LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[The Flutterlands]

1. We have very different definitions of "embracing oneself". What you want leads to self-loathing and mental illness.
2. Not like everyone else, though, is it?
3. Surprise, surprise.

1. Can't speak for UMN here, but I'm bisexual and personally trying to do what UMN wants (no sex outside marriage). I'm not mentally ill and I don't loath myself
2. Pretty similar tbh

Yeah, but not everyone is like you.

You can't legislate morality. It'll never work without becoming something ugly.

[United Marxist Nations]

1. Can't speak for UMN here, but I'm bisexual and personally trying to do what UMN wants (no sex outside marriage). I'm not mentally ill and I don't loath myself
2. Pretty similar tbh

Yeah, but not everyone is like you.

You can't legislate morality. It'll never work without becoming something ugly.

Then why do we have laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.?

[New confederate ramenia]

1. Can't speak for UMN here, but I'm bisexual and personally trying to do what UMN wants (no sex outside marriage). I'm not mentally ill and I don't loath myself
2. Pretty similar tbh

Yeah, but not everyone is like you.

You can't legislate morality. It'll never work without becoming something ugly.

IIRC UMN's plan was originally to publicly discourage homosexual activity. That isn't legislating morality.

[The Alexanderians]

Yeah, but not everyone is like you.

You can't legislate morality. It'll never work without becoming something ugly.

Then why do we have laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.?

Bro, there's a reason I didn't say that. It's getting off topic of the thread.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1. We have very different definitions of "embracing oneself". What you want leads to self-loathing and mental illness.
2. Not like everyone else, though, is it?
3. Surprise, surprise.

1) Not necessarily.
2) Yes, like everyone else.

1. More often than not, I'd bet. And really, one instance is one too many. In the West, gay people are free to repress ourselves if we want, but the state and society should not be pressuring us to do so, or forbidding people from encouraging us to accept ourselves.
2. No. Not like everyone else, because you're telling gay people we can never, under any circumstances, act on those urges, and that acting on those urges is always profane, or whatever. That's not what you'd be teaching straight people.

[The Flutterlands]

Yeah, but not everyone is like you.

You can't legislate morality. It'll never work without becoming something ugly.

Then why do we have laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.?

Because those actually harm people in one form or another and they're agreed on a secular level to be wrong by almost everyone. Homosexuality hurts no one outside of religious views and homosexuality should ot be criminalized because of someone else's religious beliefs. You follow your own religious laws. Leave everyone not involved uninvolved.

[Sungai Pusat]

Communities and individuals would be free to practice their own faiths as long as it were to not breach public morality (e.g. atheists wouldn't be allowed to commit usury just because their lack of faith allows it).

But why should atheists be made to conform to your concept of morality and not their own?

Because.... because.

To be fair, I think that UMN is aiming towards a society that feels more wholly united than the one he came from and, because he is Christian, thus wants to have a society be unified by more than just the government that represents them, thus why he would want other demographics to conceal their own beliefs/practices behind a veneer of morality.

[The Alexanderians]

Then why do we have laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.?

Because those actually harm people in one form or another and they're agreed on a secular level tp be wrong. Homosexuality hurts no one outside of religious views and homosexuality should ot be criminalized because of someone else's religious beliefs. You follow your own religious laws. Leave everyone not involved uninvolved.

Secular level defines a complete and agreed on morality? News to me.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Not necessarily.
2) Yes, like everyone else.

1. More often than not, I'd bet. And really, one instance is one too many. In the West, gay people are free to repress ourselves if we want, but the state and society should not be pressuring us to do so, or forbidding peope from encouraging us to accept ourselves.
2. No. Not like everyone else, because you're telling gay people we can never, under any circumstances, act on those urges, and that acting on those urges is always profane, or whatever. That's not what you'd be teaching straight people.

1) I don't agree, I think societal pressures can be a good thing.
2) If they act on them, they can repent of them, just like non-homosexuals. Outside of marriage, all sex is sinful, which is the same thing that would be told to homosexuals.

[Sungai Pusat]

Yeah, but not everyone is like you.

You can't legislate morality. It'll never work without becoming something ugly.

IIRC UMN's plan was originally to publicly discourage homosexual activity. That isn't legislating morality.

Well, you're not doing it explicitly, but you are doing it implicitly: You don't have to make something illegal for there to already be a societal pressure against the activity; it just helps to cement it as a fact for everyone involved that the activity in question is, in some way, immoral enough that public displays of it are barred or discouraged, as it were.

[The Flutterlands]

Because those actually harm people in one form or another and they're agreed on a secular level tp be wrong. Homosexuality hurts no one outside of religious views and homosexuality should ot be criminalized because of someone else's religious beliefs. You follow your own religious laws. Leave everyone not involved uninvolved.

Secular level defines a complete and agreed on morality? News to me.

Yes. This form of morality is made for the good of society to protect it from harm and injustice. Banning homosexuality does none of that.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then why do we have laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.?

Because those actually harm people in one form or another and they're agreed on a secular level to be wrong by almost everyone. Homosexuality hurts no one outside of religious views and homosexuality should ot be criminalized because of someone else's religious beliefs. You follow your own religious laws. Leave everyone not involved uninvolved.

But why are they wrong? Why is harming other people wrong?

We either have to adopt a moral system and stick with it, or we shouldn't have anything.

[The Alexanderians]

Secular level defines a complete and agreed on morality? News to me.

Yes. This form of morality is made for the good of society to protect it from harm and injustice. Banning homosexuality does none of that.

No, secular is simply a government point declaring no religion above any other in the eyes of the law with respect to a separation of church and state. (In some places like France it's merely church from the state but not the other way around). Secular is not a form of morality on it's own and it certainly doesn't project any kind of unified morality.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1. More often than not, I'd bet. And really, one instance is one too many. In the West, gay people are free to repress ourselves if we want, but the state and society should not be pressuring us to do so, or forbidding peope from encouraging us to accept ourselves.
2. No. Not like everyone else, because you're telling gay people we can never, under any circumstances, act on those urges, and that acting on those urges is always profane, or whatever. That's not what you'd be teaching straight people.

1) I don't agree, I think societal pressures can be a good thing.
2) If they act on them, they can repent of them, just like non-homosexuals. Outside of marriage, all sex is sinful, which is the same thing that would be told to homosexuals.

1. Which is why homophobic bullying and hate crime don't exist, and rates of mental illness amongst LGBT people are exactly the same as those of the general population.
2. So you treat straight (and bisexual) people, differently from gay people. You teach them different things, even if you word it in a way that makes it sound like you don't, because you won't let the gay people in Authoritarianland get married (although they won't want to, they'll be too busy self-harming). Yes?

[United Marxist Nations]

1) I don't agree, I think societal pressures can be a good thing.
2) If they act on them, they can repent of them, just like non-homosexuals. Outside of marriage, all sex is sinful, which is the same thing that would be told to homosexuals.

1. Which is why homophobic bullying and hate crime don't exist, and rates of mental illness amongst LGBT people are exactly the same as those of the general population.
2. So you treat straight (and bisexual) people, differently from gay people. You teach them different things, even if you word it in a way that makes it sound like you don't, because you won't let the gay people in Authoritarianland get married (although they won't want to, they'll be too busy self-harming). Yes?

1) And we can use social pressures to eliminate homophobic bullying and hate crime.
2) The state, being intertwined with the Church, wouldn't acknowledge it as possible for people of the same sex to enter into marriage, yes. Theoretically, they could marry someone of the opposite sex, but most probably wouldn't want to.

[The Flutterlands]

1. More often than not, I'd bet. And really, one instance is one too many. In the West, gay people are free to repress ourselves if we want, but the state and society should not be pressuring us to do so, or forbidding peope from encouraging us to accept ourselves.
2. No. Not like everyone else, because you're telling gay people we can never, under any circumstances, act on those urges, and that acting on those urges is always profane, or whatever. That's not what you'd be teaching straight people.

1) I don't agree, I think societal pressures can be a good thing.
2) If they act on them, they can repent of them, just like non-homosexuals. Outside of marriage, all sex is sinful, which is the same thing that would be told to homosexuals.

1. And that leads to bullying and persecution.
2. Then it should be all or nothing. Outside of religion itself, ether everyone can married regardless of gender and orientation or no one can get married and that's an absolute.

[The Alexanderians]

1) I don't agree, I think societal pressures can be a good thing.
2) If they act on them, they can repent of them, just like non-homosexuals. Outside of marriage, all sex is sinful, which is the same thing that would be told to homosexuals.

1. And that leads to bullying and persecution.
2. Then it should be all or nothing. Outside of religion itself, ether everyone can married regardless of gender and orientation or no one can get married and that's an absolute.

Not that I disagree, but why?

[The Flutterlands]

1. And that leads to bullying and persecution.
2. Then it should be all or nothing. Outside of religion itself, ether everyone can married regardless of gender and orientation or no one can get married and that's an absolute.

Not that I disagree, but why?

Because equality under the law that's why.

[The Alexanderians]

Not that I disagree, but why?

Because equality under the law that's why.

Why should we have that?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1. Which is why homophobic bullying and hate crime don't exist, and rates of mental illness amongst LGBT people are exactly the same as those of the general population.
2. So you treat straight (and bisexual) people, differently from gay people. You teach them different things, even if you word it in a way that makes it sound like you don't, because you won't let the gay people in Authoritarianland get married (although they won't want to, they'll be too busy self-harming). Yes?

1) And we can use social pressures to eliminate homophobic bullying and hate crime.
2) The state, being intertwined with the Church, wouldn't acknowledge it as possible for people of the same sex to enter into marriage, yes. Theoretically, they could marry someone of the opposite sex, but most probably wouldn't want to.

1. Which is a battle even the West hasn't won completely, and we're not doing everything we can to tell people from an early age that gay people are different and bad.
2. So you are treating your gay victims citizens differently. Yes? So not like everyone else. What a lot of words we wasted getting to something that was painfully obvious.

[The Flutterlands]

Because equality under the law that's why.

Why should we have that?

Because it makes things fair for everyone and no one should be left out because of trivial matters like gender and sexual orientation due to someone elses religion.

[The Alexanderians]

Why should we have that?

Because it makes things fair for everyone and no one should left out because of trivial characteristics like gender and sexual orientation due to someone elses religion.

Why not? What behooves us to be fair and equal?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Because it makes things fair for everyone and no one should left out because of trivial characteristics like gender and sexual orientation due to someone elses religion.

Why not? What behooves us to be fair and equal?

Empathy.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Why not? What behooves us to be fair and equal?

Empathy.

Empathy.... Hahahahahah.

[The Flutterlands]

Because it makes things fair for everyone and no one should left out because of trivial characteristics like gender and sexual orientation due to someone elses religion.

Why not? What behooves us to be fair and equal?

Our shared humanity and the fact that we're all deep down the same despite our differences? Because it's our duty as fellow human beings to treat each other like fellow human beings and nothing else? Because do onto others?