The Gay Thread

[BEAL]

Santorum comes out and states it's a two way street for tolerance

Uses example of a gay print shop owner being asked to make tshirts that state "God hates fags".

I don't think he understands freedom of speech and discrimination. While that phrase would probably bother the owner, it's not in the same fucking league.

Why is this so hard to understand?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

the shop owner would have a right to say no, based on his deep held religious beliefs that God loves everyone

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Does scientology get recognized by the government?

Originally Posted by deep

I believe after a long legal battle they did.

Yes, after Scientology bullied and harassed the IRS (by bringing umpteen bazillion lawsuits against them, among other harassments) until the IRS finally just said "fuck it, will you go away if we say you're a religion and tax exempt?" and ta-da.

[Galeongirl]

So then pretty much anything constitutes as religion...

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Santorum comes out and states it's a two way street for tolerance

Uses example of a gay print shop owner being asked to make tshirts that state "God hates fags".

I don't think he understands freedom of speech and discrimination. While that phrase would probably bother the owner, it's not in the same fucking league.

Why is this so hard to understand?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This out-loud ignorance on the right is absolutely infuriating.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by BVS

This out-loud ignorance on the right is absolutely infuriating.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Not disagreeing with you, but Rick Santorum is a complete dumbass in his own right, regardless of party affiliation.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Danny Boy

Not disagreeing with you, but Rick Santorum is a complete dumbass in his own right, regardless of party affiliation.

Rick is only a small portion of what I'm talking about...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[corianderstem]

I have such a hard time with the "two way street" thing. Yes, in general, opposing viewpoints should be heard and, ideally, respected, even if disagreed with.

But this topic falls under the heading of "this is so flat-out wrong to me I cannot respect this at all." I cannot respect the misogyny of some religious aspects (speaking of religion in general, not just Christianity). I cannot respect the opinion of people who think the Bible is a literal telling of the creation of the world.

And I cannot respect an opinion that being gay, or wanting to marry a same-sex partner is wrong. Sure, the Bible speaks to it, but the Bible speaks to all sorts of wacky stuff that no one cares about (shellfish, etc, the stuff everyone has mentioned a million times). And Jesus never said anything about it (correct me if I'm wrong), and isn't Jesus pretty much the whole fabulous centerpiece of Christianity?

I'm rambling a bit (surprise!), but my main point is, I have to go with the old cliche that we shouldn't have to tolerate someone's intolerance.

I mean, adultery is on Charlton Heston's big ol' stone tablets, and no one is discriminating against cheating cheaters ... why, oh WHY do those with Christian religious objections get so hung up on homosexuality, when it's not even in the top ten list of Bad Things?

I know I'm not saying anything revolutionary here and I'm preaching to the choir. It just honestly baffles me and I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

[Irvine511]

It really does beg the question of why this sin is SO bad.

I think two things are happening.

1. Cultural positioning. Etching out an identity in the sociopolitical landscape. We all do it.

2. Sanctimony. Needing to feel superior to someone, and to feel righteous.

[bono_212]

There's also an idea of it being a habitual sin, this the phrase 'living in sin'. It tests some people's idea of once saved always saved, which not all branches of Christianity believe in, so if one isn't remorseful or asking forgiveness for a sin they are constantly committing, is that person's soul in danger .

But, I agree with you, Irvine, and basically feel like this is just the current thing in the spotlight at the moment and 50 years from now it'll be something else.

But seriously, can we give the shellfish argument a rest? There's very specific scripture that negates the shellfish stuff.

[bono_212]

Let me expand on that last part. I HATE the shellfish example. It's snide and it takes about two minutes of research to prove it's irrelevance to the conversatuon.

A MUCH better example is adultery. Possibly the BEST example, as I think Jesus may have even spoken on the subject. Even if he didn't, Paul did, and that's the important part.

The idea that homosexuality is still part of the old law to acknowledge comes from the fact that Paul mentions it. Most Christian beliefs come from Jesus, Peter and Paul. Paul is the one who excuses the old laws about food, to a larger extent playing off if Jesus' own message about the fulfillment of the law. Adultry, on the other hand, is not part of the law, it's a commandment. Jesus is very specific about keeping the commandments. So if you buy into one sin being 'worse' than another (I don't ), adultery is by far the worse sin.

So I just find that the shellfish argument hurts the conversation, not helps. But that's just, like, my opinion.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by anitram

When and where did you get your law degree?

Originally Posted by Diemen

1) What anitram said.

2) Do these religions get recognized by the government?

1) Why would I need a law degree to point out history? But if you want to go law on this... the first amendment... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

2) At that last point, what religion is recognized by the government? None of them. The Bill of Rights prohibits that from the get go. There are no recognized religions, just the recognition of the right to practice the religion. So, yeah, all of those religions... Baha'ism, Rastafarianism, Voodoo, LeVeyan Satanism, Scientology, Mormonism/LDS, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, etc. etc...

All of those, in the scope of this discussion, are religions that were 'made up' within the last century or two. Either as some variant/spin-off of another religion, or as a completely new 'idea.'

So, sure, you can start going off about the IRS and who they tax and who they don't, but that doesn't mean the US Government itself actually recognizes what's what. A 'church' glorifying cannabis in Indiana is just as valid as a traditional Abrahamic religion, and I'd love to see that one go to court.

What is the point of this?

Originally Posted by deep

you are not completely right

I think you are thinking of people like this

Indiana's Church of Cannabis Growing Like a Weed - US News


to be a fully recognized religion involves a lot more than being a start up

people have started religions claiming "donations and sex" were their sacrament to get around prostitution laws, without success.

To be 'recognized' simply means not giving in. That's it. It means developing a following where people will swear by their belief. It doesn't matter if someone else thinks it's valid. That's the point of freedom of religion. That's how things like Scientology got away with being what they are. That's why this whole thing in Indiana is not only a disgrace to society from a perspective of 'let's not let the gays in,' but also a complete paradoxical mess where you either put one religion above another, or you give in and have this new law's intentions blow up in their very faces.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Let me expand on that last part. I HATE the shellfish example. It's snide and it takes about two minutes of research to prove it's irrelevance to the conversatuon.

A MUCH better example is adultery. Possibly the BEST example, as I think Jesus may have even spoken on the subject. Even if he didn't, Paul did, and that's the important part.

The idea that homosexuality is still part of the old law to acknowledge comes from the fact that Paul mentions it. Most Christian beliefs come from Jesus, Peter and Paul. Paul is the one who excuses the old laws about food, to a larger extent playing off if Jesus' own message about the fulfillment of the law. Adultry, on the other hand, is not part of the law, it's a commandment. Jesus is very specific about keeping the commandments. So if you buy into one sin being 'worse' than another (I don't ), adultery is by far the worse sin.

So I just find that the shellfish argument hurts the conversation, not helps. But that's just, like, my opinion.

Where does adultery after a lobster dinner fall?

[bono_212]

[corianderstem]

I honestly didn't know about the shellfish thing (because I'm a heathen); thanks for pointing that out.

I meant to highlight it as "the usual now-cliched stuff that people throw out in argument," but I'll stop doing that, now that I know!

[bono_212]

That was aimed at the clichéd argument, certainly, not at you.

[corianderstem]

Oh, I figured. But I'm still happy to know it.

[Diemen]

Time for a new thread, gang.