website with said condition, they simply mailed the position to every white person in the country. It would be found in the court to be de jure discrimination. However, let's say that they could prove that they decided that they were going to mail it out to 195,000,000 people and they did so randomly. If they randomly selected just about every white person in the country, and they could prove this, then it would be legal. However, the odds of that happening by chance would be so small that, barring evidence to the contrary, it would be "proof" of de jure discrimination.

What if the mayor of a town displays a public notice saying that everyone in the town is invited to a party. Is that discrimination against people who don't live in the town?

Yes. However, local origin is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate on that basis. National origin, however, is a protected class so it is illegal to discriminate on that basis. If you said that people from Mexico were not invited, then that would be illegal.

Sucumbrio said:
As it turns out, we had a few members in our troop that were neither straight, nor christian. They still got promoted, but only so long as they kept the truth of themselves quiet.

I find this odd that all non-Christians would be at risk when there are awards in the areas of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Unitarian Churches. It seems like it would be an easy thing to track. Just curious, did you join the Order of the Arrow? Given the emphasis on Indian Lore, I would have thought any mention of God would have referred to Mother Earth and had pantheistic origins rather than to the Christian deity. This is to say, ignoring the active discrimination that has gone on, which is deeply disappointing to me and warrants the loss of any public privileges.

Nicholas1024 · Jan 9, 2012

Hey Succumbio, if you had two candidates for a boy scout leader, but the better one was known to be an avid watcher of child pornography, would you still pick him? I'm pretty sure that 90% of parents wouldn't. Also, I condemn homosexuality on the same grounds I condemn pornography, in that the Bible condemns it, and I believe that to be the word of God.

Also, the question about sin depends on the attitude. If someone is legitimately struggling with pornography or whatever, then I'll pray for them and hope they can overcome it, and they'd be accepted at just about any church. If they're sneaking off in the middle of service to look at pornography, then they're clearly not repentant and definitely shouldn't be in any sort of leadership position.

@Goldshadow
Alright, I'll keep that in mind, thanks for the clarification.

@blazed
If you'd bothered to look at the context, you'd know that the books of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (and the ones with the other similar commands) were specifically commands for Israelites back then and no longer apply.

@Bob
If tanning and makeup actually worked to stop that kind of discrimination, it would have been done a long time ago. And your comment about being gay being uncontrollable only reveals that you didn't read the rest of my post.

Sucumbio · Jan 9, 2012

rvkevin said:
I find this odd that all non-Christians would be at risk when there are awards in the areas of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Unitarian Churches. It seems like it would be an easy thing to track. Just curious, did you join the Order of the Arrow? Given the emphasis on Indian Lore, I would have thought any mention of God would have referred to Mother Earth and had pantheistic origins rather than to the Christian deity. This is to say, ignoring the active discrimination that has gone on, which is deeply disappointing to me and warrants the loss of any public privileges.

Well it's good you point that out because in point of fact the BSA has an answer for everything (kinda like the Catholics).

The Charter and Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America maintain that no boy can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God. Scouting is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion. Membership in a religious organization is not required. -source

This, of course negates any predilection towards a specific religion, and welcomes anyone of any faith to become a scout. At the time I was in scouting (late 80's through the 90's) and in my particular council (Minuteman, then the Boston-Minuteman as they merged) was for the most part Christian, and in my town in particular the meetings were held in the basement of a Baptist church. I was the one who actually posed the question to my scoutmaster when I was about halfway through the program "So if I'm asked 'do I believe in God' and I say 'no' what would happen?" The question was honest enough, and he could tell that I was struggling with the concept of faith, and that I may even have doubts of there being a God, but he assured me for my own benefit that if I wanted the advancement, to say "yes." So I said yes, lol.

Nicholas1024 said:
Hey Succumbio, if you had two candidates for a boy scout leader, but the better one was known to be an avid watcher of child pornography, would you still pick him? I'm pretty sure that 90% of parents wouldn't. Also, I condemn homosexuality on the same grounds I condemn pornography, in that the Bible condemns it, and I believe that to be the word of God.

Uh, I'm not sure why you addressed me with this, I don't think I said anything to evoke this response? ... but to answer your question (which seems rhetorical) I would not pick someone who enjoyed child porn, and I'd question the grounds on which their being "better" was based.

As for why you condemn homosexuality, that's between you, and ... you (and God it seems). I do not personally condemn it, and I don't think that a priest should either. I do however stand by my assessment of Catechism in terms of a gay person wanting to partake in holy communion.

Also, the question about sin depends on the attitude. If someone is legitimately struggling with pornography or whatever, then I'll pray for them and hope they can overcome it, and they'd be accepted at just about any church. If they're sneaking off in the middle of service to look at pornography, then they're clearly not repentant and definitely shouldn't be in any sort of leadership position.

uh, sure! But of course there's "sin" and then there's sin. I mean, chocolate, it's -sinful-. Hah. Being gay isn't a sin. Acting on being gay is a sin (to some faiths) ... to the Catholics, acting on your gay impulses is a sin and must be confessed. Then you can take communion. If you go out that night and do it again, you can confess again, and take communion... again. It's a rigorous cycle being a Catholic. Kinda makes one wonder what the point is, but that's for another discussion methinks.

Nicholas1024 · Jan 9, 2012

Succumbio, although you may know about Catholics (which I personally have not really studied), that's not the same thing as mainstream (aka: Protestant) Christianity. And the point about the child pornography question was that he wasn't actually hurting anyone, so by (your? someone used it) argument you should pick him. And let's assume for the sake of argument that his being otherwise better is based on objective grounds (more fit, better knowledge of the wilderness, etc.)

AltF4 · Jan 9, 2012

Succumbio makes a good point that the BSA is not officially a christian ogranization. Though any member (I was for years) will tell you that they are essentially a defacto one. Unless their stance changed recently, the BSA allows gay and atheist boys to join. They probably see it as a good opportunity to convert them. But adult gay and atheist leaders are not allowed. Combined with the fact that the BSA recieves preferential treatment and free access to public resources that other groups have to pay for (essentially a subsidy) you have a bad pairing. It's a publicly funded discriminatory group, just like a church.

It just-so-happens that the Boy Scouts have such an honored reputation in the USA that no congressman would dare put forth legislation trying to harm them.

Dre89 · Jan 9, 2012

So Bob do you still think that an unconfessed gay, or a gay who commtis any of the other standard sins should still be entitled to communion?

Because if you do, you're actually discriminating against non-gays. The practice of homosexuality according to the Church is a mortal sin, which means unless you confess it you're not entilted to communion.

Examples of other mortal sins are any sexual impurity, or not going to mass on Sundays.

So if you're going to argue that sinful gays should get communion simply because they're gay and to avoid discrimination, despite the fact that non-gays on the same level of sin aren't entitled to communion, then you're discriminating against non-gays.

Rv- The distinction between local and national discrimination seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Evil Eye · Jan 10, 2012

And the point about the child pornography question was that he wasn't actually hurting anyone, so by (your? someone used it) argument you should pick him

Wow, I was going to stay out of this one, but this is ****ing ridiculous.

I sensed the bigotry in spades when you first put the analogy out there but was going to allow someone else to dissect it with you. At this point, it's simply inexcusable.

There is a pretty god damned obvious connection between child molestation and pedophilia/child pornography. That does not compare. In any way. "He's not hurting anyone but himself". Okay, and? This doesn't compare at the most fundamental of levels, because the creation of child pornography in the first place involves the hurting of a child, and furthermore it is illegal.

In what way does that person being a candidate for boy scout leadership, of all damned things compare to a homosexual being granted the right to worship and pray? In what way? Give me ONE connection, other than "it's icky and I don't like it".

A lover of child pornography being a boy scout leader is a disastrous idea because it is very clearly only a matter of time until a molestation is committed. For this not to occur in your hypothetical situation would be completely anomalous. People would get hurt.

A homosexual being allowed to pray in your church -- and I'm taking no stance on that, mind you -- does not correlate in any way whatsoever. Their presence isn't going to turn people gay. They're not going to **** people. They're just there, doin' their religious guy/gal thing, and they happen to be gay.

You deliberately reached out to concoct the most inflammatory, offensive, and above all illogical analogy you possibly could because you are blinded by your intolerance, which would be fine by me if you could craft arguments related to it that aren't so completely terrible and insulting.

As someone that watched you for like a year in the Proving Grounds and finally gave you that +1, I can only shake my head right now, because reading that actually made me feel profound shame.

Evil Eye · Jan 10, 2012

As to the topic at hand, it is dicey. I remember when gay marriage debates were all the rage back here, I boiled it down to something pretty simple. I think homosexuals have every right to be married. However, I don't think they have any right to be married, say, in a Christian church, or by a Christian priest, or both. If they could a willing location and holy man for the union, then hey, cool. But if not, forcing that upon said priests by sanction would be just as much of a violation of rights. As much as I don't agree with the notion, that is indeed a part of the faith.

However, I can't imagine the outright condemnation and ostracizing of Christians who are homosexual. Sinners they would be by definition of the faith, but I thought the faith is built upon pillars of praying to bring yourself through rough patches of all kinds, including sin. I admit my knowledge of Christianity isn't what it used to be, but this seems like cherrypicking to me. Is Christianity actually explicit about sinners being unable to worship and work through their dark days? I find that hard to believe. This seems more like a socially-minded exclusion with a murky justification in faith to me.

At any rate it is not as clear cut as gay marriage, which unlike this particular act of exclusion has concrete and understandable rationale. Christian marriage is a thing men and women do. That's just how it is. No big deal.

Nicholas1024 · Jan 10, 2012

After some talk with EE on AIM, I've come to the conclusion that he's right about the analogy, and I completely lost track of what I was actually arguing for, so for that I apologize. My other posts (at least so far as I remember) have been on target, but I got turned around there trying to defeat one specific argument (that just because someone hasn't done something to someone else makes what they do acceptable), and lost sight of the big picture. So again, sorry about that, and I'll try to keep better track of things.

Basically, to set the record straight, there's two main things I've been trying to establish in this thread.

1. Christianity only condemns the act (as well as lusting, aka: daydreaming about it) of homosexuality which is definitely a choice. It does not condemn being tempted towards it which you can't really control.

2. Using the above definition, Christianity's condemnation of homosexuality is much like Christianity's condemnation of pornography, and is nothing like racism as some posters have been suggesting.

rvkevin · Jan 10, 2012

Dre. said:
Rv- The distinction between local and national discrimination seems pretty arbitrary to me.

I'm just telling you the law. It's probably because protected classes are added once its recognized to be a problem. For example, it is legal to discriminate job applicants on the basis of eye color since that's not a protected class. However, if this started happening, it would probably be added as a protected class. It's not a protected class simply because there's no tradition of it happening (law is usually reactionary). However, race and national origin are protected classes because people are actually discriminated on that basis. If people were discriminated based on their local town, then that might warrant adding.

blazedaces · Jan 10, 2012

Nicholas1024 said:
@blazed
If you'd bothered to look at the context, you'd know that the books of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (and the ones with the other similar commands) were specifically commands for Israelites back then and no longer apply.

So I looked this up, and was confused to see that the lines in the bible that people use as an excuse to be bigots is also in Leviticus. Can you explain to me what distinguishes the "commands for Israelites back then" and the lines you're using?

-blazed

Nicholas1024 · Jan 10, 2012

@blazedaces
I don't recall anything specifically directed at homosexuality off the top of my head, it's mainly that (just from new testament stuff), the Bible condemns sex outside of marriage (which is split into the two cases of adultery and fornication), and marriage is almost always referred to as being between a man and a woman. So yeah, if people are using only Leviticus as a source, they need to change their reference. Anything else?

Sucumbio · Jan 10, 2012

First, I appreciate the clarification, Nic. I was dismayed to see this turning into yet another conflation between pedophilia and homosexuality even if that wasn't the intention. To even mention them in the same realm is just... ugh.

Nicholas1024 said:
1. Christianity only condemns the act (as well as lusting, aka: daydreaming about it) of homosexuality which is definitely a choice. It does not condemn being tempted towards it which you can't really control.

I do not disagree, and this analysis is applicable to Catholics as well as most Protestants (though there are several Protestant churches that do not discriminate against gays).

It should be noted that a strong justification by churches for their beliefs lie in a logical fallacy, specifically the appeal to Nature, or naturalistic fallacy.

[COLLAPSE="lolz"]"I Was Born This Way"

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is. -source[/COLLAPSE]

Of course instead of correlating homosexuality with pedophilia, this analysis correlates it with destructive abuse patterns. It's worth mentioning because in either case, a key mistake is made in logic, in which the behaviors and tendencies in question are incorrectly applied to suit the comparison.

For instance: the natural argument overlooks the acts of homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom.

The comparison to substance abuse fails to recognize the difference in level of choice associated with drinking versus sexual preference.

However, it is not surprising that churches will overlook these inconveniences in favor of their own dogma. How can you argue against the story of Sodom? When you add together passages of the bible, interpretations of scripture along with the heavily sided view of churches in favor of concepts such as "God's Law" and the "Natural Order of things" ... well, there's not much room for argument.

Does this mean that gays should not be accepted in their faith? No. I think that if one is gay, and is a Christian, then they should try to find a congregation that loves them as they love God. To force their way into a congregation of die-hard old-school Christians, is inappropriate. To evoke an aforementioned comparison in a way that does actually work, you wouldn't find a black man trying to join the KKK (unless you read the Daily Squib that is, lol).

2. Using the above definition, Christianity's condemnation of homosexuality is much like Christianity's condemnation of pornography, and is nothing like racism as some posters have been suggesting.

Well... okay. But...

One of the roots of racism in America against blacks was the idea that slaves had no souls to speak of, so therefore could be treated inhumanely. Even after the Civil War, this sentiment remained unfortunately prevalent. A christian therefore could justify an elevated position... an absolute divide lending itself to the creation of a second, lower class.

Now I realize this isn't exactly what's been said, so to avoid a straw-man I won't suggest that my points supports their position. However it is important to recognize the institution in play. Minorities trying to bring themselves into American folds often find themselves outcast.

To quote a personal favorite "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story"

"Well, you might be an American Citizen, but... you're not an American."

Heh, this sort of idea, that to be American meant you had to WHITE, has been a strong basis for racial tensions in the US. All kinds of examples come to mind... the lone black family who happens to have more money than anyone else in the neighborhood, moves in, and yet the property values suddenly plummet. What right does the Board of Commission have to say that my home is now worth 10% less because a -black- family moved in next door. With their hoops and their chitterlings and their block parties and loud hippity hop music. Outrageous! We shouldn't let them live there, we should petition the Chamber of Commerce to censure any lenders or banks that offer sales to -those people-.

Sounds fairly ridiculous, but you'd be surprised.

Now if we try to imagine the same type of scenario, a gay couple for instance, who just moved to town, and who are Baptists. Maybe their own neighborhood gives two ****s and they have no problems. But then they go to mass and woah woah, who are THESE two?

"We don't serve your kind here."

"huh?"

"Your ****. They'll have to wait outside."

"Oh... you'd better wait outside. We don't want any trouble."

I know, equally ridiculous, but such a think is what has raised this question to the Debate Hall, so there you have it. No they're not the same thing, racism and pornography, but the sentiment of intolerance is the same no matter how you spell it.

It just so happens that I believe that in THIS instance, it's up to a gay person or persons to find a congregation that accepts them. Why? Well... because it's messing with faith. If it's one's faith to believe that God Hates **** as Fred Phelps would have us believe, then it's highly inappropriate for a gay couple to expect a warm reception at their sunday pancake breakfast.

TL;DR:

blazedaces · Jan 10, 2012

Nicholas1024 said:
@blazedaces
I don't recall anything specifically directed at homosexuality off the top of my head, it's mainly that (just from new testament stuff), the Bible condemns sex outside of marriage (which is split into the two cases of adultery and fornication), and marriage is almost always referred to as being between a man and a woman. So yeah, if people are using only Leviticus as a source, they need to change their reference. Anything else?

Alright, well I've never heard this as the argument against homosexuality from the bible. That being said, let me ask this. If someone were married under a different religion and has sex is this considered adultery? If not, and 2 gay people are married by a different church, is them having sex still considered adultery?

-blazed

Dre89 · Jan 10, 2012

Sucumbio- Just want to point out that an appeal to nature is really only an appal to human nature, not animal nature.

For example one could say that because animals like dolphins and bonobos have social sex, we should too. However, on biology alone this doesn't work. Unlike those animals humans don't have a way of having sex without the chance of procreation (without any artificial means, we're talking about biology here remeber).

Even the idea of pulling out doesn'y apply because that's not natural, in fact the opposite is what's natural.

So I'm not saying sex can't be done casually, that's another debate, but you can't make that argument by analogy to the animal kingdom because the analogy turns out to be quite weak.

Nicholas1024 · Jan 10, 2012

blazedaces said:
Alright, well I've never heard this as the argument against homosexuality from the bible. That being said, let me ask this. If someone were married under a different religion and has sex is this considered adultery? If not, and 2 gay people are married by a different church, is them having sex still considered adultery?

-blazed

If a man and a woman happened to be married under a different religion, then I'd say it was fine. However, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, so in the gay example you gave I'd wouldn't consider it to be marriage, and consider the act of sex to be fornication.

Anyway, I think there are actually verses from the Bible that address the issue more directly, but I think the above works as an argument, so they aren't needed at the moment.

Evil Eye · Jan 10, 2012

No. Marriage has a two-pronged meaning. There is, of course, the Christian connotation. However, there are numerous (most likely the majority, can't be arsed to look it up as it's immaterial to the debate) completely secular marriages taking place every year. While this act of marriage splintered off of the Christian marriage, it is nonetheless distinct in that it is not bound by the rules of Christianity. The objective and purpose is not to declare one's union before God, but before the state and their peers.

You have completely dodged Sucumbio's point, as I think it was rather obvious he was talking about a gay marriage (NOT a CHRISTIAN marriage, remember) under another banner that would allow said marriage. Admittedly he muddied the water a bit by specifying the religious angle, but I think this is his point and I'd like to see a non-evasive answer to it.

Marriage under different banners is governed by different rules. While the perspective of these marriages and different religions/lacks of religion is different when looking through the lens of your own religion, this still bears consideration, and you have chosen not to in your reply.

AltF4 · Jan 10, 2012

I'm seeing a lot of posts about whether or not it's consistent within a religion's own dogma to discriminate agaist gays, but nothing to do with legal matters. The question about whether or not gays should be allowed the right to attend church services seems to be completely a legal issue, not a theological one.

And as far as I'm concerned, you can't simulataneously claim to be tax emempt and also discriminatory organization. Do we have consensus that churches should either lose their tax exempt status in the US or else be forced to give full undiscriminated service to every willing member of the public?

Evil Eye · Jan 10, 2012

Is that really practical? The tax-exempt status is one of the necessary cogs for any religion to maintain its practice, since churches and holy men survive on donations, which is the only realistic way for them to continue their practice. Taxing churches is more like retaxing religious taxpayers.

Consistency within dogma makes plenty of difference, because it determines whether this is secular discrimination with flimsy and reaching attempts at religious justification, or a disagreeable but nonetheless codified aspect of the religious doctrine. One of the main facets of most religions is abiding by certain rules of conduct; stripping that away is in violation of the Constitution.

And that's regardless of whether I like or agree with it.

blazedaces · Jan 10, 2012

AltF4 said:
I'm seeing a lot of posts about whether or not it's consistent within a religion's own dogma to discriminate agaist gays, but nothing to do with legal matters. The question about whether or not gays should be allowed the right to attend church services seems to be completely a legal issue, not a theological one.

And as far as I'm concerned, you can't simulataneously claim to be tax emempt and also discriminatory organization. Do we have consensus that churches should either lose their tax exempt status in the US or else be forced to give full undiscriminated service to every willing member of the public?

Yes, but realistically I don't see any politician being able to pull it off. At least not in today's American culture.

-blazed

blazedaces · Jan 10, 2012

Dre. said:
Sucumbio- Just want to point out that an appeal to nature is really only an appal to human nature, not animal nature.

For example one could say that because animals like dolphins and bonobos have social sex, we should too. However, on biology alone this doesn't work. Unlike those animals humans don't have a way of having sex without the chance of procreation (without any artificial means, we're talking about biology here remeber).

Even the idea of pulling out doesn'y apply because that's not natural, in fact the opposite is what's natural.

So I'm not saying sex can't be done casually, that's another debate, but you can't make that argument by analogy to the animal kingdom because the analogy turns out to be quite weak.

I just want to point out Dre that you have never once in the debate hall defined the word natural properly. It's pretty obvious that Sucumbio's use of the word varies greatly with whatever you mean by it.

-blazed

AltF4 · Jan 10, 2012

Evil Eye said:
Is that really practical? The tax-exempt status is one of the necessary cogs for any religion to maintain its practice, since churches and holy men survive on donations, which is the only realistic way for them to continue their practice. Taxing churches is more like retaxing religious taxpayers.

Churches survived just fine until 1954 when they were granted tax immunity:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
also
http://www.informationvine.com/money/business/accounting-taxes/what-church-tax-exemption
(Churches don't even pay property taxes)

Though I fully agree with you that no congressman will dare touch a bill removing church's tax immunity. But it can be still challenged through the courts. These kinds of popular laws which are injustices to a minority are exactly why we have a balance to the legislature via the courts. So I wouldn't call it out of the question so hastily.

I also agree that determining if discrimination is justified through one's theology can help you determine if they're:
A) Merely following what they're told to think by their theology. (Not exactly a commendable thing)
or
B) Retrofitting their theology ad-hoc to fit their preexisting prejudices.

Both positions I find reprehensible, and almost equally so. So I'm not clear what the point is there.

Gay Rights in Churches

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Marsilea quadrifolia

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Smash Giant

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Giant

Smash Lord

BRoomer

Smash Hero

Selling the Lie

Selling the Lie

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Giant

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Selling the Lie

BRoomer

Selling the Lie

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

BRoomer

Information

Network