• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion and homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archer

Well-Known Member
What you said was very clear, and it made to reference to any hypothetical future in which sexual orientation might become a protected class. You said: If I had been Gay and held protected status I would have had a case and justice would have been served!


Yes, the laws were passed because of rampant discrimination against women and minorities. But every race, religion, etc., is protected. Not just women, and not just minorities.


I know some people consider them discriminatory, but again, quotas are just a loss of privilege, and as you yourself say, they're applied in cases where there has been wanton discrimination in an attempt to restore some balance.


No, you don't understand how it works. Discrimination still occurs despite the law. Every member of a minority understands that. The law doesn't make discrimination go away, and when it does it occur, you don't just file a complaint and get some bureaucrat to wave a magic wand and make it go away. Do you seriously think that's how it works for minorities? The laws give you a legal basis to work with. Proving discrimination and seeking redress for it is still a lot of work.

Smoke I must respectfully disagree!
 
I found this in the Salt Lake Tribune:

Robert Moore knew his long pause on the phone already had given him away. At age 19, he acknowledged to his aunt, "yes," he was gay, something he had known since the fifth grade.
She responded: "You can't come home."
Moore, who lived with his LDS grandmother and aunt in a small Oregon town, bought a bus ticket to Portland and spent the next five months homeless. He never knew his parents and had grown up thinking of his aunt, 13 years his senior, as a sister. But now she insisted his gay "lifestyle" would be a negative influence on her two kids.
"I was so scared and I didn't know what to do," Moore said Friday in Salt Lake City. "We can no longer keep kicking our youth to the curb like trash. We are all children of God."
Moore, now 29, is young-adults director for Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons. On Friday, the group, in town for its 30th annual conference, called on LDS leaders to reach out to Mormon families -- and their clergy -- and provide clearer direction on how to respond when a daughter, husband, wife or brother comes out as gay.
But Affirmation is not waiting for the church to lead the effort. It has launched a new campaign ,"Keep Them and Love Them," centered on an informational Web site that is a work in progress.
Affirmation supports Mormons -- active and former members of the faith -- in being openly gay, calling their sexual orientation a "special gift from God."
Executive Director David Melson acknowledged this has created areas in which his group "disagrees" with the LDS Church, but said both can agree on the importance of families.
"I believe strongly that families can be together forever," said Melson, an active member of the faith. "We want to find areas we can work on together."
In recent years, church officials have stated they don't know what causes same-sex attraction, saying no one -- not parents or those who experience such feelings -- should be blamed.
"Above all, keep your lines of communication open," Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, urged in a 2007 Ensign article. "Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family ties."
Holland wrote that gay children "are welcome" to stay at home. But parents have "every right to exclude from [their] dwelling any behavior that offends the spirit of the Lord."
Another support group, Evergreen International, which aims to help Mormons "overcome homosexual behavior," also has a conference in Salt Lake City this weekend. LDS general authority Bruce C. Hafen is scheduled to address that group this morning.
Affirmation has been seeking a formal meeting with a high-ranking LDS official -- the church has suggested the family services commissioner -- for more than a year. On Friday, Melson said the group has had "informal" discussions with some lower-level members of LDS Family Services.
"They're guardedly open," Melson said, "and accepting to what we're proposing."
An LDS Church spokesman declined to comment Friday on the prospects of a meeting or Affirmation's campaign.
George Cole, Affirmation's assistant executive director, said young gay men and lesbians who don't have support from their families are at higher risk for depression and suicide.
In Salt Lake City, 42 percent of homeless youths (ages 15 to 22) who visit the Volunteers of America Homeless Youth Resource Center are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to a survey conducted last winter.
His first night after being kicked out, Moore slept on the streets, beneath a shop's awning. The next night he tried a park bench but was awakened by police officers. He discovered a couple of youth homeless shelters and spent the next five months bunking there. He found a job and got an apartment.
Moore briefly reconciled with his grandmother before she died in 2003. His aunt -- who asked him if he was gay after she read one of his personal letters from a friend -- still hangs up the phone when he calls.
Source:
Mormons urged to stop shunning gay family members - Salt Lake Tribune

So, parents has a right to exclude their own children, if they are homosexual or transsexual.Are love to a child not so important as "love" to a church?
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
With what, and why?

I agree with Smoke. It is correct!

Oh I know it is correct! I disagree with (he did not state it was not always the case) whole idea of it. I was harassed because I was the only non-black male in my area! My manager was even there for the incident that caused me to leave the job! He would not say anything as he was white! It is not as easy as you make it sound. Though in principal you are correct in application you are wrong. I did get as right to sue letter from the EEOC but the attorney said it was not worth it unless I really wanted to go back. Do you think I wanted to go back?

I dont have the money or support for this: Divided court backs white firefighters in 'reverse discrimination' case (June 29, 2009) | On the Docket
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
When in California the marriage was cancelled for homosexual people again (because of Prop 8), and the LDS "church" was involved in it, I put to myself some questions. A question was, why the religions fight so much against the marriage of homosexual people. Why they spend so much money to keep the civil rights from American citizens. Because to marry is a civil right. A religion has nothing to do with it.

An other question which I put to myself was, why just the LDS was so crazily to prevent gay rights? Is the LDS homophobic, although in their own church history many famous homosexual appeared? Or did they have fear that would be taken away a little bit of their rights, and they could be made accept such marriages ecclesiastically?



Does a connection exist at all between the attacks (verbally, physically, institutionally) on homosexual people, with (Christian) religions?

What do you mean?

Is this really true? How does one ascertain a civil right? It is by the constitution which basically states that you can do anything you want as long as it is legal. That puts everything back in the hands of the electorate which decides what will be legal and what will not be legal. So the only right the constitution has guaranteed is your right to follow the law.

On the contrary, the constition guarantees the free exercise of religion. So if a person belonged to an apostate church he could be married by church ceremony but not a legal ceremony. My feeling has always been that the marriage ceremony is a church ceremony and civil ceremonies are meaningless but it doesn't hurt to also do the legal ceremony for tax purposes.

The reason is that a religious person does not wish to authorize a sinful practice.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that marriage is only about having children? So, I take it that you think a straight couple who is infertile should not be allowed to marry?

I'm saying that the main purpose of marrige, is to establish a family unit for the raising of children begotten through that union. "Straight" couples likely have no clue as to their conception abilities until after they are married. Such couples are mentioned in the Bible. Their main preoccupation seems to have always been to have a child............................................
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The reason is that a religious person does not wish to authorize a sinful practice.
I don't think this is true in a general sense.

Are apostasy and blasphemy sins? I know many religious people who are ardent supporters of religion, i.e. the right to engage in practices that are sinful in their eyes, like apostasy and blasphemy.

An anti-same-sex marriage Christian who votes to legalize same-sex civil marriage no more authorizes a sinful practice than a Muslim who votes to legalize the sale of pork does.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
I'm saying that the main purpose of marrige, is to establish a family unit for the raising of children begotten through that union. "Straight" couples likely have no clue as to their conception abilities until after they are married. Such couples are mentioned in the Bible. Their main preoccupation seems to have always been to have a child............................................

Whats the difference if they find out that they're infertile after the fact, the point is they still cannot bear any children. Which means they are in the same position as a homosexual couple. So, your objection doesn't work.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Is this really true? How does one ascertain a civil right? It is by the constitution which basically states that you can do anything you want as long as it is legal.
Where in the constitution does it say that?
That puts everything back in the hands of the electorate which decides what will be legal and what will not be legal. So the only right the constitution has guaranteed is your right to follow the law.
Sincere question: Have you ever read the constitution?

On the contrary, the constition guarantees the free exercise of religion. So if a person belonged to an apostate church he could be married by church ceremony but not a legal ceremony. My feeling has always been that the marriage ceremony is a church ceremony and civil ceremonies are meaningless but it doesn't hurt to also do the legal ceremony for tax purposes.
This is exactly backwards.

The reason is that a religious person does not wish to authorize a sinful practice.
such as working on the sabbath? Or marrying after divorce? Or eating pork?
 

averageJOE

zombie
I'm saying that the main purpose of marrige, is to establish a family unit for the raising of children begotten through that union. "Straight" couples likely have no clue as to their conception abilities until after they are married. Such couples are mentioned in the Bible. Their main preoccupation seems to have always been to have a child............................................

Whats the difference if they find out that they're infertile after the fact, the point is they still cannot bear any children. Which means they are in the same position as a homosexual couple. So, your objection doesn't work.
Tristesse is right. Whats the difference even if they find out after the fact?

Also, what about girls who were violently raped at at extremly young age (by straight men none the less) and so much internal damage was done that they are told that they will never be able to have children. Are you saying that they should never be allowed to enter marrige?
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member

My wife and I were married, and it was determined that the reason we were having aproblem conceiving was due to Endometriosis. This was not discovered until some years after we were married and a baby was not forthcoming. I do not consider our situation as out of the norm.

Men and women get married. Some wives are likely on the pill for a time to hold off having a baby right away. Then they "decide" it is time and find that they might have saved lots of maney wasted on the pill, becasue suddenly they find things are not going as they planned.

The "source" is common sense from someone who knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top