Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

You can't have a democracy without it, so you take it or leave it... And it sure beats tyranny of the minority

 

Religious intolerance is born of ignorance. Humanities lack of foresite and its forgetfulness of the past leads to bad decision making on a second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day basis. We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions, and we all to easily forget the consequences of our past choices as we are often still in the process of living through the consequences of our choices, for good or bad. People forget that we are all the same inside, where it matters most, and too often people get caught up in external differences. Yes, look at the differences, but don't lose track of the commonalities. Just as day cannot exist without night, and night cannot exist without day, so too does goodness fail to exist without evilness. Although, it's not really 'goodness' or 'evilness', but rather positive and negative. Not all negatives are 'bad', and not all positives are 'good'. You cannot have one or the other, you can only have both, at the same time, there is no duality.

And since homosexuality is considered an 'evil', then you must understand that it's not...it's simply another alternative to the great tapestry that is conscious life...life that is shared by everything from complex organisms to simple cell organisms.

If God created people, then he created homosexuals, trans-genders and a multitude of other types of people, and if he didn't create homosexuals then evolution did. I believe both...God and evolution, religion and science...they cannot exist without the other if they want to exist without being lopsided.

 

Interersting view that you have their Nataraja; I almost am disappointed that I disagree with some parts.

I agree that without possitive there can't be a negative. Without sorrow there cannot be happiness, and vice versa. I can state with full conviction that the evils in the world are only possible because God has allowed them, so that we may enjoy the concept of happiness. No matter the depths that we go into there is always an upside, a better turn coming and I live by that.

The difference in opinion between us stems from what we consider positives and negatives. I consider homosexuality to be immoral due to my religious background, and I'm not one to forsake my teachings unless I find a major reason for it. Your possitive/negative theory for it not being wrong (or evil as you put it) can be slightly altered explain my belief of it being wrong. There are evils that exist so that once we get pass them or overcome them we can have happiness. I believe that if a person overcomes homosexuality they can truly be happier than if they don't and live what I believe to be a life of sin. I don't know how to overcome it as I lack any personal experience, but I think if put your religious faith to task it will pay dividends for your future hapiness even if it doesn't seem so now.

I'm really hoping that wasn't too preachy or intolerable...

 

Don't worry, I'm pretty open minded and tolerant.

I guess part of my view is due to that I live in a constant 'now' moment of time. Every 'now' moment is eternally 'now'. The past is just 'now that has been' and the future is 'now waiting to happen', but since the future is always going to be 'now' at some point, time is always 'now' for me, and I live in an eternal 'now-ness'.

And I guess another part of it is due to the way I perceive the nature of God. To me, and to all Shaivites - especially those of the Advaita Vedanta school - God is the force that literally holds the atoms together, the force that is literally keeping everything from flying apart and causing the ceasation of all things. God is the energy that binds everything together, he is the neutral energy in the atom that holds the positive and negative charges together. God is also consciousness, and everything that has consciousness is part of God, and matter is consciousness condensed, and space is consciousness uncondensed. But this isn't the right place to be posting all this...

 

You can certainly have democracy without it. If you educate people, allow complete freedom of information and have a more proportionate voting system you greatly lessen the chances. But it can be argued that a tyranny of the minority should be feared less than one of the majority - simply because it is more easy to control the former than the latter.

 

The US version of democracy is totalitarian dictatorship anyway...

 

That's not my intent, but that's how it comes across. I've stated numerous times that I suck at this, but I still try...

Under the Constitution, yes, but expect a huge backlash.

Those that enter into it without a full appreciation of the responsibilities can abuse it. A framework that accommodates marriage also protects those entering into it from being defrauded or abused. The same sacrifices and teamwork exists whether it is a traditional, religious marriage, a civil formalization, a common law relationship, even a same sex relationship. The same fraud and abuse exists in all four cases, requiring that framework to extend to same sex unions, but that is a state matter. The State has to deal with that framework.

Let them deal with the framework, but leave the ordinance itself alone. Failure to do this will lead to a war. People will come to the forefront that are worse than you think I am--deliberately forcing their opinions on you (as opposed to my inadvertant offence), and much more skilled at this than I am.

Winston Churchill once said that Democracy is the worst form of government--except for all the other forms that have been tried. No matter what form of government is attempted, everyone will find something to bitch about...

With such status copmes added responsibility. If this status is granted by a religious authority, then they have the obligation to see that those who seek this status abide these responsibilities. If the Religion forbids homosexuality, then they should NOT perform the ordinance.

Christianity is not the only religion that condemns homosexuality. Christianity is the most common religion in the western world however, and the only one I feel qualified to comment on.

What happens on the micro level influences the macro level somehow...

Not necessarily. There are those that have experience with that which they don't wish to tolerate, and know all too well why it's not tolerated.

That's actually in the Book of Mormon. But the existance of Evil does not require us to partake. It instead requires us recognize and abstain from these evils.

This is where we differ. By placing God at the head of the Universe, and assuming that he has given us laws for our own good, we acknowledge that we ought obey thes laws. Evil is a term applied to those things not pleasing to God that we are sometimes tempted to do.

Your beliefs do not include a "devil" or opposition. Mine do. Satan desires that we do not return to God, and tempts us to do things that are wrong and seeks to convince us that we are weak and that we have no choice but to do things that God has forbidden. The temptation for homosexual relations can seem overwhelming to a great many. It doesn't make it all right.

I was taught that this was simply God's Power. Those of extreme faith and extremely blessed by God have some ability to manipulate this energy, like Moses parting the Red Sea, or Jesus Christ healing the Sick. This is God sharing his power with them. It is to be used to further God's will.

But does that not attempt to skew the power in favour of the ones charged with the education of the masses?

 

yup religions that forbid homosexuality shouldn't be forced to marry them. but since the state performs marriages, dosn't forbid homosexuality, it clear should be allowed to marry them. which has been my point all the time.
and since marriages status as something special in the eyes of the law, ultimately is granted by the state, all should be allowed to marry.

In Denmark gay people of cause arent married by christain priests or imams or any religion that forbids them, they are married by the Mayor in the townhall, just like atheist or other people that simply wont have a church marriages. its equal in the eyes of the law and should offend no religion.
I meen if your offended by homosexuals being allowed to marry, you might as well say that all non-christians shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

Just out of curiosity, which religions forbid homosexuality? I know that Christianity and Islam do, and Judaism probably does, since those three are cut form the same cloth, but are there any others?

 

Not really, no...

 

Keep religion out of the government and the government out of the bedroom

 

Don't quite see your point here mate. Are you saying that because it isn't perfect we can use that as an excuse to put down the minority? You could use this to justify anything. Whether it be not allowing homosexuals the right of marriage; not allowing non-whites the vote; forcing everyone to have a certain religion. A very very poor excuse.

To quote Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, "Majoritarian democracy by itself is not freedom but the rule by a larger group. … Under a victorious democracy the most important task for liberal principles is thus the protection of minorities, especially of those which do not have a chance to gain the majority for themselves."

If you look at the original draft of the Declaration of Indepedence, Jefferson writes "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (June 1776) Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is one of the founding documents of the USA, and it clearly states, not only that all men are craeted equal, but it is their inalienable right to pursue happiness. IMO, to be legally recongised as a couple fits very neatly into that catagory.

Then from the same quote, we could look at the inalienable right of liberty. Now liberty, unlike many Americans have tended to describe it (still don't under stand how liberal can be used as an insult...), is not a bad thing. It is the ability to do what one wishes, so long as it does not harm anyone else. As soon as you restrict marriages (or the vote, the right to sit in certain seats in public transport due to race, etc) from certain people, you are removing this pillar that your country was founded upon - the flag that you tend to wave. Without liberty, there is no freedom. Without freedom, democracy doesn't function. Without democracy... well, I point you to Churchill's quote, which, by the way, is "Democracy is the worst form of government except from all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

That's exactly the point. Due to seperation of state and religion, if homosexuals are not allowed to be married due to religous reasons, it clearly shows that marriage is a religous ceremony and therefore should have no legal rights.

If it does have legal rights associated with it, then the status is not granted by a religous authority, but by the state. In which case, to prohibit one group from marriages due to a religous belief is not right, espcially in the US, where the First Admendment prohibits the Congressional establishment of religion.

[ October 27, 2006, 22:20: Message edited by: Rotku ]

 

You can't have democracy without something that someone will call tyranny, that's how it works out. The losing side will always have people that consider the majority to be opressing them even if they aren't, so it would be considered tyranny (by some).

No the original draft is not one of America's founding documents. However, you could've attempted to justify your point with the final one just as well...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

 

Yeah, the final draft works as well. I just prefered the original line

But even if someone will always call it a tyranny, are you saying that this is an excuse to let it become one? Would it not be more appropriate to try and sway as far away from this as possible? There will always be poverty and wars, but this doesn't mean we should just accept it and let them happen.

 

But Marriage laws are merely a framework to protect those that enter into such covenents, not a secular replacement. The framework allows for similar arrangements for aethiests and those that simply choose not to formalize the union, but that framework is what will ultimately accommodate homosexuals. Basically, the objection is that the state should be accommodating them without cheapening the religious ordinance. Civil Unions as opposed to marriage would reflect the secular framework...

The Government should not ignore religion altogether though. In a democracy, religious thought can and does influence the vote.

I'm saying that if you insist on railing on democracy, try something else. It won't be any better...

But in this case, that minority is a direct offence to the beliefs of the majority. While we don't want to prosecute them, we don't want the state, who takes it upon themselves to wade into the morality debate, to tell them it's just as valid as legal marriage. The majority are or claim to be members of religions that frown on homosexuality. As long as homosexuality is equivalent to fornication or adultery, then there is no problem...

But remember this as well...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies that said creator is the very God that Christians worship. This implies not a seperation, but an interdependence between Church and State. Basically, Though religion does not directly dictate the law, it ought not be ignored either. The more the law seeks to ignore the people, the less the politicians get the support of the religious community. The elections are won by those that do get some of that support. That's why George W got back in despite all the negative stuff I read about him here...

 

Civil unions are fine.....as long as no one gets a "marriage" from the government. Heterosexuals getting "marriage" and homosexuals getting "civil unions" is a textbook example of the government establishing or endorsing a specific religion. Ironically, such a double standard also constitutes religious discrimination, since Presbetyrians and a few other christian denominations have actually performed gay marriages (in the religious sense.....not in the legal sense, for obvious reasons). When the government refuses to recognize such a union, it is a textbook case of impeding an individual's right to practice his faith. I have no issues with the "civil union" concept.....as long as it applies to all marriages granted by the government. "Marriage" should be performed by the church, if it's so damn sacred. The government needn't have a hand in it.

 

Once again, let's take the race example. Let's say, for argument sakes that in this country 51% of the people are White. It offends them deeply seeing any other of the 49% of the population voting, sitting on the same train carriages as them or using the same toliets as them. Does this mean it is right, or good, that they prohibit the minority group from doing this?

I agree completely here. Religon has every right to influence votes as any other form of belief or opinion. But it should not be used as a reason to negatively descriminate against a proportion of the population. This is not the reason behind religons - it's the ugly side of them, which does more harm than good.

Yet the same people who wrote that, a few years after put forth the Bill of Rights, which, from my understanding, clearly state that there should be no ties between state and church. Also note the word 'their' Creator, not 'the' Creator. To me this implies that it is a personal thing, and not one universal creator behind the staring wheel.

The more religion tries to enforce their views upon others, and insist that their morals are the right ones, the less support they will (and should) get from everyone - including the state.

I hear they can teach chimpanzees to paint as well.

 

I don't think the goverment should interfere with personal life of citizens...But i can understand why they condemn homosexual marriages...

 

Havig civil authorities perform heterosexual marriages was seen as the lesser evil, as the people were still marrying, and thus not committing sexual sin. This was not a problem until people of the same Gender wanted to marry.

No, but the law will not change until enough of the 51% change their minds or the 49% rises up and overthrows the 51%, changing the mix (and the power) in the process. The difference is that I don't see any good reason for segregation when there is no epidemic of racial violence. It's not like the core religious text of the majority stated that it is a greivous offence to God for blacks to sit at the front of the bus or use the same toilets as a white. You want to compare discrimination based on skin colour to discrimination based on what they do.

It tells us what things are sins. All of us sin at some point in our life. None of these things are "okay" by the bible. The difference is that you have a group of the people that say something is okay when the bible says it isn't. Even the State has to draw the line somewhere. I would imagine that your arguements against pedophilia would sound like my arguements against homosexuality. There are lobby groups of pedophiles that would accuse you of taking the same stance as you claim I take.

I doubt that the prison system is a pretty sight either. It's not the point of the law, but it is a part of it that cannot be seperated from it. Just as incarceration and non-acceptance are the consequences of crime, such non-acceptance is the result of sin. Niether case is this personal, but the state/church has obligations to the person, but cannot accept their crime/sin.

The way I understand it, it basically states that no church shall dominate the Government. I return to the word interdependence however because religion shapes the will of the people. You lose the support of the religious groups, you ultimately lose the support of the people. What I notice in both US and Canadian politics is parties that get some of it right, but screw up on other points (in the abscence of clear, divisive issues, this splits the religious vote).

I'm not so sure of that. Insistance only comes to the fore front on highly divisive issues. In such cases, it does not drive away the faithful, only those that oppose the doctrine on these issues. The State has the unenviable position of being forces to cater to both...

From the comments about his ability to govern, They're capable of being elected president too. Either that or I should expect PETA to harrass me for insulting chimps...

 

No, at least not in denmark, where the majority are atheists. Non-religius marriages was made to give the non-religius people an equal institution in thier relationship and to ensure them certain legal rights. Married people get some different legal rights regarding insurence and other stuff.

Now we rather quickly came to the conclusion that keeping such rights from people, do to thier sexual preference was against the law, so homosexuals was allowed to be married by the state.