[auctiontheory]

There are still many taboos around menstruation in India. Women can't visit temples or public places, they're not allowed to cook or touch the water supply - essentially they are considered untouchable.

Every religion has elaborate rules to oppress woman. FYI, the Hebrew Bible has all the same stuff. (So I read in The Year of Living Biblically.)

It's a question of "how literally does society obey those rules?" Will Americans who use the Bible to justify their bigotry against gay people ... also agree to lock up Sarah Palin for five days/month? Not so far.

[lil_cain]

The rules in the bible are hebrew purity laws, which do not apply to gentiles (as decided in Acts). The verses most often used against homosexuality are not hebrew purity law - they're from St. Paul's letters.

[dghf]

By that measure, having women priests/ministers (or just letting a woman conduct a reading, as even the Catholic Church does) is also a no-no:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" -- 1 Corinthians 14:34.

And clerical celibacy is also out:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife" -- 1 Timothy 3:2.

[lostlogin]

On a school trip 15ish years ago which related to the subject of religion ago we got to a mosque and were then asked if anyone was menstruating. If yes, don't come in. Credit to a male friend of mine, he yelled out that the male next to him was. Its a pity all the males didn't react this way. http://islamqa.info/en/128576

[plumenator]

A real gentleman would implicate himself.

[nate_meurer]

Thank you, quite right. The ongoing fight by (a slowly shrinking segment of) American society to continue blatant persecution of gay people is one of our most shameful failings. And I agree, the Church (big C) is largely responsible.

[sveit]

The Catholic Church teaches against persecution of gay people. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

[fennecfoxen]

There's also a biblically established protocol for dealing with sinners established by one 'Jesus' in the New Testament. (It starts with a baseline of having a nice civilized dinner with them even if people gossip about it, and continues all the way to laying down your life for their protection if it ever should come to that.)

[dghf]

> Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

But just discrimination, like trying to stop them marrying someone they love, even in a purely civil ceremony which objectively speaking is none of our damn business -- why, that's just dandy.

[pbhjpbhj]

>blatant persecution of gay people //

There is an active agenda attempting to legally force people to alter their actions to match others beliefs, "persecution" you might call it. Except it's not against those who have sex outside marriage it's against Christians - people who claim to uphold liberty of conscience simply will not allow Christians to express their views on marriage.

Marriage, in Christian terms and historically, is about creating community cohesion in order to provide a firm foundation on which to support the upbringing of children.

No matter how you legally alter the definition of marriage homosexual sexual union doesn't produce children.

All sexual activity outside of marriage is considered sinful within orthodox Christianity based on New Testament exegesis.

Christianity [generally] thus considers that homosexual sex is sinful in the same way as adultery or other pre- or extra-marital sexual activity.

Because you disagree with this analysis and it's foundational axioms doesn't mean you're being persecuted - whether you're an adulterer, a sexual idolater or whatever. It is sinful, you may peacefully respond to that however you like.

FWIW purity laws, ritual uncleanliness, sacrifices and such all ended with the New Covenant. It's a corollary to the very fundamentals of Christian theology; if you don't understand it then you probably have never read the NT and probably have no idea what Christianity is about.

[nate_meurer]

Persecution occurs when someone is not allowed to visit their dying spouse in a hospital because they are of the "wrong" gender.

Persecution occurs when the spouse dies, and her partner is deprived of any part of her estate.

Persecution occurs when we bestow a host of tax benefits upon married couples, but only if they are of the "correct" genders.

Persecution occurs when gay couples are denied corporate health insurance benefits automatically conferred to straight couples.

And persecution occurs when bigots justify these things by saying that gay couples don't "produce children".

Thank you for illustrating my point so vividly.

[dghf]

> people who claim to uphold liberty of conscience simply will not allow Christians to express their views on marriage.

That must be why you never hear anyone objecting to gay marriage any more.

[/sarc]

[tehwebguy]

It seems to me that, even if there is sufficient New Testament scripture to infer that any types of sex are sinful that the parts about grace, mercy, love, forgiveness, self-control, being kind, "paying to Cesar what is his", not judging one another and not casting the first stone (just to name a few) would be such high priorities that trying to keep any government laws anywhere in line with Christianity wouldn't even be on the radar.

[bradleyjg]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ" -- Gandhi

[ballard]

To be clear, which Capital C Church? There was more than one religious flock within Christianity.