Could being Gay be a Religion?

Brilliantly stated!!

 

There's a hole in this theory big enough to drive a planet through. It rests upon the idea that people who wish to discriminate would somehow stop at discriminating against someone based on a difference in faith/beliefs/identity. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the people who think there should be a right to discriminate against any person for any reason, regardless of what the law presently requires.

Ridiculously declaring 'gay' to be a religion wouldn't do a thing to stop anti-gay discrimination. Not when the discriminator can just declare that it would violate their own religious beliefs to be forced to associate with someone of the 'gay religion'.

 

Well said!!

 

No legally anything cannot be anything. In the united states however religion cannot be defined by you, me, the government or anybody.

Same difference.

 

So theology isn't allowed in the US, because a generally accepted definition of religion exists in this discipline?

(By the way, I'm European, so my knowledge of American laws is pretty rusty).

 

Gay people starting a Religion is nothing new, bigots routinely exclude groups they do not like, minorities from a KKK founded Church, in direct violation of biblical teachings.
While not a religion of being Gay, it suffers not from persecution based on shunning or excluding Gays or violence against Gays.

Will this stop all Discrimination ? history shows it does not, so Ultra Orthodox Jews live voluntarily in segregated communities, for many reasons, to easily be who they believe they should be.
Many minorities have Religions and sects that were founded to protect them from discrimination, the Quakers and Puritans left England and moved very far in order to be free from Religious persecution.
Gays do that too, by starting new religions that better serve their needs.

 

The U.S. Government is not allowed to define Religion or qualify a Religion, anyone can found a Religion, the Mormons are a good example of a new Religion founded in America circa the 1850s.

 

Ah ok.

That isn't really relevant to my original argument, though: religion still has a technical definition, and a belief system without a deity - let alone a personal preference - is not a religion.

 

Buddhism does not have a deity. And no.....its not the buddha

 

Yes, THE Buddha Gautama is the main guy and they have a slather of what I consider Deities, immortals in heaven etc....

<Rule 2>

"The Majjhima Nik&#257;ya states that the Buddha had more superpowers than any other being including being able to walk on water which is further verified in the A&#7749;guttara Nik&#257;ya[citation needed]. The Buddha could multiply into a million and then return, he could travel through space, he could make himself as big as a giant and then as small as an ant, walk through mountains, he could dive in and out of the earth, he could travel to Heavens to school the Gods and return to earth."

 

Buddhism isn't a religion.

 

Well the government of every country on the planet including the US recognizes it as a religion. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion but I'm not really sure that matters. LOL

 

Did i say theology was forbidden? I don't recall even implying that. Please explain why you would ask this question?

Google the first amendment, It pretty much forbids any Definition of religion by a government body.

It's not a difficult read.

 

Anything is possible.

It is possible that football fans might try to have football declared a god, and fans declared members of a church.....

 

I do not see how it would differ much from the various ancient religions, if you added some mythology and other elements.

 

Most Buddhists do not believe that Gautama's enlightenment was any different from the enlightenment available to all of us. The "deities" that you refer to occasionally crop up in various branches, but they aren't common throughout Buddhism. And Buddhism universally teaches that these "deities" are subject to the same laws of change that the rest of us are, and discourages their worship as a distraction from enlightenment.

Occasionally you'll find such deities used as a focus of meditation, but that's about it.

I seriously don't know of any fellow Buddhists who treat such stories literally or who see them as in any way central to Buddhism. The core teachings of Buddhism make no mention of miracles.

 

Religion is the bond we all innately possess toward truth & justice&#8212;which exists beyond the government, and beyond all of these cults that call themselves "religion". There is a very serious problem when we tell people that they can bind themselves to deviant systems of truth & justice&#8212;namely ones that require funds, genetics, and adherence to preserve (we call it compulsion). It is unhealthy to the individual to override their intuition and brain with "BUT I'M OBLIGATED/BOUND TO BELIEVE IN THIS MY CULT SAYS".

Being a homosexual can form its own cult, yes; I think we need to stop allowing systems that BIND AN INDIVIDUAL to a truth & justice, calling it "multiple religions". There are not multiple truths; there are multiple paths & perspectives, but these are subject and can be interwoven into each other to seeing the same angle. That is, we can each look at the Mona Lisa and say, "That's the Mona Lisa". We can look at the corner of a wall, or the flat end of the wall by orienting to it; when we say, "I am obligated to see only this part of the wall&#8212;and this is my religion and this is truth," you are a liar&#8212;and a slave, and in order for this system to survive it must evolve if it hasn't already&#8212;into a collective predator to continue the funding that lures people into its worthless abuse as "an opportunity" rather than an intentional harmful detriment to one's self & a delusion.

These cults must be called what they are; being homosexual isn't a belief, it's an innate orientation. A cult must be acknowledged as a cult, and a remedy (escape) offered; we must stop with the "multiple cults" theory (and calling it religion, first of all) and move into a fluid "study this philosophy" theory. Anyone who binds themselves into a system of beliefs they call "truth", rather than remaining open to the whole of life&#8212;is not only a slave, but a predator&#8212;and no matter how much they cry WOLF&#8212;THEY ARE the wolf.

 

It fulfils the purpose of a religion and it is probably more practical for governments to treat it like one, but it is only a religion insofar as, say, Jainism is a religion. There is no object of worship in Buddhism.

 

I didn't know you were talking about governments specifically when you said that definition of religion was not allowed. It seemed like you were implying that all attempts to define religion are illegal, and that therefore fields of study which attempt to define the term are illegal - which of course is untrue and ludicrous.

 

If LGBT was in fact categorized as a 'Religion' wouldn't that in itself be the basic end goal of what the current movement is essentially striving for? I mean the 1st Amendment is huge when it comes to individual rights. I really can't discount this as a future possibility.

I understand this may sound silly to many ...but so did the idea of Gay marriage not very long ago.

I myself can not see it happening but I've learned (in this day and age) pretty much anything is possible - whether I agree with it or not.

I ask this question simply from an outsider looking in....I realize my perspective is quite naive in this regard so I'm mainly curious hearing from the people who's perspective is more "in the know" ...who live it everyday.

 

An object of worship is not required for a religion. In fact in my religion this is the cause of much of your suffering

 

This nation is a republic.

They are, Google republic, and Google the first amendment.

That doesn't follow.

 

Actually the government can define religion for certain tax purposes. You can not claim tax exemption just because you watch Monday night football with your friends and consider that a religion. I am uncertain how claiming what you do is a religion would affect other rights you might have but would love to hear from someone who might know.

 

501(c) doesn't designate religious affiliation.

This comment makes no kind of sense.

Same affect anybody has claiming anything they do is a religion. You cannot define what religion is for others. That isn't your right. The government is forbidden expressly and specifically by the first amendment from doing so.

I have the right to express and exercise my freedom of speech, if I claim being homosexual is part of my religion, than its protected speech. You can't tell me it's not part of my religion, you aren't in a position to define it. You don't have to understand how I claim that, I don't understand how people get duped into scientology, but they still have the right to be.

Your understanding is not relevant.

 

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for testing for public safety, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. If an organization ONLY claims exemption based on religion it must meet certain guidelines and be classified a religion by the state.

Churches must meet specific requirements in order to obtain and maintain tax exempt status; these are outlined in IRS Publication 1828: Tax guide for churches and religious organizations.[37] This guide outlines activities allowed and not allowed by churches under the 501(c)(3) designation