Religion and LGBT people

[fr0d0]

I meant globally. Even if it is it shouldn't be.

[genkaus]

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.

I understand your position, but your analysis may not be accurate. Tax exemption is a special privilege - not a civil right - granted to those who are deemed to be performing public service. As long as it is deemed that the churches are providing certain public benefit (whether are not they actually do so is another matter), they are given tax exemptions in recognition. However, if the the institution promotes or fosters policies that are not in public interest, such as promoting segregation or racial bigotry or, yes, bigotry against homosexuals, then it can lose its tax-exempt status as it is now no longer working for public benefit.

I assume that is the argument being made over there. I do not support the idea that any institution should in any way be coerced to tolerate gays in their midst if they do not wish to. However, I also feel strongly about the idea that religious institutions should not be tax exempt in the first place and since by taking that away, none of their actual civil rights are being infringed upon, I would support the legislation.

[Nobody]

I understand your position, but your analysis may not be accurate. Tax exemption is a special privilege - not a civil right - granted to those who are deemed to be performing public service. As long as it is deemed that the churches are providing certain public benefit (whether are not they actually do so is another matter), they are given tax exemptions in recognition. However, if the the institution promotes or fosters policies that are not in public interest, such as promoting segregation or racial bigotry or, yes, bigotry against homosexuals, then it can lose its tax-exempt status as it is now no longer working for public benefit.

**As an FYI to further the topic of 501c3** Conference Call: Supreme Court Asked to Define Religion Exemption (SCOTUS Blog)

I assume that is the argument being made over there. I do not support the idea that any institution should in any way be coerced to tolerate gays in their midst if they do not wish to. However, I also feel strongly about the idea that religious institutions should not be tax exempt in the first place and since by taking that away, none of their actual civil rights are being infringed upon, I would support the legislation.

For the first part of your comment I would presume you're speaking to my reply to Frodo who said this:

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

If they were speaking to tax exemption that is not indicated by their remarks to my understanding. Rather, their commentary regards the legal freedom of faith tradition having no rights under secular law.

Per your personal opinion regarding tax exempt status for religious institutions, I think revoking that would certainly insure a true 'separation of church and State'. Given a church has to still pay property taxes, but in the course of applying for the 501c3, they have to jump through a series of hoops set out by the IRS.
That doesn't sound at all like separation in it's truest form when income and exemption from paying taxes as a religious entity must be approved by a government office.

The problem with the aforementioned SB323, is that the sponsor intends that revocation of 501c3 tax exempt status apply to any organization as a punishment if they refuse to comply with augmenting their platform, or standards and beliefs, with regard to LGBT issues.

It's thought this will insure one can not receive a government benefit through the privilege of 501c3 and discriminate. However, as 'eHarmony' and the case brought against that private members only tax paying company proved some years ago by homosexual activists opposed to the Christian owned company not having a category for homosexual singles, and a case eHarmony lost. In the case of a private company who's tax exempt status was rescinded due to their opinions about LGBT issues, should the proposed SB323 pass into law, would have no chance to uphold those standards even in the private sector.

Suffice to say, I don't believe such methods as that proposed in SB323 and indicative in it's language of bigotry in it's own right as it's sponsor would seem to example as well being it's his bill, serve to promote civil rights when the language seeks to oppress them in a majority community.

I don't believe a minority community is entitled to demand to be free while their sponsors propose others be legally discriminated against so that those special rights may be appointed.

And special rights would be having the right to punish, prosecute, or levy against anyone who is morally opposed to homosexuality.
Sex is not a civil right.

[Gabriel Syme]

If the human body isn't designed (naturally evolved) for homosexual sex then how are homosexuals managing to have sex?

What homosexuals do together is not actually sex - sex is where two partners physically combine their sex organs; this is actually impossible for homosexuals to do, because their bodies are not physically complimentary like those of heterosexuals.

(It is often called "sex" however, mostly for the sake of peoples feelings.)

Homosexuals get past the fact that their bodies are not compatible by using artificial means. (for example, artificial lubricant to fit a penis where it is not meant to go, or some form of sex toy for lesbians, to make up for the fact that they cannot boast a single penis between them).

This fact shows up the "gay animals" rubbish for what it is. Animals fundamentally lack the capacity to use artificial means to overcome the physical state of their bodies, which is why we will never genuinely identify "gay animals" via them having penetrative 'sex' together. They simply cannot.

---

Let's take your table and overlay some additional figures on it, namely percentage of population that is Christian and Muslim.

Hi apophenia,

Sorry it took a while to repond to your post.

The info you posted is completely erroneous.

The common charge is that it is specifically Catholic (mainsteam Christian) teaching which is responsible for HIV in Africa.

I have shown this is comprehensively not the case, because those affected are overwhelmingly not-Catholic, and so Catholic teaching has no relevance to their behaviour or condition.

For the purpose of this analysis only the identities Catholic and not-Catholic are relevant.

---

"It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are."

They're both equally compatible in a certain way

No they are not.

Same sex bodies are not sexually compatible, like opposite sex bodies are.

This is a basic fact, one which we have long understood through human bioloigy.

Please stop denigrating established science in order to try and portray homo- and heteorsexuality as being similar.

They are not similar.

I don't think Christians particularly have to be homophobic because it says this in the Bible, there's a whole lot of other stuff in there that you're more than happy to ignore or say Jesus rendered obsolete.

Mainstream Christian opinion is chiefly based on biological science, and what it tells us about human sexuality. (ts no surprise to us that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but it doesnt make very convincing argument of its own accord - it just issues a dictat)

[Esquilax]

This fact shows up the "gay animals" rubbish for what it is. Animals fundamentally lack the capacity to use artificial means to overcome the physical state of their bodies, which is why we will never genuinely identify "gay animals" via them having penetrative 'sex' together. They simply cannot.

Oh wow, this actually saves me a lot of time. For a while I was fully intending to debate you on this point, but then you went ahead and- very kindly!- admitted that you are willingly being dishonest and distorting the facts in order to preserve your flat out wrong viewpoint! Thank you, I no longer have to waste my time dealing with you, you lying sod.

Though I will ask you one question: do you think your arbitrary definition of sex matters one jot to an animal? If they're performing all the actions associated with sex to an end of sexual enjoyment, what do you think is on their minds, if not sex?

Oh, and there's also this: you mentioned earlier that in your (bigoted, terrible) worldview, gay people can't really have sex. Given this... um, would that not then mean that gay animals exist anyway?

Essentially what you're saying is that gay people can't have sex because they don't interact in the traditional straight sex way, and then in the next breath you're saying that animals can't be gay for the same reason. Do you not see the contradiction?

[Gabriel Syme]

Sorry it took me a while to return to the thread.

I think we have very much reached the end of useful discussion, here. The longer these threads go on, the more they just become therapy threads for certain people to use to rant and rave at the world (we have seen this in part already).

To briefly sum up my contribution:

- Mainstream Christianity does not "hate" LGBT people at the thread title suggested. In reality, it fully acknowledges the dignity and worth of such people. However, it does have a fully informed view about human sexuality. Some people like to pretend that being honest about human sexuality is "bigoted" or "homophobic" - but this childish name calling is only bcause they have nothing more valid to say.

I conceed that the behaviour of some minor protestant Christian sects is unfair and hateful towards homosexual people. This is of course unacceptable, but we should be careful not form a false view of Christianity based on these irrelevant people.

- Catholic teaching is not responsible for HIV in Africa or elsewhere. I have posted fully referenced data which shows that (i) In the west, its gay men who proliferate HIV, and (ii) in the devleoped world it is non-Catholics. Neither of these groups is known for their close adherence to Catholic teaching. It is very telling that, the groups who sexual behaviour is most removed from Catholic teaching, are the groups worst affected by HIV.

It is a malicious lie that Catholic teaching is responsible, usually put about by those with something to hide themselves. Global public health experts agree with the fundamentals of Catholic teaching and have stated that Catholic teaching is supported by empirical data.

These above are the main two points I wanted to express, above.

I also noticed the following question:

Why did God make gay people?

No-one is meant to be gay. We all have heterosexual bodies, intended for heterosexual sex. Its just like when Ford or Nissan have to recall cars , because some issue or fault has been found. They didnt mean to make cars with a fault, it just happened. Something went wrong and a different result occurred. So too with homosexuality.

I have also seen people writing about gay peole "going to hell".

Mainstream Chrsitianity does not suggest gay people are 'going to hell' purely for being who they are. I dont really know where misconceptions like this come from - its good to know what you are talking about, before weighing in on any subject lol!

Best regards
GS

---

Essentially what you're saying is that gay people can't have sex because they don't interact in the traditional straight sex way, and then in the next breath you're saying that animals can't be gay for the same reason. Do you not see the contradiction?

I made no contradiction.

I said what homosexuals do isnt really sex. Sex involves both partners joining their sex organs. Homosexuals cant do that. It isnt "sex".

Later I said that the media like to try to portray animals as gay, (as pro-homosexual propgaganda). There is nothing to substantiate this. I said the only thing which would definitely confirm animals were gay was if we (eg) observed two male animals sodomising one another.

Then I said we will not ever see this, because for two males to sodomise one another - ie to fundamentally mis-use their bodies - requires artificial intervention (lubricants or whatever) and animals cannot do this, like humans can.

If was you I was thinking of, Esquilax, when I said thes threads just become therapy-threads for people to rant and rave on.

You have not really been engaging with my posts, you have been writing a completely distinct narrative where you generally ignore my points and favour attempts to insult me instead (jackass, liar, etc) and then draw unilateral conclusions, based on nothing but your own opinion.

The only time you engage with something I have said, is where you attempt to split hairs over some petty matter.

My perception of our interactions is that:

Me - I am trying to demonstrate a point of view I think is accurate and worthile, using relevant and referenced information. I think I have done a good job, for anyone willing to read my posts.

You - you are venting your personal feeling on the matter, (perhaps you are a homosexual yourself?), insulting me and attempting to portray views different to your own as being offensive and so unnacceptable.

It is clear that you fundamentally reject the reality of human sexuality and prefer to substitute reality with some fantasy situation you have invented because you find it more acceptable / easier to handle.

There is no real point in continuing our discussing, as I am not going to abandon the truth, and you will not quit your fortress of deception.

Replacing truth with fiction is very common among secular people, especially when it comes to potentially difficult topics like homosexuality and abortion. Whenever a secular person meets a situation they do not like, for any reason, they just pretend it doesnt exist and 'make up' something better instead. Anyone who does point to the truth is usually not appreciated.

(For an example, look at the amount of people on this thread who have tried to deny reality by claiming a false equivalence, physically, between homo- and heterosexuality - one guy even said it was just "opinion" that same sex bodies are not physically compatible - jaw dropping and more than a little scary to hear that. Clearly he has not yet been through basic biology class in early high school).

Cheers
GS.

[Angrboda]

Hey! That'd make a great band name. "Fortress of Deception"


"Ladies and gentleman, give it up for 'Fortress of Deception'!"

[Gabriel Syme]

Hey! That'd make a great band name. "Fortress of Deception"


"Ladies and gentleman, give it up for 'Fortress of Deception'!"

I know.

I was going to go for "bunker of deceit" at first, but then thought "Nah, 'Fortress of deception' sounds much better".

[Question Mark]

- Mainstream Christianity does not "hate" LGBT people at the thread title suggested. In reality, it fully acknowledges the dignity and worth of such people. However, it does have a fully informed view about human sexuality. Some people like to pretend that being honest about human sexuality is "bigoted" or "homophobic" - but this childish name calling is only bcause they have nothing more valid to say.

You'd call naming anything other than heterosexuality as unnatural is an informed opinion on human sexuality?

[Esquilax]

Later I said that the media like to try to portray animals as gay, (as pro-homosexual propgaganda). There is nothing to substantiate this. I said the only thing which would definitely confirm animals were gay was if we (eg) observed two male animals sodomising one another.

Then I said we will not ever see this, because for two males to sodomise one another - ie to fundamentally mis-use their bodies - requires artificial intervention (lubricants or whatever) and animals cannot do this, like humans can.

Wrong. Bison do exactly that, as do Bonobos, lions, elephants... and this is only from a few minutes of research, I'm willing to bet I could go on. But I'm also willing to bet that you'll contort yourself into retaining your (wrong, demonstrably so) position.

Me - I am trying to demonstrate a point of view I think is accurate and worthile, using relevant and referenced information. I think I have done a good job, for anyone willing to read my posts.

Here's the thing though: whether you mean it or not, you come across as amazingly smug and arrogant when you declare opposing positions to be nullified by fiat.

You - you are venting your personal feeling on the matter, (perhaps you are a homosexual yourself?), insulting me and attempting to portray views different to your own as being offensive and so unnacceptable.

Bisexual, yes. Beside the point though: I argued from this position back when I still identified as straight, too.

It is clear that you fundamentally reject the reality of human sexuality and prefer to substitute reality with some fantasy situation you have invented because you find it more acceptable / easier to handle.

Remember what I said about arrogance? Here it is; you insist that your position is correct, clearly without having done much in the way of actual research (because it seriously took me no time at all to find evidence of homosexual sex between animals.) and then give me this condescending accusation of living in fantasy.

There is no real point in continuing our discussing, as I am not going to abandon the truth, and you will not quit your fortress of deception.

Well, just so long as we're not using loaded language to avoid confronting the very real objections with your viewpoint that have been levied against you in this thread. Because that would be intellectually honest, and I guess it's just easier for you to pat yourself on the back and live in that echo chamber of baseless insistence and self congratulations, isn't it?

Replacing truth with fiction is very common among secular people, especially when it comes to potentially difficult topics like homosexuality and abortion. Whenever a secular person meets a situation they do not like, for any reason, they just pretend it doesnt exist and 'make up' something better instead. Anyone who does point to the truth is usually not appreciated.

Have you even once checked outside, into reality, to verify which of our positions is the deluded one, before you declared yourself absolutely right? Somehow, I doubt it.