All Things LGBTQ+ (6 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[insidejob]

Go ahead and google Cat

I did. The white one is really cute. I like orange cats, myself. Thinking of maybe getting one when my dog eventually dies.

 

[Farb]

I really get somewhat annoyed with the way religions want to push their beliefs into civil law. They are supposed to be separate, it’s one of the main reasons we have this country - for freedom from religious oppression by one sect onto others. I don’t understand why evangelicals and Catholics cannot distinguish between a religious ceremony of marriage and a civil ceremony. It’s not a hard concept, like at all. A child could make the distinction. The fact that they want to impose their religious beliefs as laws which apply to everyone makes them no different than any other extreme religious sect in the world. How is that different than sharia law?

I don't get why people get annoyed or are perplexed by this. For most, their religious upbringing is the compass or bedrock of their belief and value system. Why would they not want the government to uphold and adapt their belief system. To them, their values and beliefs are good, just like your belief and values are considered good to you and you also want the government to adapt and force your views/beliefs/values on the rest of us. That is part of democracy and human nature.

I am a practicing catholic. I don't care who marries who within the state. I do care about who marries who in my church. Just like you said, 2 very different things.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That is not what I said.

As much as the church loves gay people they simply cannot change the origins and structure of the church.

 

[insidejob]

@Optimus Prime still trying to change hearts and minds?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Just quoting the inanity

 

[V Chip]

Officially the Catholic Church does not accept gays. Unofficially they often look the other way.

Lol. Define “often.”

Go ahead and google Catholic Churches that welcome LGBT
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/nyregion/gay-parish-new-york-city.html

Page not found.

Appropos.

 

[MT15]

I don't get why people get annoyed or are perplexed by this. For most, their religious upbringing is the compass or bedrock of their belief and value system. Why would they not want the government to uphold and adapt their belief system. To them, their values and beliefs are good, just like your belief and values are considered good to you and you also want the government to adapt and force your views/beliefs/values on the rest of us. That is part of democracy and human nature.

I am a practicing catholic. I don't care who marries who within the state. I do care about who marries who in my church. Just like you said, 2 very different things.

You don’t get why I would be annoyed that a church would want to impose their religious dogma as law in my country? How is that different than imposing Sharia law? Or Orthodox Jews banning the sale of pork?

 

[MT15]

I don't think you have ever been to a Catholic Church. IN many instances there many gays and lesbians in the pews. The prists and parishioners do not care.

Guys, this is not rocket science.

Incredibly arrogant and false, Paul. You’re just amazingly condescending.

 

[CoolBrees]

@MT15

I believe you mean he “does acrimony”

 

[MT15]

I guess I understand why this has focused on the Catholic Church when it really involves more than just that one religion. It’s the evangelical movement, which crosses into multiple sects, that is really more likely to try to legislate church dogma.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Reaffirming the belief system they have is not imposing their views on others. Why do you make that connection?

Actively trying to codify religious beliefs into law is, though, which is happening regularly around the country on multiple topics.

 

[Farb]

You don’t get why I would be annoyed that a church would want to impose their religious dogma as law in my country? How is that different than imposing Sharia law? Or Orthodox Jews banning the sale of pork?

Good question. I don't see a large difference at all. I would guess there are several countries with sharia law because that is their religious beliefs. Our founders purposely created a system of government that was based off of Jewish Christian beliefs. One only has to read the papers (federalist and personal) from our founders to see that.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."- John Adams

I would also argue that todays leftist movement has created their own dogma that is pushing much more successfully (be it control of the institutions of power or a just a better message, that is up for debate) their beliefs on everyone else in this country.

 

[MT15]

And yet, Farb, they very, very carefully set out to create the separation of church and state. Don’t forget that all important part. One could argue that it’s the whole point of this country.

 

[SystemShock]

I really get somewhat annoyed with the way religions want to push their beliefs into civil law. They are supposed to be separate, it’s one of the main reasons we have this country - for freedom from religious oppression by one sect onto others. I don’t understand why evangelicals and Catholics cannot distinguish between a religious ceremony of marriage and a civil ceremony. It’s not a hard concept, like at all. A child could make the distinction. The fact that they want to impose their religious beliefs as laws which apply to everyone makes them no different than any other extreme religious sect in the world. How is that different than sharia law?

It's the same principle, laws based on religious scripture, and it happens to be the scripture is largely the same. And if you slowly go back in time, Christian practices get closer and closer to Islam's sharia. Islam is about 3-4 centuries behind Christianity, so Christian organizations no longer sanction stoning gays, executing infidels, enslaving people... although I am sure the Westboro church would do it if they could.

In MX, there is separation of church and State too, but when it comes to politics, it is a different dynamic. MX money doesn't say "in God we trust", no one ends speeches with "God bless México", no one wants to put the 10 commandments in federal buildings, there is no issue with teaching evolution and not creationism in schools or not praying (even if you go to a Catholic school like I did), you don't have to profess a religion to be elected to office...

...yet, the Catholic church has tremendous influence on the Mexican people. According to the last census (and people in MX generally don't have issues answering such questions ) 83% of Mexicans are Catholic. It used to be that the PAN ( historically one of the 2 largest political parties in MX along with the PRI, until the advent of MORENA this past decade ) was fully backed by the Catholic church, and the PAN pretty much carried the church's agenda in their policies, and let's just say, the agenda wasn't entirely religious.

And side cultural note: Mexicans don't pray to Jesus, they pray to the virgin Mary

 

[bdb13]

Our founders purposely created a system of government that was based off of Jewish Christian beliefs. One only has to read the papers (federalist and personal) from our founders to see that.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."- John Adams

(I find this stuff pretty interesting) I don't think what you're saying is without some merit but you do have stuff out there like this which I think indicates that's probably too simplified and that the Founders collectively viewed what they were constructing to be too.. complicated I guess.. to say that it was based n tenants of the Christian and Jewish religions:

The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

ARTICLE 11.​

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

I know I can look it up, but what essays from The Federalist papers do you believe make it most obvious?

 

[coldseat]

Good question. I don't see a large difference at all. I would guess there are several countries with sharia law because that is their religious beliefs. Our founders purposely created a system of government that was based off of Jewish Christian beliefs. One only has to read the papers (federalist and personal) from our founders to see that.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."- John Adams

I would also argue that todays leftist movement has created their own dogma that is pushing much more successfully (be it control of the institutions of power or a just a better message, that is up for debate) their beliefs on everyone else in this country.

It's worth putting that quote into context, because when you do, it suddenly sounds an awful lot like what Adams was describing was Trump and his base. What happens when the people who claim to be religious aren't moral and the people who are moral aren't religious? Adams didn't quite contend with that.

While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <, Start deletion,and, End,> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Founders Online: From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798

From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798

founders.archives.gov

 

[SystemShock]

Our founders purposely created a system of government that was based off of Jewish Christian beliefs. One only has to read the papers (federalist and personal) from our founders to see that.

That is false. One only has to read the U.S. Constitution to see that.

The U.S. Constitution is not divinely inspired, even incompatible with Christianity

Who has not seen the picture of the Founding Fathers surrounding Jesus, who's holding a freshly written U.S. Constitution? Because, you know, the U.S. is a Christian nation founded on Christian values. But not only would you be hard pressed to find any "value" in the U.S. Constitution not found...

madaboutpolitics.com

Although, there was this one value, slavery... at least until 1865.

 

[Paul]

Good question. I don't see a large difference at all. I would guess there are several countries with sharia law because that is their religious beliefs. Our founders purposely created a system of government that was based off of Jewish Christian beliefs. One only has to read the papers (federalist and personal) from our founders to see that.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."- John Adams

I would also argue that todays leftist movement has created their own dogma that is pushing much more successfully (be it control of the institutions of power or a just a better message, that is up for debate) their beliefs on everyone else in this country.

Excellent post. Pseudo-religion based on a non-deity belief can be as disastrous as religion based on a deity.