Homosexuality as a Religion?

[badgeguy]

Ok, I KNOW I will be blasted for this by some, and I will preface this whole thing as "This is just a thought in my head one day."

I have worked in the entertainment industry all my life, so I have been around all types of people, so I am speaking with good knowledge on WHAT homosexuality is. This discussion is not being started to argue if its "right or wrong".....thats for a different topic.

As the title suggests, I have often wondered if when homosexuality started becoming "mainstream" so to speak, or more out in the open and something that has become a national "hot button" especially rights of individuals on a civil level such as marriage and benefits of partners.....

I ask this question, what if homosexuality were a religion? I am beginning to think that maybe if the groups of people who are of the G, L, Bi persuasion, had claimed it all to be part of a faith or religion, then there would have been no issues in this country about marriage or other rights issues that are being fought for. As in this country we have the right of Religious Freedom, although civil rights are harder to win.

On this planet, and especially in this country we have hundreds of groups who claim to be of a religious faith, all who have their own practices, and so, why not a homosexual religion?

Ok, thoughts anyone?

[badgeguy]

Ok, this whole thing was written after watching the Romney speech where he claims as elected president he will support the sanctity of marriage, which to me seems that he will overturn or try to block any Gay rights to marriage and ban this issue......

[XAntoftheSkyX]

I don't think if being queer was a religious movement, it would have become such a hot button issue. Take Scientology for instance. While it was a hot topic for a bit, it lost popularity as a news story and is out of the lime light.

The main difference I see is that a religious person is just that, a member of society that identifies with a religion. The LGBTIAQQ equality movement is for making sure everyone that identifies as one of those letters has the same rights and benefits of any straight person.

[TEAtime]

And...just because Americans are free to choose their religion, that doesn't make others tolerant of their choices. Further, since some people already believe that gays go around converting the straights, homosexuality as a religion wouldn't go over so well.

[badgeguy]

So, just reading in the news about Arizona try to pass new legislation about homosexuality by changing their definitions and whatnot....one of the point deals with changing definitions of how religions are defined for lawsuit purposes....

One comment was made about the possibly of Mormons using polygamy as part of their religions, so I again as the question, what if homosexuality were redefined as a religion?

[knight_shadow]

I can say "I think I'll follow Christianity" on Monday and decide "Maybe Buddhism is right for me" on Thursday. Not so much with sexual orientation. Not sure I see what you're going for.

[navane]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I can say "I think I'll follow Christianity" on Monday and decide "Maybe Buddhism is right for me" on Thursday. Not so much with sexual orientation. Not sure I see what you're going for.

I'm not sure, but I think he's asking if homosexuality would be more readily accepted if it were to be thought of as an expression of one's religion. Meaning, if homosexuality could be claimed as "legitimate" under the banner of freedom of religion.

[AOII Angel]

We can't put everything under the banner of religion. Not everything is about worship. We already pay too much lip service to religious freedom.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by navane

I'm not sure, but I think he's asking if homosexuality would be more readily accepted if it were to be thought of as an expression of one's religion. Meaning, if homosexuality could be claimed as "legitimate" under the banner of freedom of religion.

Like Scientology? ...

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by navane

I'm not sure, but I think he's asking if homosexuality would be more readily accepted if it were to be thought of as an expression of one's religion. Meaning, if homosexuality could be claimed as "legitimate" under the banner of freedom of religion.

All that would do is make people think orientation is a choice (ex. if I study GLBTism 3 times a week for 3 years, I'll FINALLY be able to classify myself as gay!). To me, this is like asking if folks will be more accepting of black people if I say my blackness is due to my religion.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

We can't put everything under the banner of religion. Not everything is about worship. We already pay too much lip service to religious freedom.

Exactly

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

To me, this is like asking if folks will be more accepting of black people if I say my blackness is due to my religion.

Nah, not quite. Your blackness is first and foremost exhibited in physical traits that you can't ignore or hide (without extreme measures). While some would argue "gayness" (in comparison to your "blackness") is not a choice, it is unique in that one could choose to be gay but not engage in "homosexual practices." I choose that wording because my previous graduate institution actually included in the morality clause that you could "be" homosexual but could not "practice homosexuality." The same way a person could be a non-practicing Catholic, I guess. My mind was blown when I heard that but that's another story.

So I see how BG might hypothetically equate "homosexual practice" with "religious practices." The way a man may say "I will have sex ONLY with my wife because it is pleasing to God," what if a man said "I have sex with men because it pleases my God?" If that were the case, I agree with Tea Time. America is choosy with religious tolerance. Religious freedoms are much more likely to be protected for a Christian or Catholic than a Satanist, even though they're all "equal" on paper.

TL;DR--Butt sex for Jesus prolly wouldn't fly.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

Nah, not quite. Your blackness is first and foremost exhibited in physical traits that you can't ignore or hide (without extreme measures).

Which traits? Dark skin? Dark eyes? Kinky hair? Large noses? If these passable folks say "I'm not black" it doesn't make it so.

While some would argue "gayness" (in comparison to your "blackness") is not a choice, it is unique in that one could choose to be gay but not engage in "homosexual practices." I choose that wording because my previous graduate institution actually included in the morality clause that you could "be" homosexual but could not "practice homosexuality." The same way a person could be a non-practicing Catholic, I guess. My mind was blown when I heard that but that's another story.

I still don't know how folks can stand behind the "it's a choice" argument. If it was, why would bullied teens decide to continue getting bullied (often to the point of suicide) instead of just "switching back"? I'm also still waiting to hear back from one (just one would be fine) heterosexual person who 1) can tell me when s/he picked heterosexuality and 2) can make the switch to homosexuality at the drop of a hat.

On that same note -- what exactly is a "homosexual practice"? Kissing a man (I guess I can never show affection with my dad)? Anal sex (what if it's between my girlfriend and I)? Who is the deciding authority re: what is "on the cusp of gay" vs "full on flaming"?

So I see how BG might hypothetically equate "homosexual practice" with "religious practices." The way a man may say "I will have sex ONLY with my wife because it is pleasing to God," what if a man said "I have sex with men because it pleases my God?" If that were the case, I agree with Tea Time. America is choosy with religious tolerance. Religious freedoms are much more likely to be protected for a Christian or Catholic than a Satanist, even though they're all "equal" on paper.

TL;DR--Butt sex for Jesus prolly wouldn't fly.

I agree with the bold, which is why I'm still waiting on AZ to pass a bill allowing store owners to block the sale of tampons, the wearing of mixed fabrics in their stores, and the patronage of divorcees. I also better not see you walk from Red Lobster into my store.

This "cafeteria Christianity" that I've seen tells me that a large number of people are just using their religion as a mask for bigotry. If homosexuality were to become a "religion," folks will just find another reason to dislike that group.

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Which traits? Dark skin? Dark eyes? Kinky hair? Large noses? If these passable folks say "I'm not black" it doesn't make it so.

I understand that. But I'm referring to the vast majority of non-white people who are not "mixed race" and therefore more likely to look racially ambiguous.

I still don't know how folks can stand behind the "it's a choice" argument.

The "it's a choice/not a choice" debate is a can of worms that I was absolutely not trying to open in this thread. I was just speaking to the fact that it is much more feasible for a gay person to "pass" as straight than for a person to "pass" as another ethnicity which is why I disagreed with your example.

On that same note -- what exactly is a "homosexual practice"? Kissing a man (I guess I can never show affection with my dad)? Anal sex (what if it's between my girlfriend and I)? Who is the deciding authority re: what is "on the cusp of gay" vs "full on flaming"?

You know...I don't know the exactly language of that morality clause I spoke about but that was the first question I asked. The person telling me said it included having sex or intimate contact with another man (because he was male). The unspoken add-on was "in a public place or on-campus" because seriously--if he were in his own home, who would know and how can you tell him what to do there? Honestly, this is one of many reasons why I usually pretend I didn't go there.

I also better not see you walk from Red Lobster into my store.

Oh, you will. And I'll even have the nerve to ask Jesus to bless the food.
This "cafeteria Christianity" that I've seen tells me that a large number of people are just using their religion as a mask for bigotry. If homosexuality were to become a "religion," folks will just find another reason to dislike that group.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I was saying. It's not right but that's the way it is in this great nation.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

This "cafeteria Christianity" that I've seen tells me that a large number of people are just using their religion as a mask for bigotry.

Preach! *waving church fan*

I am watching Governor Brewer's address of that bullshit "Religious Freedom" Bill. Governor Brewer vetoed that Bill. Thank you, Governor Brewer. CNN is doing a great job covering this.

This isn't just about Christianity except for the fact that Christianity is the power dominant group and Christianity is the world's largest religion. All of the mainstream religions have issues regarding sexual orientation, sexuality, gender, and other group dynamics. And people have always used the cult of religion to justify and perpetuate inequalities. That is why I am not a fan of organized religion and my belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is more about faith and spirituality than about what humans have published and preached in the name of religion.

/rant

[AOII Angel]

Well, Brewer learned her lesson after SB1070. She's been a lot smarter about what bills she's signed and legislation she's pushed since then. She even pushed through an expansion of Medicaid coverage through a Republican legislature. I had a feeling she would veto this bill.