LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[United Marxist Nations]

How? I don't think they are valid in a religious sense.

Except, that's just pissing on others who don't have or want a religious element to their marriage. Whether you want it to be or not, that's the logical consequence of saying secular marriages are not valid.

I have said before, I don't think there is such a thing as a marriage without a religious element of it. I think it's just a very close relationship, not a holy union.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is a fetish, not an orientation.

An easy way to tell is: A fetish is the strong preference of an out-of-the-ordinary sexual activity, a sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, and gender is who/how you identify as.

Robosexuality is a sexuality, though; considering that they want to have sex with and are attracted to robots. Inevitably, when humanoid robots are out there, if they are self-aware, and just like you or I, with the only difference being that they are born in a different way... that's when it becomes an actual sexuality. It's a sexuality that has yet to be realized because technology hasn't completely caught up, quite yet.

That also brings up another good question; would robots who want to have sex with and are attracted to humans be considered humanosexuals?

Humanoid robots are robots in the shape of humans. It doesn't really make it a different sexuality if you are looking for a sexual "slave" to your wishes, given they have the human form.

As for robots who want to have sex with humans? They're not going to be self-aware enough to tell, if they are ever built.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't think secular marriages are real marriages, I think they are just human creations. I think marriage is a divine union.

Then you're talking about matrimony, not marriage.

Matrimony literally just means being married.

[Philjia]

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

How? I don't think they are valid in a religious sense.

This is total bollocks. Just because they're both avowedly atheist it doesn't make my parents' formal agreement to each other to love, honour, and so on, in sight if witnesses, any less valid.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Except, that's just pissing on others who don't have or want a religious element to their marriage. Whether you want it to be or not, that's the logical consequence of saying secular marriages are not valid.

I have said before, I don't think there is such a thing as a marriage without a religious element of it. I think it's just a very close relationship, not a holy union.

Marriage is not a holy union either.

The Church gives a higher meaning to it, but without the church, the institution of marriage retains he same basic meaning as it did before Christianity gave it its higher meaning.

[The V O I D]

Robosexuality is a sexuality, though; considering that they want to have sex with and are attracted to robots. Inevitably, when humanoid robots are out there, if they are self-aware, and just like you or I, with the only difference being that they are born in a different way... that's when it becomes an actual sexuality. It's a sexuality that has yet to be realized because technology hasn't completely caught up, quite yet.

That also brings up another good question; would robots who want to have sex with and are attracted to humans be considered humanosexuals?

Humanoid robots are robots in the shape of humans. It doesn't really make it a different sexuality if you are looking for a sexual "slave" to your wishes, given they have the human form.

As for robots who want to have sex with humans? They're not going to be self-aware enough to tell, if they are ever built.

There are already AI out there that are self-aware to a certain degree, many of which are capable of learning and recognizing human facial features, emotions, etc.

Some are even capable of showing emotion and interacting with humans as if they were human. Granted, AI technology is still experimental and there is yet to be an AI that is sentient, sapient and self-aware enough to the level of a human; we're getting there.

Some experts on the technology say we'll be there by 2050, give or take a few years.

[Grenartia]

I have said before, I don't think there is such a thing as a marriage without a religious element of it. I think it's just a very close relationship, not a holy union.

Marriage is not a holy union either.

The Church gives a higher meaning to it, but without the church, the institution of marriage retains he same basic meaning as it did before Christianity gave it its higher meaning.

^This.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Humanoid robots are robots in the shape of humans. It doesn't really make it a different sexuality if you are looking for a sexual "slave" to your wishes, given they have the human form.

As for robots who want to have sex with humans? They're not going to be self-aware enough to tell, if they are ever built.

There are already AI out there that are self-aware to a certain degree, many of which are capable of learning and recognizing human facial features, emotions, etc.

Some are even capable of showing emotion and interacting with humans as if they were human. Granted, AI technology is still experimental and there is yet to be an AI that is sentient, sapient and self-aware enough to the level of a human; we're getting there.

Some experts on the technology say we'll be there by 2050, give or take a few years.

Yes, but what I am saying is that robots to please human beings, specifically designed to please human beings, won't be given that same self-awareness. They will have human form, but they won't be as equal as a human in thought processes.

You are forgetting that robots are not just randomly built by nature. We, humans, control their production.

[United Marxist Nations]

I have said before, I don't think there is such a thing as a marriage without a religious element of it. I think it's just a very close relationship, not a holy union.

Marriage is not a holy union either.

The Church gives a higher meaning to it, but without the church, the institution of marriage retains he same basic meaning as it did before Christianity gave it its higher meaning.

That's not the Church view of it. While the Church does not create marriages, it must perform the sacrament. We think that it is the officialization of a holy union created by God.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Marriage is not a holy union either.

The Church gives a higher meaning to it, but without the church, the institution of marriage retains he same basic meaning as it did before Christianity gave it its higher meaning.

That's not the Church view of it. While the Church does not create marriages, it must perform the sacrament. We think that it is the officialization of a holy union created by God.

Do you understand why the Church doesn't take this eagle-eye position, though?

[Philjia]

There are already AI out there that are self-aware to a certain degree, many of which are capable of learning and recognizing human facial features, emotions, etc.

Some are even capable of showing emotion and interacting with humans as if they were human. Granted, AI technology is still experimental and there is yet to be an AI that is sentient, sapient and self-aware enough to the level of a human; we're getting there.

Some experts on the technology say we'll be there by 2050, give or take a few years.

Yes, but what I am saying is that robots to please human beings, specifically designed to please human beings, won't be given that same self-awareness. They will have human form, but they won't be as equal as a human in thought processes.

You are forgetting that robots are not just randomly built by nature. We, humans, control their production.

It's unlikely that anybody will deliberately create an actually sapient intelligence. What worries me is intelligence that is not sapient but can imitate it, and ethical maze that ensues.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's not the Church view of it. While the Church does not create marriages, it must perform the sacrament. We think that it is the officialization of a holy union created by God.

Do you understand why the Church doesn't take this eagle-eye position, though?

This pretty much is the view of the Church, though, unless you mean the Roman Catholic Church.

[Philjia]

Marriage is not a holy union either.

The Church gives a higher meaning to it, but without the church, the institution of marriage retains he same basic meaning as it did before Christianity gave it its higher meaning.

That's not the Church view of it. While the Church does not create marriages, it must perform the sacrament. We think that it is the officialization of a holy union created by God.

The church may believe this but it cannot be permitted to have a monopoly on the idea of a formal union of lovers that would be legitimate in the view of the state

[United Marxist Nations]

That's not the Church view of it. While the Church does not create marriages, it must perform the sacrament. We think that it is the officialization of a holy union created by God.

The church may believe this but it cannot be permitted to have a monopoly on the idea of a formal union of lovers that would be legitimate in the view of the state

That's why, as has been stated, I favor state-Church cooperation in law and society.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Do you understand why the Church doesn't take this eagle-eye position, though?

This pretty much is the view of the Church, though, unless you mean the Roman Catholic Church.

What I mean is, do you understand why the church doesn't take the position I mentioned, and instead teaches what you know?

[United Marxist Nations]

This pretty much is the view of the Church, though, unless you mean the Roman Catholic Church.

What I mean is, do you understand why the church doesn't take the position I mentioned, and instead teaches what you know?

Yes.

[Sanctissima]

The church may believe this but it cannot be permitted to have a monopoly on the idea of a formal union of lovers that would be legitimate in the view of the state

That's why, as has been stated, I favor state-Church cooperation in law and society.

Then you have the problem of which Church-officiated marriages the State is to consider official. Should only marriages performed by the Orthodox Church be recognized, or would this be expanded to all Christian Churches? And then what of marriages performed by other religious institutions outside of Christianity?

[United Marxist Nations]

That's why, as has been stated, I favor state-Church cooperation in law and society.

Then you have the problem of which Church-officiated marriages the State is to consider official. Should only marriages performed by the Orthodox Church be recognized, or would this be expanded to all Christian Churches? And then what of marriages performed by other religious institutions outside of Christianity?

Preferably, there would only be Orthodox Christians, but, if that is unavoidable, marry people in accordance to their religion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What I mean is, do you understand why the church doesn't take the position I mentioned, and instead teaches what you know?

Yes.

Why? If you understand it, I am sure you can explain it.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes.

Why? If you understand it, I am sure you can explain it.

Because, without the sacrament, the union wouldn't exist beyond death.

[Sanctissima]

Then you have the problem of which Church-officiated marriages the State is to consider official. Should only marriages performed by the Orthodox Church be recognized, or would this be expanded to all Christian Churches? And then what of marriages performed by other religious institutions outside of Christianity?

Preferably, there would only be Orthodox Christians, but, if that is unavoidable, marry people in accordance to their religion.

Alright, but then where do you draw the line?

Since you believe marriage is a divine union, and given your own religious affiliation, that means it would be something sacramentally ordained by the grace of God, how would the State view marriage when it is performed by a religious institution that doesn't believe in your god? Would non-Abrahamic religions have their believers' marriages officially recognized by the State as well?

[Vassenor]

Then you have the problem of which Church-officiated marriages the State is to consider official. Should only marriages performed by the Orthodox Church be recognized, or would this be expanded to all Christian Churches? And then what of marriages performed by other religious institutions outside of Christianity?

Preferably, there would only be Orthodox Christians, but, if that is unavoidable, marry people in accordance to their religion.

Aaaaaand we're back to ethnic cleansing.

[United Marxist Nations]

Preferably, there would only be Orthodox Christians, but, if that is unavoidable, marry people in accordance to their religion.

Alright, but then where do you draw the line?

Since you believe marriage is a divine union, and given your own religious affiliation, that means it would be something sacramentally ordained by the grace of God, how would the State view marriage when it is performed by a religious institution that doesn't believe in your god? Would non-Abrahamic religions have their believers' marriages officially recognized by the State as well?

No, the state would be intertwined with the Church, so it would only provide benefits to people married within the Church (though, I could be persuaded to extend it to all trinitarian Christian organizations). Unions of non-Christians would be fine, just not have state support.

[none of this is Church doctrine or anything, I am just speaking of my ideas on a modern theocratic society]

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why? If you understand it, I am sure you can explain it.

Because, without the sacrament, the union wouldn't exist beyond death.

So then, that would be a higher meaning of marriage than the one that it has had before, is it not?

Marriage is simply the union of two people who love each other. Nothing more, nothing less. It existing beyond earth is not a fundamental of marriage, it is a higher meaning given upon marriage.

[Philjia]

Then you have the problem of which Church-officiated marriages the State is to consider official. Should only marriages performed by the Orthodox Church be recognized, or would this be expanded to all Christian Churches? And then what of marriages performed by other religious institutions outside of Christianity?

Preferably, there would only be Orthodox Christians, but, if that is unavoidable, marry people in accordance to their religion.

Well that's in no way fucking similar to the policies of the third reich. I try not to play the Hitler card because of Godwin's law but in your case I'll make an exception.