Religion
Related: About this forumThe Untold Story of Religious Support for Gay Rights
Stonewall as sacred site. Image courtesy flickr user Travis Wise via Creative Commons
By Rebecca Alpert / October 22, 2015
Now that we have marriage equality, and the Pope is hugging gay friends, what more is there to say about the gay community and religion?
Quite a bit, if you ask Heather White, author of Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the Rise of Gay Rights. And the conversation should start with a re-interpretation of recent history.
Historians are detectives. They ferret around to find clues that will change the way we understand past events. Not all historians are as gifted (or lucky) as White, however, whose excellent and lucid account challenges three sacred cows in the study of LGBT religion, namely that the Bible condemns homosexuality, that religion has played a major role in obstructing gay rights, and that Stonewall was the moment that began the American gay rights movement.
If we were playing two truths and a lie you might not guess which one her detective work failed to dislodge.
Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the Rise of Gay Rights
Heather R. White
University of North Carolina Press (2015)
http://religiondispatches.org/the-untold-story-of-religious-support-for-gay-rights/
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)is a stupidly dishonest sentence (not yours, rug, not yours, so no cause for alert)
Abrahamic religions condemn homosexuality. It's an abomination. Period.
Support for gay rights among people of an abrahamic faith comes from their human nature,
not from the doctrine, i.e. not from religion.
PS: Why do politicians in Uganda think its a vote grabber to pass 'lynch the gays' laws?
Because their constituencies are steeped in abrahamic faith.
rug
(82,333 posts)For one thing, it's about Protestantism and its historical encounter with gay rights. It's not about "Abrahamic religions".
For another thing, it's about how many, not all, of those churches have reconciled the issues.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)It's still BS.
1. Religion condemns the gay. Just ask Huck. Hell, just ask the Pope. Hugs don't count for shit.
2. Religion is the main opponent of gay rights. Hell, they're the only opponent. Just because there are some religious groups who have been supportive, their influence is negligible to the point of farting into the wind
3. Stonewall was the tipping point. Just like Rosa was the tipping point. What preceded these events is like a spark compared to a nuclear blast.
Religious apologists shouldn't make fools of themselves. I guess there's just no stopping them.
rug
(82,333 posts)I suppose you can say BS a few more times.
Religion detractors shouldn't make fools of themselves. I guess there's just no stopping them.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Which would of course make that institution exactly what we all know it is: a bastion of deep seated homophobic bigotry.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)1/ your distinction between Protestantism and Abrahamic religions is .. weird.
2/ Some (abrahamic) religions have circled the square about homosexuality, yes.
They managed to bring the lunacy of the texts (homosexuality = abomination)
back into the fold of decent humanity (live and let live)
In so doing, btw, religion demonstrated how meaningless its texts are: the text says homosexuality is an abomination. Gay inclusive abrahamic religions are proudly telling the world they are based on books which they can interpret at will.
Not exactly news, but an interesting, albeit unwitting, admission.
rug
(82,333 posts)except in the most rudimentary sense.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I can only admire your ability to try to deflect from the main issue with red herrings.
The key point is that religions contort their texts in a laughable way to stay relevant,
thereby admitting their sacred texts are quack.
Even the currently rather unyielding religion, Islam, and despite the tons of petrodollars invested on maintaining as hard a line as possible, show strains at the seams.
It's hard to keep stoning people to death in the quiet of your own crackpot theocracy with all the pesky journalists and cameras. Not to mention iPhones and Youtube.
But, in order to be extra fair with everybody, I must also grant that the ISIS guys are applying the program to the letter. In a sense, to see pure religion at work, one only needs to watch what ISIS does. The happy slappy version of gay-tolerant western Protestantism is far, far removed from the texts. For the texts say that homosexuality is an abomination.
So that's why the title of the book quoted in the OP is laughable.
The abrahamic religions are NOT gay friendly. Period.
rug
(82,333 posts)You see no distinction among the Abrahamic religions, Juudaism, Christianity, and Islam. Not to mention the many differences within each of them.
The only red herrings are those you've spawned.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You wrote:
That is opposing Protestantism to "Abrahamic religions". And it is what I contested.
Now, given the elements P (Protestantism), C (Catholicism), J (Judaism), I (Islam) and the set A 'Abrahamic religions', P is an element of A.
So, when a question (its historical encounter with gay rights) involves P, it involves A, since P belongs to A.
BUT it still does not mean that P=C=J=I=A, which is what you insinuated when you claimed that I 'equated' all Abrahamic religions.
Try drawing Venn diagrams, it does help clarify such questions.
Follow along.
Protestantism is a subset of Christianity,
Christianity is a subset of Abrahamic religions, as is Judaism and Islam.
You drew no distinction whatsoever among them, despite the evidence all around you.
Ergo, you equate Protestantism to Ilslam, Wahhabism to Methodists, Hasidim to Khudai Khidmatgar, et cetera.
The fallacy of division.
You drew no distinction whatsoever among them, despite the evidence all around you.
You repeat your claim I drew no distinction among the abrahamic religions.
Repeating that claim does not make it true.
What I find quite amusing is the childish follow-up: "despite the evidence all around you."
It's exactly as if I said about you: "rug, you should not have killed that baby, despite all the evidence that it is morally wrong." Yes, killing a baby is wrong, but I have not proved you killed one. So it's a fictional reinforcement of your hollow claim.
Too funny: you dare tricks kids in a debating club wouldn't try.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I defy you to find a sentence of mine which equates all Abrahamic religions.
And yet you repeated that unsubstantiated claim without evidence.
Repeated unfounded claims do not deserve more than snark.
rug
(82,333 posts)Last seen in the halls of elementary school between art and lunch.
Ariston of Alexandria is decomposing at a more rapid rate.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I restate: you made a claim about what I said (to wit, that I equated all abrahamic religions)
I repeatedly challenged your assertion, defying you to produce evidence.
And now you're pretending that asking for evidence for your claims is schoolyard tactics?
Laughable.
rug
(82,333 posts)Pathetic.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You made a claim, I called your bluff, you try evading tactics.
Keep going. It's fun to watch.
Cartoonist
(7,298 posts)Revisionist history.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do you actually believe there are no Christians who are gay?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)A Christian follows the doctrine of Christianity whose pillar is the Bible.
The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.
Therefore a gay person who is also Christian is at odds with the doctrine of their ideology.
Not a problem, but it's best to state it clearly.
PS: my belief is that it's the Bible which is an abomination, not homosexuality. But that's me.
rug
(82,333 posts)Your premises are as much bunk as your logic.
GIGO.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)It is sad to see people nearing the limit of abuse as much as you do to try and make people write angry answers which can be alerted upon.
And why do you think 'someone' would 'tag' me to answer anything. Do you think there are secret and nefarious groups which coordinate their answers to you?
In real life, do you scout for potential enemies who would be after you?
But then again, if you keep calling what other people think garbage at a whim, you might not be the most popular kid on the block.
Gee, and to think you are the proud defender of Roman Catholic 'morality'.
rug
(82,333 posts)The ad hominem you just posted is, on the other hand, garbage.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)As far as I know, the acronym GIGO means "garbage in, garbage out"
The fact it is written as an acronym does not in anyway detract from the fact you compared my opinions as being garbage as a rule.
So your denial of the fact you used the word garbage is a lie, a childish one at that. And you compound the insult by calling the reminder of the rude terms you used a 'trash ad hominem'.
Seriously, rug, do you really believe the way you defend religion does credit to religion?
rug
(82,333 posts)When you start with garbage, what follows is not argument.
I repeat, your premises are bunk.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You might disagree with my premises, I do not hold yours in high regard either.
But you not only used the word garbage, which is uncivil, you also tried to deny it. Clumsy.
Now you're not denying anymore, and therefore deflecting to the validity of my premises.
If the way you debate is a sample of Christian honesty, boy, am I glad to be an atheist.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you want to be insulted be my guest.
If the way you debate is a sample of atheist rationality, boy, am I glad not to be an atheist.
BTW, nice smiley!
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I like smileys. I'm so glad you noticed. I'm proud of you.