Homosexuality and religion (prop 8)

[Ethilrist]

I realize I haven’t seen a representative sample of the voters in California, but from the people I’ve talked to and the accounts I have read, the broad-brush interpretation I’ve built up is that people who are opposed to gay (anything) are opposed to it because they were told to, or because they were raised to believe that they should be opposed to it.

On the other side, I know a lot of people, and have read about a lot of people, who have examined the facts for themselves and made their own decisions about their sexuality and orientation (whether it was a choice or not is immaterial compared to the fact that they thought about it and made their own decision as to the way they were), and they are not opposed to gay (anything).

And, once again, just before posting what I thought was a reply to the OP, I preview the OP and find it to be asking a completely different question from what I thought it was when I reached the bottom of the thread…

how in the eyes of religious folk does one justify their choice of religion being protected if choice of sexual orientation is not.

You’re comparing apples and oranges, and asking people to compare them, and they’ve literally never had oranges. The people who would oppose Prop 8 do not have SSM as accepted doctrine in their religions or their mindsets, so they are assuming SSM has nothing to do with their choice of religion. It’s like trying to ban SUVs for being unsafe, and people voting against it because they’ve never been in an accident.

Or, as the old saying goes about the Pope and rulings on abortion: you no play-a da game, you no make-a da rules…

[Hostile_Dialect]

@ITR champion

Are there any significant religious groups that don’t want choice of sexual orientation protected?

1. There is no such thing as “choice of sexual orientation”.

2. Most, if not all, of the groups working to keep us down through use of the law represent one or more Christian denominations. (Yes, including Mormons.)

@ITR champion

As I’ve established (see thread below) the major religious groups worked overtime to make homosexuality legal, at the same time that some secular groups worked overtime to keep it illegal.

:dubious:

Where did you get this strange idea? Is this some sort of head-in-the-sand Christian apology? And what does 1950s Britain have to do with 2008 California? Actually, I would argue that Christianity in the UK vs. the US is so fundamentally different that it’s like apples to oranges, at best. British Christians may well be on the forefront of understanding, and that’s great for Britain, but here, they want to keep us from marrying, teach our children that evolution is a lie, outlaw abortion and even birth control in some cases, etc. American Christianity is trying to legislate its arbitrary code of morality to the exclusion of others and has been for a long, long time.

[unefemmeseule]

Even if homosexuality were a choice, how in the eyes of religious folk does one justify their choice of religion being protected if choice of sexual orientation is not. If anything I would tend to think that such a train of thought would lead to greater protection of homosexuality than religion.

   I sit here being amazed that I never thought of this aspect before. I tend to go more to the source of their justification. Because generally people say "the bible says its wrong, so homosexuality should not be tolerated". What I wonder though is which version of the bible they are taking for their justification. Generally, they are talking about the King James version. Now, the problem is, that the King James version was derived from not one but 4 different Greek texts. And the Greek texts were translations from several different languages, depending upon the source. Because the Bible is not a single book written by a single author. Its a collection of stories taken from different languages, and different sources, often sources which had been oral for centuries before ever being written down. How many of us here remember playing a game where everyone sits in a circle & whispers something to one person, who whispers it to the next person, on down the line. By the time it gets back to the original person, its been changed so much as to be virtually unrecognizable. How many people told the stories orally before they were recorded into the Koine Greek text(s) which were used as the source for the King James? 
   Not only that, but if I remember correctly, the books of the New Testament were based upon the 12 apostles, and omit Judas because he was seen as a traitor. Recent evidence though shows that Judas was not being a traitor, but was doing exactly what Jesus wanted him to do. And what about Mary Magdalene? For centuries the church has been so misogynistic and has portrayed all  women as evil. So if Mary Magdalene (or even any other women who we may not have even known about) had written a "book", it would have been omitted also. How many other texts were omitted?
And finally, I'm sure everyone here remembers the story of Cinderella. Did any of you wonder how she ended up with glass slippers? I know, it seems unrelated, I shall explain the relationship shortly. Cinderella was originally a french folk tale, again, something that had been spoken for centuries. Then the Brothers Grimm decided to take a tour of Europe and put all the oral traditions down in writing. But the problem becomes, the Brothers Grimm were native English speakers. French has sounds for which there is no equivalent in English. Thus when they heard the story, they heard "pantoufles en VERRE", BUT what was said was "pantoufles en VAIR". To a native English speaker, there would be no difference in sound between these two sounds, english would naturally make a diphthong of them & it would become "vayr" in either case. But in French, diphthongs are rare, as the consonant is the guiding force for the shape of the mouth, instead of the vowel (diphthongs are created as the mouth moves through the vowel sound to the next consonant, which happens far less frequently in French). The French word VAIR is actually either a form of satin, or a fur used in medieval times for trimming shoes, whereas VERRE is glass. Hence the origin of the glass slippers. Now for where this ties in. First of all, how many times were the Bibles stories (the ones which WERE selected for inclusion by the church anyhow) translated orally before they were written down even in the first place? And then, when, when each of the books used was written down, how many times may it have been mistranslated as it was converted from the original written language to the Greek? And then, it went through several translations as well before reaching the King James version. How many mistranslations may have happened there?

And finally, there is the political motivation behind the King James version anyhow. This was essentially a book created by a King who wanted an alternative religion because the religion he belonged to wouldn’t allow him to divorce his “barren” wife to produce an heir. So, if the church won’t let him divorce her, he decided to create his own church to grant him the divorce.
I know I know, rather long winded for a first post, and I apologize for that. I’ll try to keep it shorter in subsequent posts. But next time a bible thumper hits you with something like that, just ask them which version of the bible they are basing it upon.

[Captain_Amazing]

@unefemmeseule

And finally, there is the political motivation behind the King James version anyhow. This was essentially a book created by a King who wanted an alternative religion because the religion he belonged to wouldn’t allow him to divorce his “barren” wife to produce an heir. So, if the church won’t let him divorce her, he decided to create his own church to grant him the divorce.

You’re thinking of Henry VIII. He was King James’ great-great-uncle. And, to nitpick, the religion he belonged to wouldn’t allow him to annul the marriage of…

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

French has sounds for which there is no equivalent in English. Thus when they heard the story, they heard “pantoufles en VERRE”, BUT what was said was “pantoufles en VAIR”. To a native English speaker, there would be no difference in sound between these two sounds, english would naturally make a diphthong of them & it would become “vayr” in either case.

Le ver vert va vers le verre vert.

Always loved that sentence in French.

(The green worm crawls towards the green glass.)

[TWDuke]

@unefemmeseule

Not only that, but if I remember correctly, the books of the New Testament were based upon the 12 apostles,

You remember incorrectly. Mark the Evangelist, Luke, and Paul were not among the 12. There is some disagreement about the identities of James, Jude, and the John who is supposed to have written Revelation.

Recent evidence though shows that Judas was not being a traitor, but was doing exactly what Jesus wanted him to do.

If you are referring to the Gospel of Judas, that shows only that some people a few centuries after the event speculated that Judas might have been doing what Jesus wanted him to do.

For centuries the church has been so misogynistic and has portrayed all women as evil.

Hence Catholics’ notorious revulsion toward Mary the Mother of God.

[Der_Trihs]

@TWDuke

Hence Catholics’ notorious revulsion toward Mary the Mother of God.

Who is not an actual woman, and who is part of their unpleasant veneration of female virginity.

It’s not at all uncommon for misogynists or misogynistic cultures to revere a female authority figure; that doesn’t make life any better for the rest of womankind.

[Enola_Gay]

@drachillix

**Even if homosexuality were a choice, how in the eyes of religious folk does one justify their choice of religion being protected if choice of sexual orientation is not. ** If anything I would tend to think that such a train of thought would lead to greater protection of homosexuality than religion.

Because if homosexuality is a choice, then it’s an *immoral *choice and religious folk don’t believe in protecting immoral choices. Abortion is another immoral choice they don’t believe in protecting.
As an agnostic, I’ve decided not to discuss Prop 8 with any religious people anymore. It’s so frustrating and there is no room for logic at all. Your Op drives home the lack of logic in their arguements. FWIW I’m pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

[Guinastasia]

@Mijin

I know disagreeing with you is not answering the question, but in my experience, this is becoming an increasingly rare opinion.

Most of the intolerants that I’ve spoken to, now accept that a person can be predisposed towards homosexuality. So homosexuality is not a choice, but having sex with the same gender is.
The same as with paedophiles – no-one would choose to be a paedophile; there must be genetic and environmental causes. But that doesn’t mean paedophiles shouldn’t fight against their desires.

In answer to the OP though, intolerance of homosexuality requires a fair dose of hypocracy and ignorance. Very rarely does anyone use a philosophical, moral or sociological argument for banning homosexual marriage, and when they do their arguments are very obviously irrational.

Ultimately, it’s a case of “The Book says it’s wrong, I feel as though it’s wrong, so it’s wrong”.

Would that be those who push so-called reorientation therapy?

[Critical1]

I challenge any male who honestly believes homosexuality is a choice to go to the nearest gay bar, grab some fag by the cock, stuff it in your face and start sucking…please I am straight and couldnt care less about gays and the things they do to each other, I have gay friends, hang out in places where I know there will be gay people, they dont bother or scare me but I gotta tell ya, I am not going to put another mans penis in my face under any circumstances that even remotely resemble a choice.

come on if yer catholic you can even ask forgiveness.

[LurkMeister]

This thread made me think of something; is there anyone who condemns homosexuality for non-religious reasons? Every argument that I’ve heard against homosexuality has been based on some variation of “it’s an abomination before God”. I’m not referring, of course, to people who have no interest in personally engaging in same-sex activities because they aren’t attracted to people of the same sex.

[ragerdude]

@unefemmeseule

And finally, I'm sure everyone here remembers the story of Cinderella. Did any of you wonder how she ended up with glass slippers? I know, it seems unrelated, I shall explain the relationship shortly. Cinderella was originally a french folk tale, again, something that had been spoken for centuries. Then the Brothers Grimm decided to take a tour of Europe and put all the oral traditions down in writing. But the problem becomes, the Brothers Grimm were native English speakers. French has sounds for which there is no equivalent in English. Thus when they heard the story, they heard "pantoufles en VERRE", BUT what was said was "pantoufles en VAIR". To a native English speaker, there would be no difference in sound between these two sounds, english would naturally make a diphthong of them & it would become "vayr" in either case. But in French, diphthongs are rare, as the consonant is the guiding force for the shape of the mouth, instead of the vowel (diphthongs are created as the mouth moves through the vowel sound to the next consonant, which happens far less frequently in French). The French word VAIR is actually either a form of satin, or a fur used in medieval times for trimming shoes, whereas VERRE is glass.

There are some major flaws here.

The Brothers Grimm were native German speakers, not English, as you say.

In any case, their version had golden slippers:

http://www.maerchenlexikon.de/khm/khm-texte/khm021.htm

The glass slipper is found in Charles Perrault’s own French version. And, unfortunately for your theory, his original has “verre.”

[panache45]

@LurkMeister

This thread made me think of something; is there anyone who condemns homosexuality for non-religious reasons? Every argument that I’ve heard against homosexuality has been based on some variation of “it’s an abomination before God”. I’m not referring, of course, to people who have no interest in personally engaging in same-sex activities because they aren’t attracted to people of the same sex.

There have been various theories over the years that are not based on religion. For example Objectivists (with a cap “O”) believe that homosexuality is a permanent developmental “detour,” caused by a rejection by people of one’s own gender at an early age, causing an over-identification with the opposite gender. And when gay people have sex, we are “simulating” hetero sex.

Obviously, hogwash.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Enola Gay

As an agnostic, I’ve decided not to discuss Prop 8 with any religious people anymore. It’s so frustrating and there is no room for logic at all. Your Op drives home the lack of logic in their arguements. FWIW I’m pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

To be fair, plenty of religious organizations came out (heh) against Prop 8, thanks to some combination of compassion, Golden-Rule-type tolerance, large numbers of LGBT members, and whatever else.

@LurkMeister

This thread made me think of something; is there anyone who condemns homosexuality for non-religious reasons? Every argument that I’ve heard against homosexuality has been based on some variation of “it’s an abomination before God”. I’m not referring, of course, to people who have no interest in personally engaging in same-sex activities because they aren’t attracted to people of the same sex.

Well, there’s always “Eww, that’s nasty, I don’t like it”. You could write that off as the amygdala’s version of “it’s an abomination before God”, but I’m not so sure. I think it’s just an “ick” reaction amplified by the societal acceptance of oppressing us based on thinking we’re a little icky.

And, until the 1970s, mainstream medical thinking considered homosexuality a mental disorder, akin to that other famous windmill, nymphomania. It’s certainly possible that some people still think that homosexuality is a mental illness or a sex addiction and that our society ought to stamp it out for the good of the people.

Of course, it all depends on what you mean by “condemn homosexuality”. Anything as strong as condemnation probably has religious roots, just by the nature of condemnation itself. As for being against same-sex marriage and/or same-sex adoption, I used to believe that same-sex marriage was wrong for society because “gay couples can’t procreate” and that same-sex adoption was wrong for society because “a child needs a mother and a father”. Then again, I got over that when I was 14 years old, so I guess that tells you something about the modern sex-fascist movement, eh?

[sqweels]

@Enola_Gay

Because if homosexuality is a choice, then it’s an *immoral *choice and religious folk don’t believe in protecting immoral choices. Abortion is another immoral choice they don’t believe in protecting.

You could answer this by pointing out that many Christians would agree that abandoning Christianity and taking up a polytheistic religion would be an immoral choice, and yet the right to do so is protected.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Indistinguishable

Presumably, some of these people don’t think arbitrary religious choice should be protected. (But I suppose the mainstream Yes voters aren’t that loopy)

I know more than a few Church of God in Christers who’d say not being a Christian shouldn’t be allowed in the United States. Sorry for the lack of cites; these are just [del]morons[/del] [del]bigots[/del] people I know in real life.

[Jack_Batty]

Neerg Stnap, considering that that was your first post on the board ever …

… sarcasm or lunacy?

[Enola_Gay]

@sqweels

You could answer this by pointing out that many Christians would agree that abandoning Christianity and taking up a polytheistic religion would be an immoral choice, and yet the right to do so is protected.

Well now you’re trying to bring logic into the discussion. IME logic has had no part in discussions with bigots who use religion as an excuse for their beliefs.

[BrightNShiny]

@Enola_Gay

Well now you’re trying to bring logic into the discussion. IME logic has had no part in discussions with bigots who use religion as an excuse for their beliefs.

Seconded. Bigotry is an irrational behavior, so there’s no point in looking for rational reasons behind a bigoted action.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@sqweels

You could answer this by pointing out that many Christians would agree that abandoning Christianity and taking up a polytheistic religion would be an immoral choice, and yet the right to do so is protected.

I’m pretty sure they would vote against that, too. ISTR that a Doper recently stood to lose custody of his daughter because his Christian ex-wife and her Christian therapist convinced the girl to claim he was a blood-drinking Satanist–and therefore, of course, an unfit parent. This type of thinking seems to be pretty persistent among mainstream Christians, many of whom would argue with a straight face that public schools should allow Christian prayer but no other prayer. These are the same people who got my TIs (drill sergeants) to officially forbid me from meditating in boot camp. Meditating. A mainstream relaxation technique with recognized medical benefits. Because they had twisted some Biblical turn of phrase to mean that meditation was the Way of the Devil, and when I meditated, it “bothered” them. Of course, their prayer circles bothered me, too, but guess which one of us had any recourse?