Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is if the dehumanization is of the same type.

You have yet to show that dehumanizing a group based upon what one believes about that group, or based upon one's biases is fundamentally different from one oppressed group to the next. If the differences in dehumanization between, for example, American slaves and German Jews are so marked, how come the tactics used by slave owners and Nazis were exactly the same? And how come those tactics used against the LGBT+ community are also the same?

There are differences in those things, of course, but not in the way those groups are dehumanized and discriminated against.

systemic violence in the form of dehumanization is systemic violence in the form of dehumanization. If you want to discover the fundamental uniformity, read Beverly Mitchell's Plantations and Death Camps. Here is an excerpt from the Good reads review:

"Historical theologian Beverly Mitchell probes some of the most egregious assaults on humans in the modern era to divine not only the root of racial and ethnic oppressions but also the unassailable heart of human dignity revealed in that suffering. Mitchell's work looks at the parallel oppressions that were visited upon African Americans in the slave era and upon Jews in the Nazi era. Even apart from the many similarities in their respective plights, Mitchell finds a deeper commonality in the underlying religious and ideological justifications for their oppressions and the underlying, dynamic theological features of each."

Additionally, these similarities extend also to the plight of the LGBT+ community.

Since when are gay people said to be racially/biologically/genetically inferior? Actually, since when are gay people considered a race? Since when are gay people thought to be inordinately prone to violence? Since when are gay people believed not to have the ability to build and maintain complex civilizations? Since when are gay people viewed as being on the level of monkeys? Since when were gay people enslaved? Since when were gay people forced to be separated from straight people on treat of violence? Etc. I could go on. All of those things were thought of and done to black people.

The only similarities in argument between those against gay sex and racists are that they both tend to accuse their disliked group of sexual perversions that undermine society/culture. But that's it. The experiences of gay people and black people are not similar as a whole.

 

[gsa]

Norman: Well, I tried to warn you, my first person that I am putting on ignore, have a good life, bye

No substantive response. Noted.

 

[gsa]

Since when are gay people said to be racially/biologically/genetically inferior? Actually, since when are gay people considered a race? Since when are gay people thought to be inordinately prone to violence? Since when are gay people believed not to have the ability to build and maintain complex civilizations? Since when are gay people viewed as being on the level of monkeys? Since when were gay people enslaved? Since when were gay people forced to be separated from straight people on treat of violence? Etc. I could go on. All of those things were thought of and done to black people.

The only similarities in argument between those against gay sex and racists are that they both tend to accuse their disliked group of sexual perversions that undermine society/culture. But that's it. The experiences of gay people and black people are not similar as a whole.

While there is no need for direct comparisons, similar but not identical stereotypes have been applied to gay people as a whole over the course of centuries, in most cases predating the modern racial discourse. Gay people have never been a "race" of course, but they have been conceived of as a "type," which runs counter to the "love the sinner hate the sin" nonsense, but is completely within the domain of anti-gay pseudoscience. Gays have been called worse than animals by African politicians, to say nothing of what they have encountered at the hands of Western politicians. Enslaved? Their existence was the subject of state murder. Etc. There is no need to engage in oppression Olympics, but if you want to do so the case is not at all clear cut, particularly since gays cut across racial demographic categories.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

While there is no need for direct comparisons, similar but not identical stereotypes have been applied to gay people as a whole over the course of centuries, in most cases predating the modern racial discourse. Gay people have never been a "race" of course, but they have been conceived of as a "type," which runs counter to the "love the sinner hate the sin" nonsense, but is completely within the domain of anti-gay pseudoscience. Gays have been called worse than animals by African politicians, to say nothing of what they have encountered at the hands of Western politicians. Enslaved? Their existence was the subject of state murder. Etc. There is no need to engage in oppression Olympics, but if you want to do so the case is not at all clear cut, particularly since gays cut across racial demographic categories.

No, my point was not to engage in the Oppression Olympics (although I do believe that black people and indigenous peoples around the world have suffered more than gay people and I find it implicitly and snobbishly racist for gays to claim otherwise). My point is that racism is the not the same thing as not accepting sex between males or sex between females. Nor is not accepting gay marriage as marriage the same thing as racism. These comparisons are getting rather ridiculous.

 

[gsa]

No, my point was not to engage in the Oppression Olympics (although I do believe that black people and indigenous peoples around the world have suffered more than gay people and I find it implicitly and snobbishly racist for gays to claim otherwise). My point is that racism is the not the same thing as not accepting sex between males or sex between females. Nor is not accepting gay marriage as marriage the same thing as racism. These comparisons are getting rather ridiculous.

Hmmm. Well, it would seem that opposing interracial marriage is actually less offensive, using this barometer, than opposing same-sex marriage. Would you at least agree with that? After all, opposing same-sex marriage is denying some level of self-determination to a group with social and political rights claims. Opposing interracial marriage is perhaps obnoxious, but not racist, since in theory if not in practice it means opposing whites marrying blacks, blacks marrying whites, Asians marrying either, etc. It isn't even racist I guess.

Do you accept that?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hmmm. Well, it would seem that opposing interracial marriage is actually less offensive, using this barometer, than opposing same-sex marriage. Would you at least agree with that? After all, opposing same-sex marriage is denying some level of self-determination to a group with social and political rights claims. Opposing interracial marriage is perhaps obnoxious, but not racist, since in theory if not in practice it means opposing whites marrying blacks, blacks marrying whites, Asians marrying either, etc. It isn't even racist I guess.

Do you accept that?

Okay, now I think you're trying to troll me.

 

[gsa]

Okay, now I think you're trying to troll me.

No. If I wanted to troll you (I did not realize trolling was a verb btw) I would have just repeated slurs or something. You know I don't agree with your religion so that can't be it. I am asking a fairly serious question; indeed, it came up in the marriage debates before the USSC, because the rationale for supporting bans on interracial marriage was just as I described.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. If I wanted to troll you (I did not realize trolling was a verb btw) I would have just repeated slurs or something. You know I don't agree with your religion so that can't be it. I am asking a fairly serious question; indeed, it came up in the marriage debates before the USSC, because the rationale for supporting bans on interracial marriage was just as I described.

First, it is racist because it's always based on some level of belief that "miscegenation" is racially harmful, and that mixed raced kids are inferior to "full bloods" (or at least inferior to the perceived superior race that one monoracial parent is a part of while being superior to the perceived inferior race the other monoracial parent is a part of, i.e. mixed black/white kids being superior to "full blooded" blacks but inferior to "full blooded" whites - Hitler made the same argument in Mein Kampf ).

As for how it's still two different things, well, the conservatives/traditionalists argue that marriage is an institution for the rearing of children between a male and a female, who compliment each other. In that view, homosexual relationships don't pass muster because of simple biology, not least because of the perceived incompatibility of the sexual organs. Interracial relationships between a male and a female would be acceptable under that standard.

 

[gsa]

First, it is racist because it's always based on some level of belief that "miscegenation" is racially harmful, and that mixed raced kids are inferior to "full bloods" (or at least inferior to the perceived superior race that one monoracial parent is a part of while being superior to the perceived inferior race the other monoracial parent is a part of, i.e. mixed black/white kids being superior to "full blooded" blacks but inferior to "full blooded" whites - Hitler made the same argument in Mein Kampf ).

As for how it's still two different things, well, the conservatives/traditionalists argue that marriage is an institution for the rearing of children between a male and a female, who compliment each other. In that view, homosexual relationships don't pass muster because of simple biology, not least because of the perceived incompatibility of the sexual organs. Interracial relationships between a male and a female would be acceptable under that standard.

I don't see how that is intrinsic to the bans. I mean, you can suggest, as many racists did, that interracial children were just likely to encounter more prejudice and have a more difficult time in life. As for the view that male and female is more fundamental than race, that is a post-civil rights view of the situation. Before that, many people thought that race was as fundamental as gender and sex. So of course modern conservatives reject that, because they are not keen on being perceived as racist, but it says nothing about what the belief was historically.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't see how that is intrinsic to the bans. I mean, you can suggest, as many racists did, that interracial children were just likely to encounter more prejudice and have a more difficult time in life. As for the view that male and female is more fundamental than race, that is a post-civil rights view of the situation. Before that, many people thought that race was as fundamental as gender and sex. So of course modern conservatives reject that, because they are not keen on being perceived as racist, but it says nothing about what the belief was historically.

And that refutes what I said about it always being based on racism how? Actually, it doesn't refute anything I said at all.

 

[gsa]

And that refutes what I said about it always being based on racism how? Actually, it doesn't refute anything I said at all.

I do not understand. You say that anti-gay beliefs (and this is not just about marriage; the same people believe gay sex or intimacy is always immoral) are defensible in a way that racism is not. But as I pointed out, you don't have to hate racial minorities, in theory, to oppose interracial sex or mixing in social life. It can be premised on separate but equal, just as anti-gay beliefs are premised on distinct gender and sex roles.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do not understand. You say that anti-gay beliefs (and this is not just about marriage; the same people believe gay sex or intimacy is always immoral) are defensible in a way that racism is not. But as I pointed out, you don't have to hate racial minorities, in theory, to oppose interracial sex or mixing in social life. It can be premised on separate but equal, just as anti-gay beliefs are premised on distinct gender and sex roles.

My point wasn't to say that anti-gay beliefs are defensible. What I said was that philosophical arguments against gay marriage (i.e. Natural Law arguments) have validity and that it's not the same thing as racism. Please pay more attention to what I said to sojourner.

 

[gsa]

My point wasn't to say that anti-gay beliefs are defensible. What I said was that philosophical arguments against gay marriage (i.e. Natural Law arguments) have validity and that it's not the same thing as racism. Please pay more attention to what I said to sojourner.

I understand your position. My point is that anti-gay beliefs are as valid, given a certain set of assumptions, as racist ones. I agree it is not the same. But that doesn't mean that racist beliefs are qualitatively worse than anti-gay beliefs. Both can come from strong beliefs about the order of the universe. I reject both of course, but I see no reason for assuming that racists are worse than sexists who are worse than homophobes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I understand your position. My point is that anti-gay beliefs are as valid, given a certain set of assumptions, as racist ones. I agree it is not the same. But that doesn't mean that racist beliefs are qualitatively worse than anti-gay beliefs. Both can come from strong beliefs about the order of the universe. I reject both of course, but I see no reason for assuming that racists are worse than sexists who are worse than homophobes.

I do view racism as worse than homophobia because with racism, it doesn't even have anything to do with behavior, it's prejudice based on who a person is on the genetic level. Most people who disapprove of homosexuality are basing their disapproval around the sex acts. So, otherwise, they would view you as fine. So that gives a gay person an "out". There is no similar "out" in racism and sexism since they are both based on the very biological makeup of the person.

I'd also like to add that not all people against gay marriage are anti-gay. There's gay people who are also against gay marriage. They tend to be political radicals and many of them believe that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality, whereas some just don't see the point of messing with the institution.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Most people who disapprove of homosexuality are basing their disapproval around the sex acts.

So to be accepted gays must be celibate?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So to be accepted gays must be celibate?

In that line of thinking, because it's based on behavior. Whereas there's nothing that a person can do to be viewed as an equal to a person who is racist against them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In that line of thinking, because it's based on behavior. Whereas there's nothing that a person can do to be viewed as an equal to a person who is racist against them.

I don't see the practical difference though, it still leads to discrimination.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't see the practical difference though, it still leads to discrimination.

I already explained why it is different in many posts above. If you still can't see it, I can't help you.

 

[FTNZ]

Celibate gay people are still treated as inferior by many people. They say they accept the orientation but not the acts, but in reality if you take away the acts, they still don't accept the orientation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Celibate gay people are still treated as inferior by many people. They say they accept the orientation but not the acts, but in reality if you take away the acts, they still don't accept the orientation.

Yes, I find the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual activity here to be pretty nonsensical, it's like an attempt to rationalise bigotry.

Would heterosexuals accept being told that their sexual orientation was acceptable provided they remained celibate? Of course they wouldn't, and it's a ridiculous position to adopt.