Religion and Homosexuality

@ zainmjily
We were specifically discussing Catholicism and homosexuality. Specifically. We can't really discuss homosexuality and Catholicism without discussing Catholicism now, can we?

If you read our posts, you'll see what we're talking about. If you don't want to read our posts, then I'll continue to correct you because taking something out of context and jumping it doesn't make a lot of sense...

Yes, I know that. But why should it be up to the church or anybody who I love.
What buisness is it?

@ zainmjily
Because the church has lots of money/voters and makes it their business. You're acting like we live in an ideal world where religion has no influence on rights or sexuality, but that's not the case. The Catholic church was a driving force behind Prop 8 and other anti-gay measures.

It's not fair, unjust and inhumane. I don't don't a flying frack what some priest or bishop says, I'm getting married wether they like it or not.

"Equally to all" Yeah, what a crock of shit.

zainmjily:

It's not fair, unjust and inhumane. I don't don't a flying frack what some priest or bishop says, I'm getting married wether they like it or not.

Well, not legally you're not. Didn't the Australian Senate just nix a bill for marriage equality? Of course it's unfair and unjust, but that doesn't mean it's not happening or you should ignore it.

@ zainmjily
Not if they make it illegal in your country. That's the point Kurtni was trying to make. If religious factions make same-sex marriage illegal in your country, you aren't getting married whether they like it or not. At least not legally.

So, I've got a question. Is there a religion that hasn't raised money to help against LGBT rights or doesn't at all condemn homosexuality and fully accepts it? I've been doing a little reading and churches from different religions have come together to raise money against gay marriage, Christian churches, Evangelical churches, Pentecost churches and yes, the Catholic church too, among others. All of these are organizations seem pretty homophobic to me. Just recently up to 200 churches from these different religions got together to fund raise money against gay marriage. Is it really fair to say that every person a part of these religions/organizations are supporting homophobia by default? No.

BUT, I guess if we are for gay rights we must surrender to being an Atheist because no matter which religion we practice we are considered apart of that centralized institution/organization, if we do belong to a particular religion then we are supporting homophobia by default.

Kurtni:

If you're a member of a homophobic organization, by default, you're supporting homophobia. If you don't want to support homophobia, don't be a member of a homophobic organization.

But really, does it even make sense to say if someone is a part of a religion it defaults them to supporting homophobia? The Oxford dictionary definition for the word "organization" is "an organized body of people with a particular purpose..." A religion is an organization and when you generalize that way it doesn't make sense because not all individuals apart of said religion/organization ( I do think they are one in the same) agree with certain aspects of their religion.

I'm not defending the Catholic Church's actions against the LGBT community, I'm just saying that most religions/organizations in one way or another have contributed, in some way, against the LGBT community.

It's just silly to say "if you don't want to support homophobia, don't be a member of a homophobic organization", to me, because I do believe in God, I believe in the sacraments, and I believe in the Virgin Mary, I pray to her. What religion/organization would I fall under that wouldn't make me a a supporter of homophobia by default?

@ Jewel Nicole
Churches tend to be more by church. The first openly gay bishop was Episcopalian (Gene Robinson). Some churches will marry gay couples and support their right to marry, while others do not. Unlike the Catholic church, these denominations tend to be on a church by church basis.

Jewel Nicole:

Is there a religion that hasn't raised money to help against LGBT rights or doesn't at all condemn homosexuality and fully accepts it?

Not to my knowledge. Though there are Christian churches that raise money to help LGBTs and accept them and such. Bahá'i is often raised as an example of a 'modern', 'accepting' religion (and they're pretty good with things like other religions, foreigners, women, etc) but still has gay taboos. I have friends who have been kicked out by their Bahá'i parents for being gay. However, on the matter of acceptance, a number of churches have begun to move forward - e.g. the Anglican church allowing female ministers, debating internally on the matter of gay ministers (I don't know if they resolved that yet), etc.

But both Kurtni and Andy have pointed out that you don't need to "surrender to being an Atheist" if you concede that institutionalised religion, but particularly the Catholic church, harms LGBs. You can still have strong, rich faith, you can still believe and you can still pray. I don't see what is silly about what they have both proposed, which is that you do not contribute your money or support to an organisation which is explicitly, proudly, powerfully anti-gay like the Catholic church is. If you think attending your church and/or giving the church money is more important than the ideological (and, in terms of resources, practical) stand against homophobic behaviour and rhetoric, that's your opinion and your choice to make. But I agree with Kurtni - it damages your position as an alleged supporter of LGBT rights. And if you only support non-hetero/cis people with words, but are supporting the Catholic church with money or numbers they use to get money, then your support is just [extremely hollow] words. Not liking to hear that doesn't make it false. You don't seem to be grasping the points others have made about the distinction between what I see as philosophy and membership. You can have a philosophy which for the most part would be said to fall under Group X (e.g. Catholicism) without being a member of that group with the non-abstract / practical elements involved (e.g. money and support). Compare it to marriage, which is an imperfect but close enough example: a gay couple may have the philosophy of a marriage, to all intents and purposes be married - in terms of their feelings and behaviour - but none of the legal or social benefits, detriments and acknowledgement that a marriage has in broader society.

I guess I would ask you: if you were excommunicated for nothing aside from who you are right now and how you live your life right now (i.e. nothing new, nothing changed) would you still consider yourself Catholic? Even though you no longer have membership? This is also not a perfect comparison, but, were I excluded from [X religious community], while I would have a lot of conflicting and probably painful feelings, it would [probably] not fundamentally change my beliefs. I wouldn't say, "Well, I'm not X now" and never pray again.

@pravda.

I still do not agree that the only way for Catholic individuals to be GLBT friendly/allies is to leave their church and damn themselves to hell. You say you don't think it's silly and it isn't; it's very very serious. I don't know that people who don't believe in souls/afterlife understand the importance of preparing for it.

@ dru is screaming.

That's my position exactly.

dru is screaming.:

I still do not agree that the only way for Catholic individuals to not be GLBT friendly/allies is to leave their church and damn themselves to hell. You say you don't think it's silly and it isn't, it's very very serious. I don't know that people who don't believe in souls/afterlife understand the importance of preparing for it.

I agree that it is serious. I meant precisely what I said - that it is not silly - not any other inference e.g. that it is the only option or that disagreeing with it is silly.

I did not say that leaving the church was the only thing to do. I put the action of supporting a church on a scale and said that if your practical support for the church outweighs your practical support for LGBTs then you are only a nominal supporter of the community. Again, not liking to hear that doesn't make it false. Just to be clear, you don't know what I believe or the importance of my beliefs to me. But: you weigh up what you believe about gay people with what you believe about God. If you believe God would prefer you to support a church which persecutes gay people, that He would not understand and support your decision to leave such a church (formally, in terms of severing the practical support you offered it) then that's your belief/opinion. But that stance damages your legitimacy as an LGBT 'supporter'.

Ed: I think I'd prefer to say "your effectiveness" since that's much more obvious/clear. But it seems quite straightforward that if you are an ineffective supporter, or indeed if your life choices damage the people you're purporting to support, that damages your legitimacy.

@ pravda.
Catholics are in a unique position not to be able to make up their own minds about what God believes. Because what the Pope says God believes is infallible and what their priests and things say are an extension of God. And they are not able to bend from that.

Earlier in this discussion Kurtni and I had, she did say the only way would be for the person to leave the church, so that's where that came from.

@ dru is screaming.

That's where I differ from my religion as well. I think God loves and accepts all and I don't think God is against homosexuality either. I guess I see God being open-minded, loving, accepting, and not Catholics agree with it and that's cool with me, it's my belief, not theirs.

And I don't see how it "damages" our legitimacy as an LGBT supporter. I've contributed financially to gay-friendly organizations, I'm very vocal about my support for the LGBT community, I'm a proud member of the community.

dru is screaming.:

Catholics are in a unique position not to be able to make up their own minds about what God believes. Because what the Pope says God believes is infallible and what their priests and things say are an extension of God. And they are not able to bend from that.

Earlier in this discussion Kurtni and I had, she did say the only way would be for the person to leave the church, so that's where that came from.

Except that a number of Catholics defy the Pope by supporting gays, gay marriage, contraception, sex before marriage, etc. Why are they able to bend on those things?

And aye, I have read the thread, but as you started with @pravda I wanted to clarify.

@ pravda.

Um, because people aren't robots and don't have the exact same beliefs as the next person. People are capable of believing different things. Imagine if everyone thought the exact same way?

Jewel Nicole:

Um, because people aren't robots and don't have the exact same beliefs as the next person. People are capable of believing different things. Imagine if everyone thought the same?

Excuse me, I was replying to "not to be able to make up their own minds about what God believes... what the Pope says God believes is infallible... they are not able to bend from that." The point I was making was that people differ.

@ pravda.

Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.

Jewel Nicole:

I don't see how it "damages" our legitimacy as an LGBT supporter. I've contributed financially to gay-friendly organizations, I'm very vocal about my support for the LGBT community, I'm a proud member of the community.

Like I said, if your contributions outweigh the money the Catholic church has taken from you (or gotten from the government in money or benefits for your membership) and put towards anti-gay actions, I think that would make you an 'effective' supporter. It's still, in and of itself, a negative act (/an act which partially negates positive contributions) and I still disagree with the choice (on similar lines to Kurtni's KKK analogy) but - but, ah, heck, whatever, as if what I think has any bearing on your life.

cool discussion me.