|
Brainiac Five posted:It's also difficult to untangle "gay sex is a sin" from "sex is a sin, and only acceptable to reproduce". Given the number of monks and nuns that described their relationship with Jesus in erotic and same-sex terms, it's highly questionable to describe modern Christian notions about sexuality as somehow directly transmitted purely from Tertullian on down. *record scratch* Wait, what? I've heard this before but I thought it was because the person was legit nuts. Do you have a good source for these accounts?
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Two people can have the same "religion" with two different beliefs that are nonetheless religious. I don't know how I can put it any simpler. maybe the problem isn't that other people are too dense to understand your argument, but rather that your argument is nonsensical no matter how much you simplify it if two people can have mutually conflicting but equally religious attitudes towards topic x, then you can't use the simplistic explanation of "person opposes topic x because of religion" in any meaningful way, because person could also approve of topic x because of religion. we have established that there is some form of nonquantitative relationship, effectively indescribable on a societal scale, between topic x and religion, so let's congratulate ourselves and get some lunch beers i guess boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:maybe the problem isn't that other people are too dense to understand your argument, but rather that your argument is nonsensical no matter how much you simplify it Actually plenty of people have understood it. I suspect those who don't are uncomfortable with (what they perceive as) the implications. HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:It's actually part of a bargain between the federal government and organized religion. Don't get involved in politics, and you don't need to pay taxes. Granted, the first part could use better enforcement. Yeah, but we're not talking about churches not paying tax, we're talking about not only churches but also random other places claiming they get to discriminate because ~religion~
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 19:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
HappyHippo posted:Two people can have the same "religion" with two different beliefs that are nonetheless religious. I don't know how I can put it any simpler. So why are those beliefs different? Is it because of the religion? That seems unlikely, since they have the same religious beliefs. It seems far more likely that the difference in their beliefs is caused by some other factor that has nothing in particular to do with their religion! Your claim that two people who hold the same beliefs on thing A and different beliefs on thing B must necessarily draw their stance on B from their shared belief in A is utterly senseless, and I can't see it as anything other than an attempt to handwave away far more important variables so you can blame things on religion. blowfish posted:So why have special exemptions for religious institutions in the first place? Just because you have a very strong belief in something even in theory shouldn't mean you get to oppress other people over it. Because the Constitution and the Supreme Court both said so. To quote a 9-0 ruling from 2012, "requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs", which the Court went on to say was a clear violation of the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause. If you're asking why freedom of religion from governmental interference is in the Constitution, well, you really ought to know the answer to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Actually plenty of people have understood it. I suspect those who don't are uncomfortable with (what they perceive as) the implications. It can be breathtaking to see the contortions people will twist themselves into to avoid unwanted implications. Like failing to come to grips with religious doctrines like transubstantiation and purgatory being based on religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
vessbot posted:It can be breathtaking to see the contortions people will twist themselves into to avoid unwanted implications. Like failing to come to grips with religious doctrines like transubstantiation and purgatory being based on religion. The problem is when you try to stretch that to the point where you could proclaim white supremacy as "based on religion".
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Then don't stretch it that far, so no problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Then don't stretch it that far, so no problem. that's what i've been saying this whole thread! it's pretty silly to claim anti-LGBT bigotry is religiously based given the wide disparity in attitudes across religion, the lack of specific religious doctrine against LGBT persons, and a tighter correlation between bigotry and social conservativism (as well as social conservativism and particular strains of christianity)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:that's what i've been saying this whole thread! it's pretty silly to claim anti-LGBT bigotry is religiously based given the wide disparity in attitudes across religion, the lack of specific religious doctrine against LGBT persons, and a tighter correlation between bigotry and social conservativism (as well as social conservativism and particular strains of christianity) "It's pretty silly to claim anti-LGBT bigotry is politically based given the wide disparity in attitudes across politics." Do you see why this particular prong is ridiculous? "The lack of specific religious doctrine against LGBT persons" would be a better argument, but some religions do in fact have such doctrine. Others do not. Others fall along an arguable borderline, such as having specific religious doctrine against homosexual behavior, but not against the orientation itself. There might be a causal relationship between doctrine saying "some people are driven to worse sins than others, or more powerfully driven to sin" and believers coming to the conclusion that people like that are somehow inferior. Some religions have no formally recorded doctrine, or have common practices which contradict formal doctrine but map extremely close with their religious identification. "A tighter correlation" with some other identifying factor is a good response to this issue specifically, but it doesn't settle the matter, and it doesn't even touch the issues I mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:"It's pretty silly to claim anti-LGBT bigotry is politically based given the wide disparity in attitudes across politics." Do you see why this particular prong is ridiculous? politics are based on specific issues of the present and not philosophical considerations of ethics or the afterlife, rooted in tradition. i can cook up a new political stance any time i please. it's much harder to find some kind of religious justification for net neutrality
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:politics are based on specific issues of the present and not philosophical considerations of ethics or the afterlife, rooted in tradition. i can cook up a new political stance any time i please. it's much harder to find some kind of religious justification for net neutrality Nonsense. If God tells you something like "love your neighbor" you can apply that to virtually any aspect of your life, including ones that the tradition doesn't explicitly address. It might result in a diversity of interpretations, and it's true that other social influences might (and in fact, almost certainly will) influence how you interpret that command. But your religion remains among those influences, especially if your religion includes instruction or tradition on how to interpret doctrine properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It might result in a diversity of interpretations, and it's true that other social influences might (and in fact, almost certainly will) influence how you interpret that command. But your religion remains among those influences, especially if your religion includes instruction or tradition on how to interpret doctrine properly. but then we're back to stretching things too far to establish 'religious' justifications for behaviors, like how dungeons and dragons is a tool of satan which is a totally valid christian doctrine and not at all based on a series of protestant moral panics, you know, book of cards, 5:13, "thou shalt not tumble the multi-sided die"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:but then we're back to stretching things too far to establish 'religious' justifications for behaviors, like how dungeons and dragons is a tool of satan which is a totally valid christian doctrine and not at all based on a series of protestant moral panics, you know, book of cards, 5:13, "thou shalt not tumble the multi-sided die" For example Main Paineframe posted:So why are those beliefs different? Is it because of the religion? That seems unlikely, since they have the same religious beliefs. It seems far more likely that the difference in their beliefs is caused by some other factor that has nothing in particular to do with their religion! Your claim that two people who hold the same beliefs on thing A and different beliefs on thing B must necessarily draw their stance on B from their shared belief in A is utterly senseless, and I can't see it as anything other than an attempt to handwave away far more important variables so you can blame things on religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:There's no stretching going on. "Gay sex is a sin" is on it's face a religious belief. It's stated in religious terms. It's justified in a religious ethical framework. It's preached by religious leaders, and believed by religious followers. The only stretching going on is the mental contortions you and Main Paineframe are going through in order to pretend that religion isn't playing a role. religion also plays a role in saying "gay sex is not a sin". therefore, as far as society as a whole cares, religion is both for and against any concievable issue HappyHippo posted:They don't have the same religious beliefs. It's possible for two people to have two different beliefs on a religious topic, and for both of those beliefs to be religious in nature and sincerely held. There are literally thousands of examples of this. It's also possible for two people to start from the same premises and reach a different conclusion. That happens all the time, on all kinds of topics, religious or not. It's like you're some kind of robot. "Two people read the same book and reached different conclusions?! DOES NOT COMPUTE" it's pretty ironic that you're arguing about how people can have different conclusions while busting someone's balls for not understanding your perfect, flawless argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
on a sorta different angle. The religious right are defending these assholes http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help these are the fucks who think illness is caused by sin and it must be prayed/beaten out of the person. so a bunch of their kids die because they never get treatment. basically 2 of Nixon cabinet members were christian science so they got loopholes in laws for their bullshit. now the state GOP is pretending the sick fucks did nothing wrong because "its just their faith" whats funny is if these people believed that you shouldn't treat illness in kids because UFOs, their kids would be taken imidiedetly. the only reasons they get a pass because "jesus"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:religion also plays a role in saying "gay sex is not a sin". Popular Thug Drink posted:therefore, as far as society as a whole cares, religion is both for and against any concievable issue Popular Thug Drink posted:it's pretty ironic that you're arguing about how people can have different conclusions while busting someone's balls for not understanding your perfect, flawless argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:*record scratch* Emma Donoghue, Passions Between Women, obviously emphasizes lesbian understandings but she uses sources that mention men and gay male understandings to, along with trans understandings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:No one is trying to say that "religion," as an abstract concept, is totally for or against anything. It doesn't even make sense to talk about what "religion," in the abstract, is for or against. The point is that this subset of society, with these particular religious beliefs is against gay rights. they also have a set of particular political beliefs, and you seem more ready to attribute negative outcomes on religion than politics or culture unless, again, we're just saying "sometimes religious people think bad things, sometimes they think good things"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
What frustrates me in regards to hearing the arguments against abortion, LGBT rights, sex ed and just about everything else under the sun is this. For some reason these people all believe in holding everyone else to their moral standard whether they believe in their version of Christianity or not. I don't think anyone here or anywhere else has a problem with someone being very "puritan" in their home life or what have you. That's fine. Hell I think that if put into practice? Abstinence can be a very healthy thing in regards to clearing the mind. If you want to raise your child to be like that? Again, fine. As long as you don't abuse them or disown them. (two very lovely things) But the problem comes when you put laws into place that are designed to protect "you" that wind up having consequences on other people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
We all believe in holding other people to our moral standards. That's pretty much the definition of law. It's all well and good to call people out when they are being hypocritical, but this stuff isn't just the result of inconsistent or dishonest thinking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:We all believe in holding other people to our moral standards. That's pretty much the definition of law. I don't care if someone doesn't uphold my moral standards within their personal life or their religious organization or whatever as long as it doesn't affect me. The problem with the religious right as Fuzzy pointed out is that they do care about personal behavior of others that has no effect on them whatsoever. They believe that they are entitled to a culture that props up the supremacy of their worldview and their way of life rather than one that lets people choose to live their own life as they see fit which is what I prefer. It's not that they're inconsistent or dishonest, they're just rabid authoritarians. We're talking about people who literally wanted to jail gays before the supreme court took the issue off the table. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:*record scratch* The spiritual as erotic is pretty common. This type of imagery :  goes with this type of language: "The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying." So for the same sex stuff you have monks and nuns, describing the above, some are gay, some are not but think of God in gendered terms that are the same as their own gender. edit: example isn't a gay example, just a general spiritual as ecstasy image Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
It's silly to claim being anti-LGBT is religious because plenty of nominally atheist libertarians have called for an ending of all marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Well what is law, right? In one sense it's imposed morality all the way down, so there's functionally little difference from banning murder and banning gay marriage from the perspective of 'you're forcing your standards on myself', but obviously for a lot of people there's levels of disagreement they'll accept. So you have personal morality as what you prefer, but cannot justify forcing on another, and public morality, which you can do both with. What separates the two? I'd argue there's 3 reasons: a self-assessment of your accuracy of that morality, practical trade-off of side effects with policing and the degree of how much you really care. You feel confident that murder is bad, you can't think of a situation in which you're wrong, and you can't see how anyone else could really justify it for themselves without making a lot of bad assumptions. But if you're a liberal person, while you may not like smoking yourself and think it's dumb, banning it would be bad (nevermind the practical effects). Then you come to free speech, which you prefer because of it's society-wide effects that are largely beneficial, and the precedent your setting, rather than the individuals of a certain case. So the religious person is still applying that same logic, but are so absolutely wrapped up in their own view, that they're not acknowledging the possibility of being mistaken, or the practical side effects of their policies. Abortion is automatically a crime, but there's no interrogation of the logic leading to that stance. What else would that imply? Are you really that confident? Can you expect everyone else to share that same confidence? computer parts posted:It's silly to claim being anti-LGBT is religious because plenty of nominally atheist libertarians have called for an ending of all marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't think that's anti-LGBT so much as just anti-marriage, or rather, the institutionalization of a private relationship. no you see, hetero marriage is more privilege and therefore less oppressed by banning all marriage 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
That talking point only started showing up after gay marriage started being an issue. Unless you have citations for libertarians saying this during (eg) the miscegenation debate (which still doesn't really disprove the point about it just being white guys grossed out by a particular form of marriage).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well what is law, right? In one sense it's imposed morality all the way down, so there's functionally little difference from banning murder and banning gay marriage from the perspective of 'you're forcing your standards on myself', but obviously for a lot of people there's levels of disagreement they'll accept. So you have personal morality as what you prefer, but cannot justify forcing on another, and public morality, which you can do both with. In one sense that's true but laws against murder, assault, stealing, fraud, and so forth cross an extra barrier; these are actions that involve actively harming somebody else and even then you can get into some suggestions. If you say to me "Toxie, it would make me very, very happy if you just punched me in the face as hard as you can" and then I cock back and hammer you right in the face it isn't assault because you specifically said "yup, do that." If I just randomly punched you in the head walking down the street I've committed an assault of some sort. The difference being that gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody. However, the religious right believes that it does. They believe that allowing that sort of behavior will call down punishment from God as well as condemn the sinning gay married people to Hell for eternity. This is why they want to ban gay marriage and go after the gays so hard. They genuinely believe that they are doing a good thing by preventing harm. This is why they view it as just as bad as rape, assault, murder, etc. They believe that the more gay sex that a society puts up with the more it pisses off God and He makes bad things happen to that society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's silly to claim being anti-LGBT is religious because plenty of nominally atheist libertarians have called for an ending of all marriage. Also plenty are also alt-right sub humans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's silly to claim being anti-LGBT is religious because plenty of nominally atheist libertarians have called for an ending of all marriage. Are you seriously asserting that libertarians called for the end of marriage because they didn't want gays to marry? Also "ending of all marriage" is kind of misleading since the libertarian position is that marriage should be a private contract between any number of people of any gender and the government's only role is to enforce the contract terms. Libertarians are fine with the concept of people getting married.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's silly to claim being anti-LGBT is religious because plenty of nominally atheist libertarians have called for an ending of all marriage. I don't understand this post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Are you seriously asserting that libertarians called for the end of marriage because they didn't want gays to marry? Yep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
That is just baffling. The Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 and was asserting that marriage should be a contract even back then. In 1972, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate was John Hospers, an openly gay man. In 1975, Ralph Raico wrote "Gay Rights: a Libertarian Approach" in which he wrote that he and the Party's candidates in 1976 supported, among other things, quote:-Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual marriages. There is simply no merit to the idea that libertarians suddenly decided they wanted the government out of marriage because they were anti-LGBT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:That is just baffling. The Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 and was asserting that marriage should be a contract even back then. In 1972, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate was John Hospers, an openly gay man. In 1975, Ralph Raico wrote "Gay Rights: a Libertarian Approach" in which he wrote that he and the Party's candidates in 1976 supported, among other things, Things can change in 30 years. Also not all Libertarians are members of the Libertarian party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Source?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Things can change in 30 years. Also not all Libertarians are members of the Libertarian party. That is true and I am sure you can find some people who are libertarian and also anti-LGBT. Still I bet you'll find the vast majority of self-described libertarians are extremely pro-gay rights. And while things can change, one of the things that did NOT change in 30 years was the Libertarian Party's support for gay rights, which has been constant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:That is true and I am sure you can find some people who are libertarian and also anti-LGBT. Still I bet you'll find the vast majority of self-described libertarians are extremely pro-gay rights. Ron Paul wasn't/isn't and he was the face of that movement for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
I've wondered where this "religious right" phenomenon comes from where Christians (especially in the south) are super into regressive republican politics. Isn't christianity supposed to be all about helping the poor and needy, welcoming people, forgiving people, treating people well, and all that? honestly it makes more sense for Christians to be liberals, or at least economic left wingers if they are opposed to gay marriage and abortion. Where is the left-wing christian voice? is it just shouted down or not as loud as the right wing GOP types? I've always been a skeptic but I find some seemingly sincere Christians to be the best people I know of and I've recently been rethinking my own unbelief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Ron Paul wasn't/isn't and he was the face of that movement for quite a while. You originally referred to marriage only and Ron Paul largely fell in line with the LP position on marriage being a private contract. If you'd specified other stuff like bakers not being allowed to discriminate against gays, that'd be something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Keep Autism Wired posted:I've wondered where this "religious right" phenomenon comes from where Christians (especially in the south) are super into regressive republican politics. Isn't christianity supposed to be all about helping the poor and needy, welcoming people, forgiving people, treating people well, and all that? The short version is that there are specific issues that Christians value (specifically abortion, but others too) that make them willing to partner with people who they would otherwise find repugnant. This is a side effect of the two party system; in a parliamentary system you would find parties that are just "promote Christian values". Do note that this is not universal - there are other issues which can even supersede things like abortion in importance. For example, a lot of black people are religious but value being treated equally more than opposing abortion, so they're still Democrats. so tl;dr - there's a Christian left, but they're not white. DeusExMachinima posted:You originally referred to marriage only and Ron Paul largely fell in line with the LP position on marriage being a private contract. If you'd specified other stuff like bakers not being allowed to discriminate against gays, that'd be something else. Ron Paul has demonstrated that he has many conservative Christian policies (such as trying to define life as beginning at conception). It's not a leap to conclude that he feels similarly about other topics, such as gays. The important factor is that many of his followers are not necessary Christian, but think his beliefs are still the "right" ones. Thus, you have atheists opposing abortion and the like. computer parts fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:06
|
|