LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V3

[Anywhere Else But Here]

For someone who calls themselves a socialist, you seem oddly eager to screw over those less fortunate than you.

If the sterile people are married, it is fine, because marriage is partly for the purpose of diverting lust, though it is also for the purpose of reproduction.

But not for the diversion of fabulous rainbow lust? You God seems to apply a lot of double standards.

[United Marxist Nations]

If the sterile people are married, it is fine, because marriage is partly for the purpose of diverting lust, though it is also for the purpose of reproduction.

But not for the diversion of fabulous rainbow lust? You God seems to apply a lot of double standards.

As I said. In the Christian sense, a marriage is a complementarian union.

[Clement of Rome]

If the sterile people are married, it is fine, because marriage is partly for the purpose of diverting lust, though it is also for the purpose of reproduction.

But not for the diversion of fabulous rainbow lust? You God seems to apply a lot of double standards.

Marriage is a heavenly union, worldly handicaps don't apply to marriage.

[The V O I D]

Marriage is, by definition, up to the State. If the State recognizes it as such, that is all that matters. Marriage belongs to the State; not the Church. Sorry, when we separated the powers, the State took that unto themselves. No religion has any say in the matter; you can claim to not recognize it, doesn't change the legal status as well as religious status if a Church or some other religious place does recognize it and is more tolerant.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

But not for the diversion of fabulous rainbow lust? You God seems to apply a lot of double standards.

As I said. In the Christian sense, a marriage is a complementarian union.

Conveniently screwing a demographic that you are fortunate enough not to be a part of. And as I said, that's one interpretation; not all Christians subscribe to your view. I'd be interested to know what (in your apparently flawless interpretation of the His will) God created gay people for.

[United Marxist Nations]

As I said. In the Christian sense, a marriage is a complementarian union.

Conveniently screwing a demographic that you are fortunate enough not to be a part of. And as I said, that's one interpretation; not all Christians subscribe to your view. I'd be interested to know what (in your apparently flawless interpretation of the His will) God created gay people for.

There are plenty of homosexual Orthodox and Roman Catholics who happily subscribe to the same view.

[Mike the Progressive]

There was something in the air that night, the stars were bright, Fernando.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Conveniently screwing a demographic that you are fortunate enough not to be a part of. And as I said, that's one interpretation; not all Christians subscribe to your view. I'd be interested to know what (in your apparently flawless interpretation of the His will) God created gay people for.

There are plenty of homosexual Orthodox and Roman Catholics who happily subscribe to the same view.

Brilliantly side-stepped.
Edit: I mean, obviously not brilliantly, because I spotted it. Terribly, transparently side-stepped. That's what I meant to say.

[United Marxist Nations]

There are plenty of homosexual Orthodox and Roman Catholics who happily subscribe to the same view.

Brilliantly side-stepped.

That I'm not a homosexual isn't a reasonable objection to the worldview of the Churches which hold to Apostolic succession.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Onto something less inflammatory...
How do you personally handle falling in love with someone who can never reciprocate?
EDIT: Specifically because of incompatible orientations.

[United Marxist Nations]

Onto something less inflammatory...
How do you personally handle falling in love with someone who can never reciprocate?

By caressing my pillow at night and pretending it is them in-between periods of self-pity.

[Shonburg]

Onto something less inflammatory...
How do you personally handle falling in love with someone who can never reciprocate?

By caressing my pillow at night and pretending it is them in-between periods of self-pity.

"Senpai notice me pls ;-;"

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Brilliantly side-stepped.

That I'm not a homosexual isn't a reasonable objection to the worldview of the Churches which hold to Apostolic succession.

There was quite a lot of point beneath that, which you're still avoiding, but in a way, it is. People tend not to shit on their own demographic. That worldview exists because those who created it, and decided to apply it to shitting on gays, were not gay. They were also not women, which is why they take the view that women should not lead in the Church. The Romans considered it okay to enslave foreigners because they were not foreigners, and whites applied the same idea to blacks because they were not black.

Your position is exactly the same. You find a demographic you want to mistreat, and then you go looking for an excuse. And of course, that demographic is never your own. No one ever decides that their own kind are lesser, unless they've had it drilled into them by someone who has already decided that.

Now let me ask you again: Why did God create gay people?

[United Marxist Nations]

That I'm not a homosexual isn't a reasonable objection to the worldview of the Churches which hold to Apostolic succession.

There was quite a lot of point beneath that, which you're still avoiding, but in a way, it is. People tend not to shit on their own demographic. 1)That worldview exists because those who created it, and decided to apply it to shitting on gays, were not gay. They were also not women, 2)which is why they take the view that women should not lead in the Church. The Romans considered it okay to enslave foreigners because they were not foreigners, and whites applied the same idea to blacks because they were not black.

Your position is exactly the same. 3) You find a demographic you want to mistreat, and then you go looking for an excuse. And of course, that demographic is never your own. No one ever decides that their own kind are lesser, unless they've had it drilled into them by someone who has already decided that.

Now let me ask you again: Why did God create gay people?

1) Who, exactly, created it? Do you mean God or the Apostles? Clergy? If the latter two, I think you're making unfair assumptions of sexual orientation, and God, of course, has no sexual orientation to speak of, so it is irrelevant if it's the former.
2) That isn't why. The reason is because of the complimentarian view of the sexes. The clergy would have to be either all-male or all-female, but, because the first clergy (the Apostles) were male, the clergy would have to be male for consistency.
3) Quite the assumption you're making there.

[Nature-Spirits]

Alright, what if trans women could get pregnant and give birth? Would they have vaginas then? (This is actually far less hypothetical than you'd think, by the way; medical professionals are working on it.)

And I would like to hear your stance on infant circumcision, by the way. It serves essentially no purpose and removes a useful part of the body.

Yes, I would be fine with it if such were the case.

Despite being circumcised myself, and generally being okay with it, I wouldn't have it done to someone unless it were a medical necessity.

Fair enough.

Although in that case, why again does the capacity to give birth define what a vagina is?

Onto something less inflammatory...
How do you personally handle falling in love with someone who can never reciprocate?
EDIT: Specifically because of incompatible orientations.

Ride it out, basically. Not much else to do.

Onto something less inflammatory...
How do you personally handle falling in love with someone who can never reciprocate?

By caressing my pillow at night and pretending it is them in-between periods of self-pity.

Do you repent for it afterwards?

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, I would be fine with it if such were the case.

Despite being circumcised myself, and generally being okay with it, I wouldn't have it done to someone unless it were a medical necessity.

Fair enough.

Although in that case, why again does the capacity to give birth define what a vagina is?

Onto something less inflammatory...
How do you personally handle falling in love with someone who can never reciprocate?
EDIT: Specifically because of incompatible orientations.

Ride it out, basically. Not much else to do.

By caressing my pillow at night and pretending it is them in-between periods of self-pity.

Do you repent for it afterwards?

Not the capacity to give birth, but, more, the inner structure is what defines it. If it isn't connected to anything, it's just a cavity.

Not as much as I should.

[Nature-Spirits]

There was quite a lot of point beneath that, which you're still avoiding, but in a way, it is. People tend not to shit on their own demographic. 1)That worldview exists because those who created it, and decided to apply it to shitting on gays, were not gay. They were also not women, 2)which is why they take the view that women should not lead in the Church. The Romans considered it okay to enslave foreigners because they were not foreigners, and whites applied the same idea to blacks because they were not black.

Your position is exactly the same. 3) You find a demographic you want to mistreat, and then you go looking for an excuse. And of course, that demographic is never your own. No one ever decides that their own kind are lesser, unless they've had it drilled into them by someone who has already decided that.

Now let me ask you again: Why did God create gay people?

1) Who, exactly, created it? Do you mean God or the Apostles? Clergy? If the latter two, I think you're making unfair assumptions of sexual orientation, and God, of course, has no sexual orientation to speak of, so it is irrelevant if it's the former.
2) That isn't why. The reason is because of the complimentarian view of the sexes. The clergy would have to be either all-male or all-female, but, because the first clergy (the Apostles) were male, the clergy would have to be male for consistency.
3) Quite the assumption you're making there.

1) They're hardly "unfair assumptions".
2) [citation needed]
3) Not really.
4) *still avoiding the question*

[Linux and the X]

Onto something less inflammatory...
How do you personally handle falling in love with someone who can never reciprocate?
EDIT: Specifically because of incompatible orientations.

Murder them and turn them into a zombie?

[Othelos]

But not for the diversion of fabulous rainbow lust? You God seems to apply a lot of double standards.

Marriage is a heavenly union, worldly handicaps don't apply to marriage.

The topic is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

[Nature-Spirits]

Fair enough.

Although in that case, why again does the capacity to give birth define what a vagina is?


Ride it out, basically. Not much else to do.


Do you repent for it afterwards?

Not the capacity to give birth, but, more, the inner structure is what defines it. If it isn't connected to anything, it's just a cavity.

Not as much as I should.

Vagina =/= uterus. Also, does that mean that women born with a vaginal opening but not a uterus don't have a vagina either?

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Who, exactly, created it? Do you mean God or the Apostles? Clergy? If the latter two, I think you're making unfair assumptions of sexual orientation, and God, of course, has no sexual orientation to speak of, so it is irrelevant if it's the former.
2) That isn't why. The reason is because of the complimentarian view of the sexes. The clergy would have to be either all-male or all-female, but, because the first clergy (the Apostles) were male, the clergy would have to be male for consistency.
3) Quite the assumption you're making there.

1) They're hardly "unfair assumptions".
2) [citation needed]
3) Not really.
4) *still avoiding the question*

1) No, I think it's unfair to assume historical clergy has always been heterosexual. Especially when large numbers of modern clergy are homosexual. I think it is fair to assume a similar demographic breakdown existed in the past.
2) https://oca.org/parish-ministry/theolog ... a-mother-a
3) Yes, it is. I have no ill-will to LGBT people, and am good friends with a transgender person.
4) Which question? I may have missed it.

[United Marxist Nations]

Not the capacity to give birth, but, more, the inner structure is what defines it. If it isn't connected to anything, it's just a cavity.

Not as much as I should.

Vagina =/= uterus. Also, does that mean that women born with a vaginal opening but not a uterus don't have a vagina either?

I would say not in that case. I would call it just a cavity.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1) They're hardly "unfair assumptions".
2) [citation needed]
3) Not really.
4) *still avoiding the question*

1) No, I think it's unfair to assume historical clergy has always been heterosexual. Especially when large numbers of modern clergy are homosexual. I think it is fair to assume a similar demographic breakdown existed in the past.
2) https://oca.org/parish-ministry/theolog ... a-mother-a
3) Yes, it is. I have no ill-will to LGBT people, and am good friends with a transgender person.
4) Which question? I may have missed it.

Ah, "some of my best friends are..."! Do you say the same things to your friend that you say with anonymity here?

[United Marxist Nations]

1) No, I think it's unfair to assume historical clergy has always been heterosexual. Especially when large numbers of modern clergy are homosexual. I think it is fair to assume a similar demographic breakdown existed in the past.
2) https://oca.org/parish-ministry/theolog ... a-mother-a
3) Yes, it is. I have no ill-will to LGBT people, and am good friends with a transgender person.
4) Which question? I may have missed it.

Ah, "some of my best friends are..."! Do you say the same things to your friend that you say with anonymity here?

We've only ever discussed it once, but we have spoken of it, yes.

[Linux and the X]

Vagina =/= uterus. Also, does that mean that women born with a vaginal opening but not a uterus don't have a vagina either?

I would say not in that case. I would call it just a cavity.

Then you're wrong.