Religion and LGBT people

[Violet]

<Violet sees a whole post filled with women kissing other women>

Yup, we see what we want to see

[fr0d0]

*borrows Violet's eyes*

*hands Violet's eyes back quickly*

[Zen Badger]

In amongst the whole "homosexuality is a choice" "Oh no it isn't" to-ing and fro-ing I'd like to make one point.

Even if homosexuality WAS a choice( though the evidence says it isn't)

SO......FUCKING.....WHAT???

Even if it was a choice people made, it is their choice to make.

And it affects no-one else.

And to date I have yet to see one valid argument against homosexuality.

[Esquilax]

In amongst the whole "homosexuality is a choice" "Oh no it isn't" to-ing and fro-ing I'd like to make one point.

Even if homosexuality WAS a choice( though the evidence says it isn't)

SO......FUCKING.....WHAT???

Even if it was a choice people made, it is their choice to make.

And it affects no-one else.

And to date I have yet to see one valid argument against homosexuality.

Yeah, I've made this point elsewhere before, but the whole "it's a choice!" canard rests on a pretty faulty assumption, namely that the only thing stopping us from thinking homosexuality is immoral is that we think gays don't have an option. But even if it is a choice, that doesn't follow that it's bad. Lots of things are choices, after all.

It's like these homophobic bigots can't get it through their heads that other people don't think like them.

[fr0d0]

If homosexuality were a natural population control, would that make it bad or good?

[Esquilax]

If homosexuality were a natural population control, would that make it bad or good?

Depends on your standpoint. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be neither, it'd just be something that happens, even if we could prove with one hundred percent certainty the reasons that homosexuality is selected for. Evolution is divorced from morality.

Looking at it from the theist perspective, I have a hard time accepting any arguments for why homosexuality is "bad." If it was indeed a trait designed as population control then it would be downright immoral for a god to create it and then point to it as a bad thing. Even if it wasn't, the very fact that it exists at all points to it being a part of god's plan.

Even assuming that it's something satan is doing, is god not powerful enough to deal with that? He lets homosexuality exist for something, so he's at least okay with it. Guy's got no problem smiting those he does have a problem with, after all.

[fr0d0]

Well you obviously, to me, have some conflicts with your understanding of 'God's plan' :p

There are lots of bad things happen. God demonstrably doesn't want to prevent them. So i don't get your theist exception.

If God stands for creation, and subsequently procreation, perhaps that's how this is seen as counter productive/ in opposition to a positive force. Even then, at a pesonal level, environmental/influential/genetic product still warrants a loving response.

[Nobody]

I don't see a problem that an oppressed people pursue equality by law. However, where the problem can arise is when those in the pursuit of that seek in the process to obstruct by law others from the personal moral opposition to having to tolerate what they personally, religiously, deem intolerable.

There's an openly homosexual Senator in California at the moment who's introduced SB323 to the Legislature there. His hope is to rescind all tax exempt organizations, which would include churches, if they do not agree to set aside their moral and religious ideologies that are grandfathered in under the civil right of the 1st amendment, and tolerate the civil right of homosexuals to be tolerated.

So when a minister of a Fundamentalist church objects to two men entering into the house of god, holding hands and acting in a manner of public demonstration of affection, that minister who would not permit that to happen even amid heterosexual couples, would be subject to a lawsuit and loss of his church tax exempt status.
Because the scriptures that church reveres proclaim that behavior is sexually immoral and an affront to the god of his faith tradition. And that disrespectful conduct that flaunts that scripture at will by those two homosexual men, must be tolerated! Or else!

The objection to homosexual's civil rights occurs when certain among their activist base, the radical liberal front among them, seeks to revoke other peoples rights to opinion about homosexuality. While instilling by law clauses that imply prosecution in the name of religious bigotry so as to insure not even faith traditions are free, without penalty, to speak against immoral behavior.

[fr0d0]

Faith traditions have no right to be free legally, under secular law.

[Nobody]

Faith traditions have no right to be free legally, under secular law.

Perhaps not in your country. However, you're quite mistaken about America.
Link