Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Pixxelation]

These are a few Bible passages that people love to pick out and use against Christians, but what you (and many others) are missing is the context of these commands, which is important.

 

The typical answer to this is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and that Christians are now living under the New Covenant.

 

Example, Leviticus 11:7-8 and 11:11-12 are answered with Acts 11:6-9:

 

 

 

And for Leviticus 11:19, this was a prohibition (along with others) that was designed to separate the Israelites from the Canaanites and their fertility cult practices, which included mixing animal breeds, seeds, or materials to “marry them” to magically to produce offspring. This indicates that this prohibition is tied to one time and place in history, and for us would be unreasonable to keep.

 

(By the way, I am all for marriage equality, but I felt it was necessary to respond to this.)

As I said, examples from a quick google search What about this one, though? Luke 14:26:

 

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

 

Basically, people are supposed to hate their families and selves? That... makes no sense to me. I don't think I have ever seen someone who hates LGBT+ people based on religion that also hates everyone they are related to and themselves.

 

Also, isn't that quote contradictory to, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"?

Edited April 5, 2014 by PieMaster

[edwardelricfreak]

These are a few Bible passages that people love to pick out and use against Christians, but what you (and many others) are missing is the context of these commands, which is important.

 

The typical answer to this is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and that Christians are now living under the New Covenant.

 

Example, Leviticus 11:7-8 and 11:11-12 are answered with Acts 11:6-9:

 

6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

 

8“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’

 

9“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

 

And for Leviticus 11:19, this was a prohibition (along with others) that was designed to separate the Israelites from the Canaanites and their fertility cult practices, which included mixing animal breeds, seeds, or materials to “marry them” to magically to produce offspring. This indicates that this prohibition is tied to one time and place in history, and for us would be unreasonable to keep.

 

(By the way, I am all for marriage equality, but I felt it was necessary to respond to this.)

....honestly "in-context" it still makes no sense to me.

[Bacon_Strips]

@Piemaster: That has always been a very interesting verse, meaning that many Christians are confused by it. I am not a very knowledgable person on the verse myself, but perhaps another site could explain it better (which I will do with a quick Google search).

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent....y=6&article=781 <-- I found this article to be the most interesting and concise, stating that the word "miseo" ("hate") did not mean to abhor someone in those days, but it meant to "love less". By that explanation, Jesus is telling his followers to love him above all else, but to not dishonor their parents or family either.

 

Anyway, this is probably getting a bit too off-topic, so we should probably end this discussion before the thread is derailed.

[edwardelricfreak]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent....y=6&article=781 <-- I found this article to be the most interesting and concise, stating that the word "miseo" ("hate") did not mean to abhor someone in those days, but it meant to "love less". By that explanation, Jesus is telling his followers to love him above all else, but to not dishonor their parents or family either.

I don't care what it means. If I love my family more, I love my family more and he can just deal with that.

[whitebaron]

I don't care what it means. If I love my family more, I love my family more and he can just deal with that.

You need to read the full luke 14, then its clear.

jesus tells his followers, that to be his true disciples, they-d need to give up on family, money, everything they hold dear, in order to really carry his burden as well. It is meant for those who dont only follow the faith, but keep up jesus' work. Not everyone could be an apostle back then - just as not everyone can be a priest nowadays.

[KageSora]

These are a few Bible passages that people love to pick out and use against Christians, but what you (and many others) are missing is the context of these commands, which is important.

 

The typical answer to this is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and that Christians are now living under the New Covenant.

Personally, I feel like if people are going to pull out Leviticus as "proof" that homosexuality is a sin, then other people are fully justified in pulling out the passages about no mixed fiber clothes and stuff right back.

 

I mean, if "Christians" (and I use quotes because typically the people I see doing it are Christian in name only, they don't act like it) are going to take their own religious passages out of context to attempt to condemn others, then it clearly means that context doesn't matter to them.

 

 

The actual typical answer I've seen is people doing everything they can to try to avoid admitting that they're cherry picking when they quote the OT only on things they don't like while ignoring the OT passages that condemn their own lifestyles. They often can't even find an NT quote to back up their hate, they just rely on taking OT stuff out of context.

[JavaTigress]

I honestly wish there was more awareness of Asexuality.

 

People in general are very ignorant about the idea, or that has been my experience. Seems like most people are very quick to assume that such a thing isn't even possible, or that you have a sad and depressing life if you don't ever have sex. Or worse, that there must be something WRONG with you somehow because you don't want it or don't care about it. Even though I believe I may be one myself I didn't even know it was a thing until after I had graduated from COLLEGE. It was incredibly awkward at times as a teenager realizing I was different somehow from my classmates and NOT having the slightest idea why. I happened to stumble across the concept of Asexuality on the internet and was like... "Wow, that sounds like it could be me. I am not alone." I had heard of the possibility of being gay or lesbian or bi but NEVER of the fact that there are others out there not interested in sex at all, or interested in it with only a person they have a a relationship with already. Seriously though, it seems like there is something wrong that I never even heard of it.

 

Sorry, rant over. Those are just some peeves of mine.

Bumping this question since it seems it got missed.

 

ALSO, very interesting ideas, Bacon and Pie. * Been stalking this*

Edited April 5, 2014 by Silverswift

[Pixxelation]

 

This video is just awesome <3

[LikeTwoPancakes]

Everybody should have equal rights no matter what.

I think things like this should be talked about more in schools.

 

[BlitzDrake]

From another site I'm on, similar topic was brought there. So I'm putting what they said here. The OP of the topic was going on about how gays would burn in hell, etc. The person that posted this was replying to them with this (so its not really directed all of the christians)

 

The book of Leviticus is full of old laws. These laws were followed before the Lord sent Jesus down to die for our sins. They speak of all the things ____ has said and more. They speak of the sacrifices: animals sacrificed at the alter of the Lord so that he might forgive our sins. They speak of foods that we can not eat, such as shellfish. They speak of stoning those who are divorced. They speak against those who tattoo or pierce their bodies. These laws became everything to those who followed the Lord.

 

Then everything changed. The Lord sent down his Son, so that he might save everyone from their sin. The old laws were no longer important. We did not need the sacrifices to be saved. It didn't matter if we were tattoed or ate shellfish. It was all washed away in Christ's blood. When you say the things that you say, that homesexuality is a sin because of one verse in Leviticus (which may or may not be correctly interpreted by the church today, as Tabby just mentioned), you deny Jesus's sacrifice. You look at him and say, Lord, your death was not enough. I still follow the old laws and as such I reject your offering of salvation. You spit in the face of everything he did. The love that he showed to everyone he met.

 

Matthew 15:1-6 tells of one such incidence: “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,

2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

 

This is what you are doing with your hateful words. You tell another person that their existence is not valid because it does not align with the old traditions of your religion. That goes completely against the word of God.

 

In Mark 12: 28-33, Jesus speaks of what commandments are most important:

 

“28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

 

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

 

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

 

I do not understand how Jesus could be more clear in this passage. There is nothing wrong with love. Whether you love a man or a woman, whether you are a man or a woman, there is nothing wrong with that! Loving someone is not a sin! The Lord's greatest commandment is love. And if you think that someone is lesser than you because of who they love than I think you need to take a good look inside yourself. Because I don't think you are really understanding who Jesus was and the lessons that he came to Earth to teach us.

 

You speak also of Romans 1:24-25. I have discussed this with various scholars of the Bible before and I have heard a different interpretation than the one you see:

"Scripture cannot mean NOW

what it did not mean THEN. If Paul wasn't dealing with committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships in AD 58 when he wrote Romans, then its wrong to insist that those verses are dealing with committed same sex partnerships now." I found this paragraph during a search through biblical interpretations and it stood out with me. The people Paul writes about in Romans 1 are not loving people in a faithful relationship.

 

This is my final question to you: When did you choose to be straight? What day and time did you think to yourself, I am choosing right now to only sleep with the opposite gender? Was it a choice for you? I have a feeling you cannot answer this question. And no more should anyone have to validate their existence, their love, to you. I did not choose to be heterosexual. Just as someone does not choose to be gay, or bisexual, or pansexual, or asexual.

 

I don't think you will listen to my argument. I have found that people who hold to tenets of ignorance and persecution generally do not. But I hope that maybe you can look at this and think about who you are following. The teachings of men, who discriminate against people who have done no wrong, or the teachings of Jesus, who preached love and acceptance and peace.

Edited May 10, 2014 by BlightWyvern

[Anak]

A man can marry a woman, a man and anyone else. Same for a woman. Same for everyone. I don't see why it should be any other way.

[KageSora]

The whole "Jesus died thus invalidating the need to follow the Old Laws" thing is the biggest reason I roll my eyes when people quote the OT Laws about it.

 

If you're gonna quote the scripture, either insist on following all the OT Laws or quote only from Jesus' teachings. Except I don't recall seeing any body ever able to pull out a passage where Jesus Himself said homosexuality wrong. It's almost always Leviticus. And yet they say that's basically the only one of the Laws from Leviticus we need to follow lol. So inconsistent.

[octopi]

Can we change GSM to GSRM? For romantic minorities. Asexual people have a romantic spectrum that is separate from the desire for sex, and they are super important and should be included.

 

I've always lived in communities that were super nice, but my family's Chinese and they still have a lot of bias against this kind of thing. Not to mention the kind of everyday ignorance you see everywhere.

[KageSora]

Can we change GSM to GSRM? For romantic minorities. Asexual people have a romantic spectrum that is separate from the desire for sex, and they are super important and should be included.

Just to point out, but that's not limited to asexual people. It's most often in sexual individuals that their sexual and romantic orientations are aligned, but this isn't always the case! You can have a sexual orientation that's not asexual and have a romantic orientation that's different from it.

 

(That said, I push for GSRM over LGBTQIA+ personally because it's short, it's inclusive, nobody has to be like "but where's MY letter?", and there's no room for "allies" to shove themselves in. By "ally" I mean the "A IS FOR ALLY I WORE A RAINBOW SHIRT AND I THINK IT'S OKAY FOR MEN TO MARRY MEN" kind of people, not the actual people who are genuine allies who want to educate themselves and to support and help fight for full equality across the spectrum)

Edited May 11, 2014 by KageSora

[Obscure_Trash]

A little while back, I personally changed to GRSD for diversity/diversities because people told me that GSM has roots as the name for a disorder and as well BDSM people are apparently included in that abbreviation and that leads down a bad road because there's a difference in queerphobia and queer discrimination and the judgement people who practice BDSM may face. Probably the biggest reason is because people don't like being called a minority. Yeah, I know it's a small thing, but that also means it's a small change to make. =p

 

I switched in part due to the reasons Kage mentioned but also because nobody has ever tried to kick me out of the GRSD community, but I'm shoved out of the LGBTQIA+ community all the time as soon as "asexual" is spoken.

Edited May 11, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler

[octopi]

Yeah sorry! I'm still really unclear on a lot of things even though I'm probably ace/aro myself. uvu Trying my best to read up on everything though.

 

How are people who practice BDSM included in that though? Well I guess "sexual" doesn't specify sexual orientations. And personally I think diversities might open up the thing with allies shoving themselves into the group too, because ~*even the majority should be included in diversity*~

 

There are gonna be problems with whatever acronyms we think up huh

[Obscure_Trash]

How are people who practice BDSM included in that though? Well I guess "sexual" doesn't specify sexual orientations.

Because it's a "sexual minority". Ask the cishets into BDSM who are trying to worm their way into the acronym (just like allies try to steal a spot in LGBTQIA+) why they're doing it. >_>

 

And personally I think diversities might open up the thing with allies shoving themselves into the group too, because ~*even the majority should be included in diversity*~

 

Except they're not a diversity in the sense we're using it.

 

Yeah, they're going to try to push their way into everything, which is why my main reasons are: it's inclusive, short, easy to remember.

[Hatsune Scratch]

I'll let Tourettes Guy answer my question towards gay/lesbian marriages

(If you don't get the reference look it up on YouTube)

[KageSora]

Never heard the "GSM = disorder" thing. Not saying it's not true, I just haven't heard that yet--I've heard the furries/BDSM/pedos trying worm their way in, though, but I say ignore them.

 

You'll have somebody worming their way in no matter what one you use. And I would argue "Diversity" doesn't keep them out at all--they have a "more diverse sexual lifestyle" is probably the reason they'll use to be included in GRSD.

 

If you keep changing what you use because somebody else is trying to worm their way in or some alternative/negative association exists or is being made to the acronym--in whole or in part--that you're using, you'll never end up with one you can use because you'll just have to keep changing it.

 

 

Not saying you shouldn't--just that I don't particularly think certain people trying to force their way in like that should be a huge factor in changing. For me, not allowing "allies" to claim the "a" is a small reason I prefer GSRM, the biggest being that it doesn't use specific letters thus leaving out a sexual and/or gender and/or romantic identity.

[Obscure_Trash]

Never heard the "GSM = disorder" thing. [...]

There is debate about where the term originated.

 

Here's one of the things I collected on it:

 

Also, important about why GSM/GSRM is an incredibly flawed term to refer to the LGBT+ community:

 

Lars Ullerstam, who coined the term in his 1966 book “The Erotic Minorities” included and defended pedophilia and incest - equating it with homosexuality and transgender people.

 

Ullerstam didn’t coin “GSM.” He only coined “sexual minority.” Searching “lars ullerstam gsm -tumblr” yields only one result for me, and that result is in Swedish and doesn’t mention Ullerstam at all. (When I include the Tumblr results, all I get is your post.) Someone else repurposed “sexual minority” to create GSM as a more inclusive alternative to LGBT. Ullerstam did not coin GSM. GSM is new and from the last 13 years.

 

GSM when it was created referred to “gender and sexual identity minorities.” And when it was created, it was repurposing “sexual minority” and intended NOT to refer to pedophiles or incest.

 

I still try to stick to GRSD since GSM/GRSM labels people minority, which is offensive/has negative connotations for many, and it doesn't hurt me to do so.

[MasterWeavile898]

I still have trouble understanding how being a pedophile or whatever isn't a sexual orientation? Can someone like that help what they feel?

[KageSora]

@Sock--It might just be me, but I don't see how "minority" when it's a descriptor is offensive. Aseuxals are, in fact, a minority of the population, and I've never felt offended when people call asexuals a minority because it's a fact. Like I said, it might just be me. Could you explain more on why it's negative/possibly offensive? Or point me to somebody who could?

 

I still have trouble understanding how being a pedophile or whatever isn't a sexual orientation? Can someone like that help what they feel?

 

Because a fetish =/= orientation. (Mostly I've seen it described as a fetish, though medically it's considered a disorder--from what I can tell the dividing line is it's a fetish if it doesn't impair you, a disorder if it disrupts your ability to live a normal life?)

 

For example, I'm asexual. I don't experience sexual attraction to other people. However, I have my kinks and such, which do physically induce a state of sexual arousal in me, despite this lack of attraction sexually towards other people.

 

 

However, even if it were provable that pedophilia was an orientation, unlike other orientations it is harmful, because both parties are not legally capable of giving consent for any sort of sexual encounter.

 

With a pedophile acting on their desire with an underage individual, this underage person is not legally recognized as being capable of giving informed consent. Additionally, as they are attracted to young children--NOT "oh just 16" kind of underage, we're talking 10-11 and younger--they are generally not only not fully informed on what's happening and what might happen as a result to give consent, they may not even be capable of understanding on a level required for fully informed consent.

 

 

(edited for wording fail...)

Edited May 11, 2014 by KageSora

[Obscure_Trash]

@Sock--It might just be me, but I don't see how "minority" when it's a descriptor is offensive. Aseuxals are, in fact, a minority of the population, and I've never felt offended when people call asexuals a minority because it's a fact. Like I said, it might just be me. Could you explain more on why it's negative/possibly offensive? Or point me to somebody who could?

I do not personally find minority offensive either. I think a lot of people who fall under the queer umbrella who find minority offensive are also POC and the more negative connotations of minority are associated with race (because we simplify white = default, POC = Other, minority, etc.).

[KageSora]

Ah, that would make sense. Thanks!

[octopi]

Warning for some brief language: http://genderpunkrock.tumblr.com/post/8535...before-but-what

 

Regarding the acronym thing, this is interesting.

Edited May 13, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler