RE: Religion and LGBT people
February 10, 2013 at 6:49 pm
(This post was last modified: February 10, 2013 at 7:04 pm by Gabriel Syme.)
Hi Gooders1002,
How it going?
Fair doos.
Well I can only speak for Catholics, and Catholicism does not hate LGBT people. Many media outlets and activists like to give that impression - both to sell papers and because angry people are useful political pawns - but it is not actually true.
It is true that Catholicism does not advocate homosexuality, but that is not the same as hating people.
Certainly its true that LGBT people can face terrible - barbarous and unacceptable - treatment at the hands of some religions (eg in Islamic theocracies) but its important to note that not all religions are the same.
Again, I cant speak for other religions, but Catholic opinion of homosexuality is not chiefly based on the Bible.
Its not surprising to us that the Bible contains references condemning it, but those ancient texts (Leviticus) are very harsh brutal and uncompromising (due to the standards of the time) and no right thinking person would ever believe that was an appropriate way to speak about, or treat, gay people.
It is true that some Christians, (negligible minorities, protestants), are happy to condemn homosexuality purely based on the old testament, but that is a silly position to take.
For starters, there is no justification or explanation given as to why it says homosexuality is bad.
Second, it exposes them as hypocrites when they keep the OT rules about homosexuality, but ignore them on shellfish and other stuff.
(God doesn't hate homosexual people, but He certainly has a beef with hypocrites - Scribes and Pharisees)
What I described above is a feature of some types of protestant Christianity (the variation where anyone can make up their own brand, no matter how crazy, dangerous or obnoxious it may be).
But in mainstream Christianity (Catholic / Eastern Orthodox) , the thinking on homosexuality is different.
Ultimately the Catholic opinion is formed by applying Aristotelian philosophy to human biological science. That is, by considering the physical form and biological functions of our bodies logically, we can deduce the purposes inherent in these functions.
This works on any part of the human body. For example:
The eye: If we didn't know what an eye was for, but we knew about its functions and features, we could deduce its purpose. We would realise that the eye is sensitive to light, and is able to rotate around in its socket. From this we would soon deduce that the purpose of an eye is to collect light from various sources, process it, and pass this information to the brain via the optic nerve.
The hand: Similarly, from considering the structure and features of the human hand - able to rotate, open and close etc - we would be able to deduce that its purpose is to allow its owner to grasp and manipulate objects.
And, yes, it works when applied to human sexual organs too.
If you consider the sexual organs of a man or a woman - their functions/features make no sense whatsoever, in the context of that person alone.
The eye and the hand do make sense in the context of the individual, as they enable the individual to see and to manipulate the environment. But sexual organs / bodily functions do not - they are completely erroneous in the context of the individual, In that, alone, they do nothing.
It is only when we consider the physical form and biological functions of our sex organs with reference to a person of the opposite gender, that they make any sense at all.
Male and female bodies are naturally physically compatible in a sexual sense. When aroused, the male penis becomes erect to facilitate penetration of the female vagina. The vagina self-lubricates, in order to facilitate the same. And as sexual intercourse is quite vigorous, the vagina is a very strong and pliable body part, in order to withstand this vigour (and indeed the rigours of childbirth) without damage.
Equally, the biological sexual functions of male and female bodies are also directly complimentary. The male semen fertilises the female egg, to create new life.
Hence, male and female bodies are 'ordered' (aligned) towards one another sexually, both physically and biologically.
Homosexuality quite clearly contradicts this logic, because two bodies of the same sex are not naturally physically compatible, and rather than complimentary, the biological functions of two same sex bodies are wholly erroneous with reference to each other. (for example, a mans body has no use for another mans semen).
This is how Catholicism arrives at the position that homosexual sex is "disordered". While I can well understand that term is unflattering, it is not an offensive term - it means "confused", reflecting the fact that homosexual sex is employing the body in a way which is contradictory of both its physical form and biological functions. Ie, it is contrary to "natural law".
As an aside, Catholicism makes a point of avoiding the use of derogatory or hurtful words to describe homosexuality.
For example, the Bible calls homosexuality "a great depravity". Many protestants will call it "an abomination". This type of language is needlessly derogatory and so has no place at all, in a reasoned and civilised discussion.
Mainstream Christianity realises that people who experience same sex attraction do so naturally - completely involuntarily, not by choice. It is not their "fault" that they are attracted to the "wrong" gender and so they should not be chastised or insulted due to it.
I hope this description has been useful to you, but I will also post the reference from the Catholic Catechism, (in a new post), to show how things are "officially stated" (if you will).
Cheers.
Hi again, Gooders1002
AS promised, here are the 3 paragraphs in the Catholic Catechism which refer to homosexuality. (I will add a commentary after each).
The number at the start of each is the paragraph number.
This paragraph:
- defines homosexuality
- it acknowledges that same sex attraction is an experience not a choice
- it acknowledges that homosexuality has always been present in human society
- it acknowledges that humanity does not properly understand why homosexuality occurs
- it references what the bible says (hurtful words) and gives the (better, if still unflattering) Catholic definition of 'disordered'
- it explains why (as per my previous post) it defines homosexuality as being disordered
This paragraph:
- acknowledges that there are many homosexual people
- it acknowledges that homosexuality can be difficult for people to come to terms with (a 'trial'). Eg there can be internal confusion, or worries about "coming out" - how will people react etc?
- unequivocally states that homosexual people are to be treated with respect and compassion
- sets out an inclusive path for gay Christians to follow (it does not attempt to exclude gay people from Christianity or from having a relationship with God)
This paragraph:
- states that homosexual people should be chaste (ie not use their bodies in a way that contradicts their physical form and functions)
- states that companionship / friendship (rather than a sexual relationship) is appropriate for gay people, for company and support
That's it.
In my opinion I do not see that there is much (if anything) that anyone could disagree with there.
However, it is certainly the case that there is literally nothing which any reasonable person could portray as "hatred" or "bigotry".
Being gay does not make someone a bad person, nor does it mean that have any less dignity or worth than any other person.
Take it easy
Cheers
GS
How it going?
(January 14, 2013 at 11:25 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: I would like a straight no-nonsence answer (if thats even possable) from thiests.
Fair doos.
(January 14, 2013 at 11:25 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: 1.Why do you Hate LGBT people so much?
Well I can only speak for Catholics, and Catholicism does not hate LGBT people. Many media outlets and activists like to give that impression - both to sell papers and because angry people are useful political pawns - but it is not actually true.
It is true that Catholicism does not advocate homosexuality, but that is not the same as hating people.
Certainly its true that LGBT people can face terrible - barbarous and unacceptable - treatment at the hands of some religions (eg in Islamic theocracies) but its important to note that not all religions are the same.
(January 14, 2013 at 11:25 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: 2.Would you still hate them if your book said nothing about it?
Again, I cant speak for other religions, but Catholic opinion of homosexuality is not chiefly based on the Bible.
Its not surprising to us that the Bible contains references condemning it, but those ancient texts (Leviticus) are very harsh brutal and uncompromising (due to the standards of the time) and no right thinking person would ever believe that was an appropriate way to speak about, or treat, gay people.
It is true that some Christians, (negligible minorities, protestants), are happy to condemn homosexuality purely based on the old testament, but that is a silly position to take.
For starters, there is no justification or explanation given as to why it says homosexuality is bad.
Second, it exposes them as hypocrites when they keep the OT rules about homosexuality, but ignore them on shellfish and other stuff.
(God doesn't hate homosexual people, but He certainly has a beef with hypocrites - Scribes and Pharisees)
What I described above is a feature of some types of protestant Christianity (the variation where anyone can make up their own brand, no matter how crazy, dangerous or obnoxious it may be).
But in mainstream Christianity (Catholic / Eastern Orthodox) , the thinking on homosexuality is different.
Ultimately the Catholic opinion is formed by applying Aristotelian philosophy to human biological science. That is, by considering the physical form and biological functions of our bodies logically, we can deduce the purposes inherent in these functions.
This works on any part of the human body. For example:
The eye: If we didn't know what an eye was for, but we knew about its functions and features, we could deduce its purpose. We would realise that the eye is sensitive to light, and is able to rotate around in its socket. From this we would soon deduce that the purpose of an eye is to collect light from various sources, process it, and pass this information to the brain via the optic nerve.
The hand: Similarly, from considering the structure and features of the human hand - able to rotate, open and close etc - we would be able to deduce that its purpose is to allow its owner to grasp and manipulate objects.
And, yes, it works when applied to human sexual organs too.
If you consider the sexual organs of a man or a woman - their functions/features make no sense whatsoever, in the context of that person alone.
The eye and the hand do make sense in the context of the individual, as they enable the individual to see and to manipulate the environment. But sexual organs / bodily functions do not - they are completely erroneous in the context of the individual, In that, alone, they do nothing.
It is only when we consider the physical form and biological functions of our sex organs with reference to a person of the opposite gender, that they make any sense at all.
Male and female bodies are naturally physically compatible in a sexual sense. When aroused, the male penis becomes erect to facilitate penetration of the female vagina. The vagina self-lubricates, in order to facilitate the same. And as sexual intercourse is quite vigorous, the vagina is a very strong and pliable body part, in order to withstand this vigour (and indeed the rigours of childbirth) without damage.
Equally, the biological sexual functions of male and female bodies are also directly complimentary. The male semen fertilises the female egg, to create new life.
Hence, male and female bodies are 'ordered' (aligned) towards one another sexually, both physically and biologically.
Homosexuality quite clearly contradicts this logic, because two bodies of the same sex are not naturally physically compatible, and rather than complimentary, the biological functions of two same sex bodies are wholly erroneous with reference to each other. (for example, a mans body has no use for another mans semen).
This is how Catholicism arrives at the position that homosexual sex is "disordered". While I can well understand that term is unflattering, it is not an offensive term - it means "confused", reflecting the fact that homosexual sex is employing the body in a way which is contradictory of both its physical form and biological functions. Ie, it is contrary to "natural law".
As an aside, Catholicism makes a point of avoiding the use of derogatory or hurtful words to describe homosexuality.
For example, the Bible calls homosexuality "a great depravity". Many protestants will call it "an abomination". This type of language is needlessly derogatory and so has no place at all, in a reasoned and civilised discussion.
Mainstream Christianity realises that people who experience same sex attraction do so naturally - completely involuntarily, not by choice. It is not their "fault" that they are attracted to the "wrong" gender and so they should not be chastised or insulted due to it.
(January 14, 2013 at 11:25 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: I want honest answer and no apologetics, we can smell the bullshit.
I hope this description has been useful to you, but I will also post the reference from the Catholic Catechism, (in a new post), to show how things are "officially stated" (if you will).
Cheers.
Hi again, Gooders1002
AS promised, here are the 3 paragraphs in the Catholic Catechism which refer to homosexuality. (I will add a commentary after each).
The number at the start of each is the paragraph number.
Catholic Catechism Wrote:2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This paragraph:
- defines homosexuality
- it acknowledges that same sex attraction is an experience not a choice
- it acknowledges that homosexuality has always been present in human society
- it acknowledges that humanity does not properly understand why homosexuality occurs
- it references what the bible says (hurtful words) and gives the (better, if still unflattering) Catholic definition of 'disordered'
- it explains why (as per my previous post) it defines homosexuality as being disordered
Catholic Catechism Wrote:2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
This paragraph:
- acknowledges that there are many homosexual people
- it acknowledges that homosexuality can be difficult for people to come to terms with (a 'trial'). Eg there can be internal confusion, or worries about "coming out" - how will people react etc?
- unequivocally states that homosexual people are to be treated with respect and compassion
- sets out an inclusive path for gay Christians to follow (it does not attempt to exclude gay people from Christianity or from having a relationship with God)
Catholic Catechism Wrote:2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
This paragraph:
- states that homosexual people should be chaste (ie not use their bodies in a way that contradicts their physical form and functions)
- states that companionship / friendship (rather than a sexual relationship) is appropriate for gay people, for company and support
That's it.
In my opinion I do not see that there is much (if anything) that anyone could disagree with there.
However, it is certainly the case that there is literally nothing which any reasonable person could portray as "hatred" or "bigotry".
Being gay does not make someone a bad person, nor does it mean that have any less dignity or worth than any other person.
Take it easy
Cheers
GS
