LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Imperial Union of America]

No? If you have the same rights, is it really discrimination?

Civil unions are not the same as formal marriages. A civil union sounds like it's just some person you're with.

A marriage implies that they are your life partner, your one true love, y'know. The person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Marriages are also far more formal and can be hosted in churches and such rather than just going to a courthouse. Denying marriage rights is essentially saying, "you only get an informal union that doesn't even actually mean anything real."

Hence, discrimination. It's cop-out "equality".

If you're gay, why would you want to be married in a church? Does that make it better in the eyes of God?

Also, it's basically no less formal. It's just a different name. Practically speaking, no difference. A church is no less likely to let you celebrate there after marriage than before and who cares what the government says your partner is?

[The V O I D]

Civil unions are not the same as formal marriages. A civil union sounds like it's just some person you're with.

A marriage implies that they are your life partner, your one true love, y'know. The person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Marriages are also far more formal and can be hosted in churches and such rather than just going to a courthouse. Denying marriage rights is essentially saying, "you only get an informal union that doesn't even actually mean anything real."

Hence, discrimination. It's cop-out "equality".

If you're gay, why would you want to be married in a church? Does that make it better in the eyes of God?

Also, it's basically no less formal. It's just a different name. Practically speaking, no difference. A church is no less likely to let you celebrate there after marriage than before and who cares what the government says your partner is?

Obviously, trying to explain to you is futile as you keep deflecting. They are people. They are in love with other people who happen to be of the same sex. Therefor, they should be able to get married, too.

It's simple. If you don't understand it, I can't help you.

[Elepis]

Civil unions are not the same as formal marriages. A civil union sounds like it's just some person you're with.

A marriage implies that they are your life partner, your one true love, y'know. The person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Marriages are also far more formal and can be hosted in churches and such rather than just going to a courthouse. Denying marriage rights is essentially saying, "you only get an informal union that doesn't even actually mean anything real."

Hence, discrimination. It's cop-out "equality".

If you're gay, why would you want to be married in a church? Does that make it better in the eyes of God?

Also, it's basically no less formal. It's just a different name. Practically speaking, no difference. A church is no less likely to let you celebrate there after marriage than before and who cares what the government says your partner is?

very simple, there are many LGBT religious people and many of them want to get married in church to do so in the eyes of God.

[Imperial Union of America]

If you're gay, why would you want to be married in a church? Does that make it better in the eyes of God?

Also, it's basically no less formal. It's just a different name. Practically speaking, no difference. A church is no less likely to let you celebrate there after marriage than before and who cares what the government says your partner is?

very simple, there are many LGBT religious people and many of them want to get married in church to do so in the eyes of God.

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

[Philjia]

very simple, there are many LGBT religious people and many of them want to get married in church to do so in the eyes of God.

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

The relevant passages in older versions of the Old Testament are so coy as to be meaningless.

[Elepis]

very simple, there are many LGBT religious people and many of them want to get married in church to do so in the eyes of God.

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

depends on each persons interpretation of the Bible really. Some Christians would say quotes like New Testament passages like "love thy neighbor" "there is no Jew nor Greek" and "God knitted you together in the womb" shows that God created and accepts LGBT people and that all Christians should except them, thus overriding Old Testament stories like Soddom & Gomorrah (which doesn't actually reference homosexuality directly). Really it depends on each religious persons view, there is no set doctrine. (same is true for other religions, but with different quotes).

But yes there are many LGBT religious people and many religious people who accept LGBT people, so why should they not want to get married in church?

[Vassenor]

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

depends on each persons interpretation of the Bible really. Some Christians would say quotes like New Testament passages like "love thy neighbor" "there is no Jew nor Greek" and "God knitted you together in the womb" shows that God created and accepts LGBT people and that all Christians should except them, thus overriding Old Testament stories like Soddom & Gomorrah (which doesn't actually reference homosexuality directly). Really it depends on each religious persons view, there is no set doctrine. (same is true for other religions, but with different quotes).

But yes there are many LGBT religious people and many religious people who accept LGBT people, so why should they not want to get married in church?

Where's that website that's an ordained Christian Minister explaining at length how LGBT and Christianity are perfectly compatible and anyone who says otherwise is deliberately smearing the words of Christ to justify their bigotry?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So how does that justify discrimination?

No? If you have the same rights, is it really discrimination?

I agree.

I realise that a segregation analogy probably won't resonate much with an unrepentant Nazi, but I thought it was worth posting anyway.

[Lady Scylla]

very simple, there are many LGBT religious people and many of them want to get married in church to do so in the eyes of God.

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

Depending on interpretation. Plenty of LGBT Churches

[Soldati Senza Confini]

very simple, there are many LGBT religious people and many of them want to get married in church to do so in the eyes of God.

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

Not all major religions.

Presbyterians churches in America are more kind on LGBT marriage, and Lutherans recognize LGBT unions.

[Imperial Union of America]

No? If you have the same rights, is it really discrimination?

I agree.

I realise that a segregation analogy probably won't resonate much with an unrepentant Nazi, but I thought it was worth posting anyway.

So ultimately, what a homosexual wants, is social acceptance of their behaviour. It's not about legal equality but social equality. They see being gay as similar to being black pre-civil rights era.

Is that about right?

[The V O I D]

I agree.

I realise that a segregation analogy probably won't resonate much with an unrepentant Nazi, but I thought it was worth posting anyway.

So ultimately, what a homosexual wants, is social acceptance of their behaviour. It's not about legal equality but social equality. They see being gay as similar to being black pre-civil rights era.

Is that about right?

Essentially. But it's not just them who see it that way. Science has proven that LGBT people's brains are slightly different in some ways to cishet brains; and most biologists believe that these differences are likely what causes, in combination with genetics and hormonal differences, differentiating gender identities and sexualities.

In other words, being LGBT is just as biological as your skin color.

[Imperial Union of America]

So ultimately, what a homosexual wants, is social acceptance of their behaviour. It's not about legal equality but social equality. They see being gay as similar to being black pre-civil rights era.

Is that about right?

Essentially. But it's not just them who see it that way. Science has proven that LGBT people's brains are slightly different in some ways to cishet brains; and most biologists believe that these differences are likely what causes, in combination with genetics and hormonal differences, differentiating gender identities and sexualities.

In other words, being LGBT is just as biological as your skin color.

I have a hard time coming to terms with that idea because a black person can't withhold or hide their skin colour like a gay person can. So I feel it's a different situation. Can you imagine if every gay person grew a rainbow coloured stamp on their heads, and were discriminated because of it? I think that would be the difference.

Do you think it is plausible that an inherent trait like being gay can be scientifically altered? So with some genetic and hormonal alterations?

[Lady Scylla]

I agree.

I realise that a segregation analogy probably won't resonate much with an unrepentant Nazi, but I thought it was worth posting anyway.

So ultimately, what a homosexual wants, is social acceptance of their behaviour. It's not about legal equality but social equality. They see being gay as similar to being black pre-civil rights era.

Is that about right?

Surely you aren't that ignorant. The issue has been in the public light for quite some time now, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you somehow don't know about all of this, and that you aren't just trying to create an elaborate bait.

[The V O I D]

Essentially. But it's not just them who see it that way. Science has proven that LGBT people's brains are slightly different in some ways to cishet brains; and most biologists believe that these differences are likely what causes, in combination with genetics and hormonal differences, differentiating gender identities and sexualities.

In other words, being LGBT is just as biological as your skin color.

I have a hard time coming to terms with that idea because a black person can't withhold or hide their skin colour like a gay person can. So I feel it's a different situation. Can you imagine if every gay person grew a rainbow coloured stamp on their heads, and were discriminated because of it? I think that would be the difference.

Do you think it is plausible that an inherent trait like being gay can be scientifically altered? So with some genetic and hormonal alterations?

To answer your post one piece at a time: a gay person has to hide their nature out of necessity at times, especially if in extremely ultraconservative communities and/or where the KKK and other extremists are around. Because death tends to happen for them if they don't. A black person can't hide their skin color, true, but a white person can hide a native american or non-white heritage, yet still have slightly off skin color; and black people also used to have to run away because of discrimination based on skin color to less-discriminatory environments within the US. I could imagine that, but that's pointless and doesn't change the facts.

Inherent traits to do with a combination of neurology (the brain, its shape and how it works), genetics and hormones are hard to control. Even so, we have no idea what genetics or hormones cause it, nor what triggers the brain to develop in a way that causes a person to be more likely to be some color of the LGBT Rainbow or not. We just know they likely exist based on evidence.

It's like having the fingerprints of someone, knowing that someone exists, but being incapable of finding that person.

[Thermodolia]

very simple, there are many LGBT religious people and many of them want to get married in church to do so in the eyes of God.

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

Actually it isn't. Several branches of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam don't condemn homosexuality. The Catholic Church only condemns the act but not homosexuality in of itself.

[United Marxist Nations]

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

Depending on interpretation. Plenty of LGBT Churches

Which is why I don't understand why VOID wants to make us alter our theology to appeal to modernists. Why can't they just go to modernist churches?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Depending on interpretation. Plenty of LGBT Churches

Which is why I don't understand why VOID wants to make us alter our theology to appeal to modernists. Why can't they just go to modernist churches?

Because it would be a nice thing to do? Your question is like a BNP supporter asking "Why do you want us to stop being racist? Can't you just go join a non-racist party?"

[Trumpostan]

LGBT religious? But isn't homosexuality condemned by all major religions?

The relevant passages in older versions of the Old Testament are so coy as to be meaningless.

Not really. The condemnation is quite strong. In fact it could hardly be stronger. I know that modern day religionists want to throw up a lot of dust to try and deflect from that, but the original meaning is quite clear and in line with societal standards in the Middle East at the time of writing said passages.

[United Marxist Nations]

Which is why I don't understand why VOID wants to make us alter our theology to appeal to modernists. Why can't they just go to modernist churches?

Because it would be a nice thing to do? Your question is like a BNP supporter asking "Why do you want us to stop being racist? Can't you just go join a non-racist party?"

Having correct theology > Being nice

We do both, but we aren't going to be so nice that we make incorrect decisions on theological matters just to avoid hurting modernist feelings.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Because it would be a nice thing to do? Your question is like a BNP supporter asking "Why do you want us to stop being racist? Can't you just go join a non-racist party?"

Having correct theology > Being nice

We do both, but we aren't going to be so nice that we make incorrect decisions on theological matters just to avoid hurting modernist feelings.

Sounds like a dickish theology.

[United Marxist Nations]

Having correct theology > Being nice

We do both, but we aren't going to be so nice that we make incorrect decisions on theological matters just to avoid hurting modernist feelings.

Sounds like a dickish theology.

Theology isn't dickish, it simply is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the Church has always seen homosexual activity as sinful, and, because the Church tradition is Holy, that is the way it should be.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Sounds like a dickish theology.

Theology isn't dickish, it simply is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the Church has always seen homosexual activity as sinful, and, because the Church tradition is Holy, that is the way it should be.

I don't know, I think it's pretty dickish.

[United Marxist Nations]

Theology isn't dickish, it simply is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the Church has always seen homosexual activity as sinful, and, because the Church tradition is Holy, that is the way it should be.

I don't know, I think it's pretty dickish.

How is it dickish? It's theological concepts, not a person.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't know, I think it's pretty dickish.

How is it dickish? It's theological concepts, not a person.

People come up with theological concepts, often on the basis of their own prejudices and biases. Religion is one long history of self-important wangs.