-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Ellen Page calls out Chris Pratt's "infamously anti-LGBTQ" church
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
It does feel as if a lot of people here have been trying to tear the guy down based on his religious beliefs. But it is absolutely valid for Ellen Page or anyone in the LGBTQ community to question someone's choice of church if that specific church has a bad history.
Aww look at you ascribing personality traits to people you've never met. So cute.
this is a pretty lame thing to say tbh
christianity isn't going anywhere, ever. we should WANT LGBT folks in these churches.
I see what you're saying and I kinda wanna just jump in say that. For you loving jesus and loving god is enough. It's a vessel to do good and I have no problem with ideology. I wish there was more followers who thought that way. I've seen too many people use religion to hurt others but if you're actually using it for love I have no problem with it.
Having said that there are so many fucking people that want me dead, that want segregation, and hate anyone who isn't like them. The kickback isn't hard to understand, especially if you consider the history of organized religion and that things carried out "in god's name"
I just want more love in the world that's it.
If they are still against gay marriage, that matters very little. I mean...
WTF does this mean anyway. How are they a welcoming place and on the same sentence describe living as a gay man or woman as a lifestyle? On the same paragraph, a little further, comparing it to a religion? That's not acceptance, that's not being an ally, that's being gently and accommodatingly violent and homophobic.
Yeah, mate. It's true.
Why else would you attend an evangelical money-pot run by a scummy cunt like Carl Lentz, founded by a scummy cunt like Brian Houston, who claim to love you, yet think you're an aberration that is going to burn in hell?
I'm genuinely curious if people in this forum would also be upset that Hillsong doesn't believe anyone should have sex before marriage.
To me it seems somewhat reasonable to say that members of a church should be able to take part in a voluntary group that puts limits on expressions of sex, money, ethics, etc.
When that turns into political action as a communal level (which Hillsong has done before) I can see the conflict for sure. At that point they are trying to affect the lives of LGTBQ+ people directly.
But when a community has an alternative sexual ethic I'm genuinely curious how people respond to it. Does the teaching of "no sex before marriage" strike you as equally hateful?
To me it seems somewhat reasonable to say that members of a church should be able to take part in a voluntary group that puts limits on expressions of sex, money, ethics, etc.
When that turns into political action as a communal level (which Hillsong has done before) I can see the conflict for sure. At that point they are trying to affect the lives of LGTBQ+ people directly.
But when a community has an alternative sexual ethic I'm genuinely curious how people respond to it. Does the teaching of "no sex before marriage" strike you as equally hateful?
He's a member of an anti-gay cult. Not sure why his gaslighting people around it should be any surprise.
Really?
Cause he basically just said nah you're wrong about my church
"It's not homophobia y'all it's just an alternative sexual ethic"
please
User Banned (1 Week): Homophobic Trolling
He left the IA+ off of LBGTQIA+ So you know he hates gay people.
I knew he was pure evil from the moment he said he would pray for Kevin Smith! What kind of monster prays for someone?
YIKES
I knew he was pure evil from the moment he said he would pray for Kevin Smith! What kind of monster prays for someone?
YIKES
That's why it's so frustrating to me. It's simply infuriating.
ALL Christians should be this way. No exceptions. Especially if we are to strive to be as much like Christ as possible.
But here lies the inherent problem with religion: people use it as a crutch to hold up their fucked up and racist beliefs. They're Christian in name only when its convenient; like when slave owners used the Bible as justification for owning slaves. Honestly, the same people that want you dead probably want me right there with you as a PoC.
You can't equate this to pre-marital sex.
Expectations of pre-marital sex don't discriminate against marginalized people the way anti-LGBTQ rhetoric does. People of every race, religion, gender, and education level engage in pre-marital sex, even when their parents or culture look down on it.
Half of the snobby elitist youth group Christians in my high school-aged bible group at church were fucking on Saturdays and "repenting" on Sunday. And when they accidentally got pregnant and therefore found out? Don't worry! There's redemption and forgiveness, btw get married even though you're only 18 because abortion is evil and you have to marry the parent of your child. But I digress.
Meanwhile, anti-LGBT rhetoric literally kills people, damages mental health, and disrupts marginalized communities with a rhetoric of elitism that condemns innocent people with a biological preference for some humans versus other humans as evil and not worthy of the same legal or spiritual rights as other. This oppression can be found in formats as harsh and obvious as violence and murder, or as soft as dismissive comments at church or campus like "shut up nobody cares that you're gay" or "we don't care that you're gay but pls don't join our activities with your 'lifestyle.'" In any case, it's hurtful to equate LGBT rights and dignity as an ethic on the same magnitude as pre-marital sex.
The only major scripture in the Bible about LGBT relations are some verses in Leviticus that arguably only apply to ancient Jews, arguably were revised to exclude same sex intentionally, and arguably are made up anyway since there's strong evidence the first five books of the Bible were metaphorical lore created by Moses to influence people to follow his God when the only thing people were familiar with at the time was Egyptian mythology. The other scriptures are in the NT and arguably only refer to pagan sex rituals and Greek customs of orgies with young boy servants in the home. None of this context applies to anything even remotely resembling most modern LGBT relationships, so LGBT don't even deserve the hate they get on a scriptural basis, either, let alone from a hippie, extremely-modernized-and-contemporary congregation like Hillsong, and it's downright damaging for people to continue to denigrate LGBT peoples' rights to the same features and facilities as straight people.
Speaking of pre-marital sex, there isn't even any scripture I know of that specifically says don't do it. There's scripture against cheating while within wedlock, prostituting, and there's scripture celebrating sex between married people as a good thing. But you would think that if it was such a big deal, there would be scripture specific about it. Same with masturbation.
What do you consider scripture? Because there's a bunch of "don't have sex before marriage" allusions in the bible.
-"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."
-"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."
-"Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality...."
-"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God…."
- "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
are those official or something? Intersex and asexual I think?
I mean I'm queer but I've always been typing out LGBTQ.
I don't know what you expected, he doesn't believe his church is anti-lgbt.
They are a part of the community, yes. Both are minorities that have to endure a lot of horrible shit. I usually write it as LGBT+ because honestly, its impossible to fit everyone without making the acronym a mess.
It's absolutely ridiculous. "They helped me and I don't hate anyone LGBT, so clearly they don't either. Fake news."
Uh, really? I don't want to go too off topic, but I'd like to read about this if true. Because as far as I'm aware, most biblical scholars don't give much weight to the historicity of Moses or the Egyptian Exodus at all.
Let me know when they support 'sex before marriage' conversion therapy that teaches the attendees that they are fucked up and broken pieces of shit and causes lots of them to commit suicide.
It's always amazing how many people you can find asserting that blatant dehumanizing isn't bigotry or that people should have the right to do it.
Because I don't believe you have to agree with everything in a religion/church to be apart of it.
But that's not what his response was so what are you even talking about? He straight up says the church isn't anti-LGBTQ.
If you're ignorant about the church how can you claim it was a "good response" if what he said was a lie?
That's not what is happening here. He straight up says Ellen Page is wrong, which is a step beyond even just ignoring it.
The least he could have done is acknowledge their troubling treatment of LGBTQ people but say they don't represent his values, but that he still likes the church.
I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious if you feel that them having a "statement" that people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage is offensive to all who do. I don't agree with their position on lgtbq+ people, but I'm trying to understand how people view it in light of a broader sexual ethic they seem to hold.
One has fuck all to do with the other.
And there's sexual ethic again
This is a good response, and I agree with you in terms of the harm done to minority groups. The hypocrisy of Christian's who judge lgtbq+ people while engaging in the same behaviour is rightfully condemnable, but I don't know the inside of Hillsong on how they try to create a non-hypocritical culture.
The question I suppose is if religious organizations, or any organizations, should be allowed to hold a set of values around sexuality which are voluntarily held. Can you say open marriages are not acceptable in a community? That pre-marital sex isn't? That same sex or sexual relationships with a large age gap aren't acceptable? I see few people calling for churches to accept poly lifestyles despite the fact that poly people I know would say it's genetic.
Sexual ethic is the right way to talk about all sexual activity. From celibacy calls for many religious orders, to the reclaiming of language with slut walks. All of that is sexual ethic. I don't see a better way to describe the decisions people make around sex.
The official position of the Catholic Church is that all non-coital sex is sinful, not just homosexual sex. Homosexuality, specifically, does not rate much of a mention in Catholic dogma. There are numerous Christian denominations that accept homosexuality.
Edit: Virulent homophobia tends to be more the domain of the evangelicals and the pentecostals - particularly of the American literalist variety. Although, admittedly, Hillsong is an offshoot of the Australian Pentecostal movement (and they're a pretty dodgy bunch).
Last edited:
She was on the same show just a week ago, so I guess that's the context.
And Chris is talking about that shitty place.
So.. are you still upset she called him out?
Which has nothing to do with actually being LGBT+, unless you're implying that's a choice too.
Why can't she just call Pratt out? Why do you want her to include everyone involved? Maybe she should launch a full blown investigation and get her hands on a list of all the donors.
That's what I'm saying. I'm not. She's not (let's just believe that, after her passionate speech on the Colbert show last week). But she shouldn't have to.
You can call out individual people. It's ok.
Can we stop this bullshit? This is whataboutism in it's purest, most inane form.