LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Mahdistan]

I'd add that "marriage" isn't a religious term, any more than "bread" or "wine". It's just a thing some religions have rituals and rules around. The state shouldn't have to surrender the word to angry fundamentalists who think they invented it.

I'd also point out that religious ministers perform marriages by the privilege to do so granted to them by the state via a marriage license.

It's this meddling of the state in church affairs that makes the opinions of the religious right even relevant in the matter- as far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason to drop the matter of state recognition of marriage altogether.

EDIT: dunno what happened to my response the first time

[Salus Maior]

Well, I don't really see any rights being lost here. Gays need to find common ground with the religious-right, or else we'll find ourselves more and morr isolated

Don't be ridiculous. Suggesting that homosexuals need to find common ground with theocracy-loving religious zealots is like saying Jews need to find common ground with neo-Nazis. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the most common religions in the West (Christianity in particular), all contain scriptural teachings directly commanding genocide against homosexuals, and the religious authorities of all three religions (Islam especially) tend to actively condemn homosexuals for the crime of existing and openly lobby in favor of either denying basic equality to homosexuals or outright imprisoning or murdering them. There is no common ground between a homosexual and someone who believes there's a magical wizard who transcends space and time who teaches that all homosexuals are abominations deserving of death.

Besides, us homosexuals have done perfectly fine for ourselves in America without trying to make compromises with the religious establishments. It used to be that homosexuality was illegal in many states, courtesy of the religious people you seem to be so fond of, and, in much of the country, someone would be thrown in jail because the religious lobby refuses and has always refused to tolerate the very existence of anyone and anything their worthless gods don't like. Then, state bans on homosexuality were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas), making homosexuality legal across the whole country, without a single compromise having been made with the religious zealots who wanted to keep unjustly imprisoning adults for consensual sexual activities in private. Later, in spite of continued attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality carried out almost exclusively by the religious lobby, state bans on same-sex marriage were deemed unconstitutional and homosexuals were granted full marriage equality, without a single compromise having been made with religious zealots.

No, homosexuals don't need to find common ground with the religious right; there is no common ground to find. They are enemies of the homosexual community; they always have been and always will be. Pretending that there's even a remote chance, let alone a need, for reconciliation between the two, when one of the two groups literally believes in the existence of a magical, all-powerful, invisible psychopath who supports genocide against the other group, is absolutely ludicrous. It's naive at best to think we can be friends with those kinds of people, quite frankly, and it would set a dangerous precedent if we started conceding our fundamental right to equal treatment just to placate the make-believe magic wizards conjured up by the primitive imaginations of illiterate madmen who died thousands of years ago.

You'd think by all the time you've spent arguing on the CDT about your once-held weird gnostic anti-Jewish 'Christian' beliefs you'd actually know more about the traditional Christian position on homosexuality.

For one, we don't want to murder anyone. Secondly, homosexuals 'simply existing' isn't the problem as it's not a sin to simply be born oriented any particular way.

You'd think to remember that would be simple, but I suppose you're too full of bitterness and resentment (which just oozes from you from all your cutting edge 'sky god/wizard', 'religious zealot', 'oh they're so primitive and I'm so advanced' comments, although I suppose that's really not a new thing with you) to really absorb any of it.

I'd also point out that religious ministers perform marriages by the privilege to do so granted to them by the state via a marriage license.

And nothing's going to take that right away from them, mind. And if they did, that'd mostly just be fucking over tons of people who want to marry according to their religion.

The government doesn't, and shouldn't have any power over religion by manipulating religious licenses to wed.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

They are enemies of the homosexual community; they always have been and always will be.

>Is a Christian
>Is a gay
>Is a denomination where my pastor would marry me to my same-sex partner if I asked

Oops

First of all, I'm considered an apostate by most of the Christians here (or a heretic, or a Satanist, or a pagan, depending on who you ask; very uncommonly does anyone say that I am a Christian), I'm a vehement opponent of most sects of Christianity (and most religion in general, for that matter), and the theological beliefs I endorse are believed only by a very small minority of Christians. Second of all, I said the religious authorities tend to actively oppose homosexuality, which is completely true, especially in Islam which almost universally has violent opposition to homosexuality. Third, the specific demographic in question was the "religious right" in the west who are openly supportive of theocratic laws and almost absolutely always oppose homosexuality.

I have not contradicted myself. If you disagree with what I said, how about you actually write a real rebuttal to it?

That takes quite a stretch of the imagination to claim genocide against homosexuals has basis in Christianity or Islam- Judaism, yes. That being said, yes I am fully aware of the genocide which is taking place across the world, with members of these religious communities claiming scriptural justification for it, basis or no; these are not the ones who I would like to see concessions being made for, though I am of the view rule of law ought to be respected, and that changes be made on a reasonable basis. But, there's a big difference between a state promoting a genocide against any given group, and a state which enforces an unequal system of rules among its citizens- and why, pray tell, should we even be equal? We are not contributing to the growth of the state's population, we are forming a dead-end to our linage, thus reducing the impact our culture has on the world, and we're going about, stirring people up to riot over what ought to be the most private, intimate action a human can perform. What've we done to deserve marriage? Life, yes. The right to be open of our sexuality, yes. But the right to claim ourselves a unit as productive to the state as a married man and a woman? Some of us, maybe, but as a default, no. Civil unions fit us just fine; I personally feel the state ought not recognize any marriage whatsoever, only civil unions between any two members of society- that takes the religious equation out of it.

Christianity normally upholds the Jewish Tanakh, a book we all know states that homosexuals are abominations who must be killed, as being sacred and written by an all-powerful perfect creator. Yes, it's true that many mainstream schools of Christianity tend to believe there is no obligation to actually follow the laws of the Tanakh, but the scriptural commands are still there, whether the priesthood says they need to be followed or not, and a fairly significant number of Christians and Christian sects believe the Tanakh, including its laws about homosexuality, still must be obeyed. As for Islam, there's really no question about the Islamic stance on homosexuality; I can show you precisely where the Islamic sources specifically call for genocide.

Qu'ran Surah 27 verses 54-58

And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."

But the answer of his people was not except that they said, "Expel the family of Lot from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure."

So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be of those who remained behind.

And We rained upon them a rain [of stones], and evil was the rain of those who were warned.

So, what you read here, in Islam's most trusted source, is that the people of Lot were supposedly wicked sinners who Allah murdered with a rain of stones on the sole basis that they were attracted to men and not women. This verse alone clearly sets the precedent that Allah believes homosexuals deserve to be murdered, but this isn't the really important source on the subject; this is mostly just for context.

Sunan abu Dawud, Book Forty, Hadith 112

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
Abu Dawud said: A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Sulaiman b. Bilal from 'Amr b. Abi 'Umar. And 'Abbad b. Mansur transmitted it from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ). It has also been transmitted by Ibn Juraij from Ibrahim from Dawud b. Al-Husain from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ).

Anyone doing as Lot's people did (which is homosexuality, as the Qu'ran clearly stated in the verse above) is to be killed, according to Mohammad himself as stated in this Hasan-Sahih (very good authenticity, according to Islamic scholars) hadith. It doesn't get much clearer than that. The hadith directly following this one says something quite similar:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.
Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak

There's also a Shi'ite hadith (in Arabic; there aren't always English translations of hadiths) where Ali endorses the murder of homosexuals, so it isn't just the Sunni sources that support such practices. Read it if you'd like; it pretty clearly contradicts the narrative that there is no precedent for killing homosexuals in Islam.

[url]http://hadith.net/ar/post/3879/أقضية-رسول-الله-صلي-الله-عليه-و-آله-و-أحكامه/?n=634&q=عنقك-بالغة[/url]

So, yes, there absolutely is scriptural justification for anti-homosexual genocide in both Christianity and Islam; Islam more clearly so.

Your second point is that the rule of law ought to be respected. When the state perpetrates violence against its own citizens on the sole basis that some ancient prophet said those people were evil, said state completely loses its right to rule. A government is supposed to protect its citizens, not actively kill or imprison them unjustly. When the state does such things, we have no obligation whatsoever to continue respecting its legal process; a government which uses its power to attack its own citizenry without just cause is an illegitimate government which deserves nothing but disrespect. The same principle applies to any government which actively deprives any segment of the population of equal treatment without any justification; a state which unjustly persecutes its citizens is an illegitimate state deserving of no respect.

As for your question, why we should even be equal, the answer should be self-evident; because we are tax-paying citizens who contribute to the nation and have done nothing to warrant our rights being denied. A much better question would be why should we be not be equal. These are the main justifications the religious lobby will answer that question with:

[insert illiterate man who died centuries ago here] said homosexuals are evil!
The gay agenda is plotting to destroy the west!
If we let the gayz marry, people are going to marry their horses!
Think about da children! The gayz will turn them into more gayz!

It's always, always, always either a ridiculous moral argument based on the moral teachings of long-gone eras of human history or a completely ludicrous conspiracy about how the "gay agenda" wants to destroy western civilization. There's never a rational reason. Of course, there have been atheist governments which have been hostile to homosexuals (the Soviet Union and Communist China come to mind); they didn't use any kind of rational justification, either. Mao wanted to outlaw homosexuality purely because it was legal under the Kuomintang government, and, therefore, he thought it was a symbol of capitalism and outlawed it just because he didn't like it. The Soviet Union under Stalin outlawed homosexuality most likely because he believed, falsely so, that imprisoning people for being homosexuals would lead to an increased birthrate and therefore strengthen his country; not only was that reasoning completely baseless, it was also hypocritical coming from someone who literally created mass-famines in his country (Ukraine specifically).

There's no rational reason why homosexuals should be deprived of equal rights; there's never been. So, why does there need to be a reason why we shouldn't be deprived of equal rights? Your next point is to claim that we don't contribute to population growth. First of all, there are tons of places in the world, including places in the West, where the population is way higher than it should be; population growth is outright detrimental in those locations. Penalizing people for not contributing to overpopulation is ridiculous. Beyond that, homosexuals can and do contribute to population growth via impregnating a surrogate mother in the case of male homosexuals or using a sperm donor to become pregnant in the case of female homosexuals. The idea that we can't produce children is simply false; it's true that we don't produce them as often as heterosexuals, but claiming that we can't do it at all is just not true. Beyond that, even if it were true that we couldn't produce children, there's quite a few homosexuals that would adopt orphan children if given the opportunity, and having a demographic of people who reduce the orphan population is good for society; it would ease the financial burden on orphanages and allow more children to have a proper upbringing, and that's a good thing. And, besides, what about other people who actually can't produce children? There's a fairly large number of infertile men and women who will never be able to produce kids; should they also be denied equal rights on these grounds?

Your next point is that we supposedly go around stirring people up to riot. First of all, there really aren't a whole lot of homosexual riots in America; most riots are performed by either Communists (Antifa) or anti-white radicals (Black Lives Matter). Are there homosexuals who participate in riots? Sure, but the vast majority of rioters are not homosexuals, and most homosexuals probably don't support them, so I don't really get what you're trying to establish with this point.

Finally, what we've done to deserve marriage. We've done the same things that heterosexuals have done to deserve marriage; absolutely fucking nothing. Nobody has ever done anything to earn marriage; it's never been a privilege that needs to be earned. Why do heterosexuals deserve marriage rights? What have they done to earn them? Nothing, beyond having more children on average, and if having children is the only merit required to get married in your eyes then infertile people (including women past a certain age, because all women eventually lose the ability to bear children) should be banned from getting married. Everybody is equally entitled to the right to get married, because it isn't a privilege for people to earn. Needlessly depriving people of marriage rights, or re-branding their marriages and calling them something else just because them getting married might offend somebody, is just absolutely pointless; it doesn't accomplish anything. All it serves to do is attempt to placate the religious people who hate us, and it wouldn't work; they would continue to lobby for further and further restrictions on our rights until homosexuality became illegal again. There's no point reasoning with zealots; they'll never even accept our existence. Most irreligious Christians and Jews in the west already support homosexual equality; we don't need to limit our own rights to compromise with them, because they already support full equality generally speaking.

[Cekoviu]

Somebody just told me about this

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or ­“evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

Several key departments — including HHS, as well as Justice, Education, and Housing and Urban Development — have changed some federal policies and how they collect government information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

In March, for example, HHS dropped questions about sexual orientation and gender identity in two surveys of elderly people.

HHS has also removed information about LGBT Americans from its website. The department’s Administration for Children and Families, for example, archived a page that outlined federal services that are available for LGBT people and their families, including how they can adopt and receive help if they are the victims of sex trafficking.

This was kind of exaggerated and misreported. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/c ... the-agency

[The Widening Gyre]

Modernism is merely an ideology, not a moral obligation to uphold, any more than traditionalism is. Certainly, it would be hypocritical for a nation like the United States, with equality written right in the constitution, to oppose the rights of homosexuals and other minorities, but why must all nations be held to this standard? A nation's peoples have a right to decide where their moral standards lie, so long as genocide is not being sponsored.

Blind majoritarianism and relativism like that is subservience to tyranny and oppression. The majority may will an oppressive condition, but the minority does not.

A state's duty is to protect and benefit the people they represent- productivity is paramount, and reproduction is a necessity to ensure stable production. Straight, child-bearing couples are the bread and butter of any nation; it's perfectly reasonable for these couples to be endowed with special privileges for their service. Gays, too, can service their nation, but not just by taking a partner. There's plenty of other ways to serve our community- and we should be recognized for each and every one of those things we do. Now, of course, not all straight married couples do reproduce- personally, I don't feel that should be rewarded; children ought to be an obligation of the contract of marriage. But, if states want to waste their potential in letting it happen, so be it- by no means do I assume my views should be the global standard- it's not my choice what the people of another nation do. I just don't think the gay community ought to punish other nations for not adhering to our preference of wording

LGBT couples can adopt children and produce biological offspring through things like surrogacy.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

You'd think by all the time you've spent arguing on the CDT about your once-held weird gnostic anti-Jewish 'Christian' beliefs you'd actually know more about the traditional Christian position on homosexuality.

For one, we don't want to murder anyone. Secondly, homosexuals 'simply existing' isn't the problem as it's not a sin to simply be born oriented any particular way.

You'd think to remember that would be simple, but I suppose you're too full of bitterness and resentment (which just oozes from you from all your cutting edge 'sky god/wizard', 'religious zealot', 'oh they're so primitive and I'm so advanced' comments, although I suppose that's really not a new thing with you) to really absorb any of it.

Well, imagine my shock; a whole lot of personal attacks, and not a whole lot of actually having an argument. You and your friends really do have quite a penchant for non-sequitur remarks, you know that? Not that I'm surprised; I've seen it over and over and over again from you people. You'd think that actually addressing what someone said would be simple, but for people like you, it's just too damn difficult, and making attacks on someone's personal character is just so much easier.

Either way, nothing I said is incorrect. Christianity does, indeed, contain scriptural basis for genocide in the form of the Tanakh which it upholds as holy; whether the church authorities currently believe the laws in question still need to be followed or not is irrelevant, the justification is there whether the clergy supports it or not. And it's really rich to talk about the "traditional" position being to oppose anti-homosexual murder when the Church spent almost its entire existence sponsoring the murder of homosexuals along with many, many other people. The Church, in its divine wisdom, has traditionally gone out of its way to massacre anyone it doesn't like, whether they be Waldensians, Cathars, Protestants, homosexuals, atheists, or anyone else. Don't give me this fucking bullshit about the "traditional Christian position" because we all know that the Church only recently, relative to its age, decided to stop promoting sectarian violence and murder. Considering the countless centuries it spent actively engaging in these practices, trying to tell people that Christianity traditionally opposes them is beyond absurd, but I wouldn't expect any kind of remotely honest argument coming from Judaism-loving genocide-apologists like you who are so utterly determined to believe in contradiction-ridden, completely immoral garbage that you will delude yourself into thinking that your disgusting religion is incapable of wrongdoing no matter what.

[Mahdistan]

That takes quite a stretch of the imagination to claim genocide against homosexuals has basis in Christianity or Islam- Judaism, yes. That being said, yes I am fully aware of the genocide which is taking place across the world, with members of these religious communities claiming scriptural justification for it, basis or no; these are not the ones who I would like to see concessions being made for, though I am of the view rule of law ought to be respected, and that changes be made on a reasonable basis. But, there's a big difference between a state promoting a genocide against any given group, and a state which enforces an unequal system of rules among its citizens- and why, pray tell, should we even be equal? We are not contributing to the growth of the state's population, we are forming a dead-end to our linage, thus reducing the impact our culture has on the world, and we're going about, stirring people up to riot over what ought to be the most private, intimate action a human can perform. What've we done to deserve marriage? Life, yes. The right to be open of our sexuality, yes. But the right to claim ourselves a unit as productive to the state as a married man and a woman? Some of us, maybe, but as a default, no. Civil unions fit us just fine; I personally feel the state ought not recognize any marriage whatsoever, only civil unions between any two members of society- that takes the religious equation out of it.

Christianity normally upholds the Jewish Tanakh, a book we all know states that homosexuals are abominations who must be killed, as being sacred and written by an all-powerful perfect creator. Yes, it's true that many mainstream schools of Christianity tend to believe there is no obligation to actually follow the laws of the Tanakh, but the scriptural commands are still there, whether the priesthood says they need to be followed or not, and a fairly significant number of Christians and Christian sects believe the Tanakh, including its laws about homosexuality, still must be obeyed. As for Islam, there's really no question about the Islamic stance on homosexuality; I can show you precisely where the Islamic sources specifically call for genocide.

Qu'ran Surah 27 verses 54-58

And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."

But the answer of his people was not except that they said, "Expel the family of Lot from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure."

So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be of those who remained behind.

And We rained upon them a rain [of stones], and evil was the rain of those who were warned.

So, what you read here, in Islam's most trusted source, is that the people of Lot were supposedly wicked sinners who Allah murdered with a rain of stones on the sole basis that they were attracted to men and not women. This verse alone clearly sets the precedent that Allah believes homosexuals deserve to be murdered, but this isn't the really important source on the subject; this is mostly just for context.

Sunan abu Dawud, Book Forty, Hadith 112

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
Abu Dawud said: A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Sulaiman b. Bilal from 'Amr b. Abi 'Umar. And 'Abbad b. Mansur transmitted it from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ). It has also been transmitted by Ibn Juraij from Ibrahim from Dawud b. Al-Husain from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ).

Anyone doing as Lot's people did (which is homosexuality, as the Qu'ran clearly stated in the verse above) is to be killed, according to Mohammad himself as stated in this Hasan-Sahih (very good authenticity, according to Islamic scholars) hadith. It doesn't get much clearer than that. The hadith directly following this one says something quite similar:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.
Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak

There's also a Shi'ite hadith (in Arabic; there aren't always English translations of hadiths) where Ali endorses the murder of homosexuals, so it isn't just the Sunni sources that support such practices. Read it if you'd like; it pretty clearly contradicts the narrative that there is no precedent for killing homosexuals in Islam.

[url]http://hadith.net/ar/post/3879/أقضية-رسول-الله-صلي-الله-عليه-و-آله-و-أحكامه/?n=634&q=عنقك-بالغة[/url]

So, yes, there absolutely is scriptural justification for anti-homosexual genocide in both Christianity and Islam; Islam more clearly so.

Your second point is that the rule of law ought to be respected. When the state perpetrates violence against its own citizens on the sole basis that some ancient prophet said those people were evil, said state completely loses its right to rule. A government is supposed to protect its citizens, not actively kill or imprison them unjustly. When the state does such things, we have no obligation whatsoever to continue respecting its legal process; a government which uses its power to attack its own citizenry without just cause is an illegitimate government which deserves nothing but disrespect. The same principle applies to any government which actively deprives any segment of the population of equal treatment without any justification; a state which unjustly persecutes its citizens is an illegitimate state deserving of no respect.

As for your question, why we should even be equal, the answer should be self-evident; because we are tax-paying citizens who contribute to the nation and have done nothing to warrant our rights being denied. A much better question would be why should we be not be equal. These are the main justifications the religious lobby will answer that question with:

[insert illiterate man who died centuries ago here] said homosexuals are evil!
The gay agenda is plotting to destroy the west!
If we let the gayz marry, people are going to marry their horses!
Think about da children! The gayz will turn them into more gayz!

It's always, always, always either a ridiculous moral argument based on the moral teachings of long-gone eras of human history or a completely ludicrous conspiracy about how the "gay agenda" wants to destroy western civilization. There's never a rational reason. Of course, there have been atheist governments which have been hostile to homosexuals (the Soviet Union and Communist China come to mind); they didn't use any kind of rational justification, either. Mao wanted to outlaw homosexuality purely because it was legal under the Kuomintang government, and, therefore, he thought it was a symbol of capitalism and outlawed it just because he didn't like it. The Soviet Union under Stalin outlawed homosexuality most likely because he believed, falsely so, that imprisoning people for being homosexuals would lead to an increased birthrate and therefore strengthen his country; not only was that reasoning completely baseless, it was also hypocritical coming from someone who literally created mass-famines in his country (Ukraine specifically).

There's no rational reason why homosexuals should be deprived of equal rights; there's never been. So, why does there need to be a reason why we shouldn't be deprived of equal rights? Your next point is to claim that we don't contribute to population growth. First of all, there are tons of places in the world, including places in the West, where the population is way higher than it should be; population growth is outright detrimental in those locations. Penalizing people for not contributing to overpopulation is ridiculous. Beyond that, homosexuals can and do contribute to population growth via impregnating a surrogate mother in the case of male homosexuals or using a sperm donor to become pregnant in the case of female homosexuals. The idea that we can't produce children is simply false; it's true that we don't produce them as often as heterosexuals, but claiming that we can't do it at all is just not true. Beyond that, even if it were true that we couldn't produce children, there's quite a few homosexuals that would adopt orphan children if given the opportunity, and having a demographic of people who reduce the orphan population is good for society; it would ease the financial burden on orphanages and allow more children to have a proper upbringing, and that's a good thing. And, besides, what about other people who actually can't produce children? There's a fairly large number of infertile men and women who will never be able to produce kids; should they also be denied equal rights on these grounds?

Your next point is that we supposedly go around stirring people up to riot. First of all, there really aren't a whole lot of homosexual riots in America; most riots are performed by either Communists (Antifa) or anti-white radicals (Black Lives Matter). Are there homosexuals who participate in riots? Sure, but the vast majority of rioters are not homosexuals, and most homosexuals probably don't support them, so I don't really get what you're trying to establish with this point.

Finally, what we've done to deserve marriage. We've done the same things that heterosexuals have done to deserve marriage; absolutely fucking nothing. Nobody has ever done anything to earn marriage; it's never been a privilege that needs to be earned. Why do heterosexuals deserve marriage rights? What have they done to earn them? Nothing, beyond having more children on average, and if having children is the only merit required to get married in your eyes then infertile people (including women past a certain age, because all women eventually lose the ability to bear children) should be banned from getting married. Everybody is equally entitled to the right to get married, because it isn't a privilege for people to earn. Needlessly depriving people of marriage rights, or re-branding their marriages and calling them something else just because them getting married might offend somebody, is just absolutely pointless; it doesn't accomplish anything. All it serves to do is attempt to placate the religious people who hate us, and it wouldn't work; they would continue to lobby for further and further restrictions on our rights until homosexuality became illegal again. There's no point reasoning with zealots; they'll never even accept our existence. Most irreligious Christians and Jews in the west already support homosexual equality; we don't need to limit our own rights to compromise with them, because they already support full equality generally speaking.

I will not speak on the Christian issue, as there's others who can speak with higher authority, but to the rest:

The people to whom Lot spoke to were performing many sins, in affront to God. Homosexuality was practiced, sometimes quite openly, in every ancient civilization on the planet; it was lust and promiscuity which condemned those people. And when they were warned, what did they do? Attack the holy prophet and his family; do you think God was unaware of how they would react? Their demise was clear- they were to be destroyed because of their hatred of God, not because of homosexuality. Now, I won't give you the usual spiel on the validity of any Hadith- you seem reasonably informed already. Assuming it is true, I refer to my statement on the verse of the Quran- those deserving of destruction are those who hate God. Hatred of God is hatred of God's followers- enemies of Islam are to be destroyed.

If you are a homosexual, and the state is hunting you down for your homosexuality, then yes, you have the right to defend yourself. This tends not to be the case, however; even in Iran, there is an active homosexual community which the government is more than aware of- if the government went door to door dragging them from their homes, the death toll would be huge. It's the people who promote the proliferation of homosexuality, and instigate anti-government activity, who are punished. I don't think homosexuality ought to be an offense that should be punished at all, or play a factor in how one is punished, but as long as people aren't being shot in the street, there are ways to create change without creating chaos.

As a blanket statement to most of the rest, I refer to my statements on a state's duty to ensuring productivity; specifically, I bring up my point that gays who make other unique contributions to society ought to be recognized and compensated. I don't see why making a religious authority consecrate two people's relationship makes all that much of a difference.

And on your final note on riots, perhaps that was the wrong term- what I really meant was sewing seeds of dissent against the state and community, only on the basis of feeling different. This is a destructive perspective that ought to be opposed.

[Mahdistan]

Modernism is merely an ideology, not a moral obligation to uphold, any more than traditionalism is. Certainly, it would be hypocritical for a nation like the United States, with equality written right in the constitution, to oppose the rights of homosexuals and other minorities, but why must all nations be held to this standard? A nation's peoples have a right to decide where their moral standards lie, so long as genocide is not being sponsored.

Blind majoritarianism and relativism like that is subservience to tyranny and oppression. The majority may will an oppressive condition, but the minority does not.

A state's duty is to protect and benefit the people they represent- productivity is paramount, and reproduction is a necessity to ensure stable production. Straight, child-bearing couples are the bread and butter of any nation; it's perfectly reasonable for these couples to be endowed with special privileges for their service. Gays, too, can service their nation, but not just by taking a partner. There's plenty of other ways to serve our community- and we should be recognized for each and every one of those things we do. Now, of course, not all straight married couples do reproduce- personally, I don't feel that should be rewarded; children ought to be an obligation of the contract of marriage. But, if states want to waste their potential in letting it happen, so be it- by no means do I assume my views should be the global standard- it's not my choice what the people of another nation do. I just don't think the gay community ought to punish other nations for not adhering to our preference of wording

LGBT couples can adopt children and produce biological offspring through things like surrogacy.

Subservience is no sin for the greater-good. Oppression, in some form, will always exist. We are not a hive mind- I am of the view, however, that people who are oppressed ought to be given the right to leave, or secede from the nation, under the right conditions. And at the bottom line of my point on marriage, I just feel like a term like that, and getting churches involved in the whole matter, is a waste of time and energy. People should be recognized on the contributions they make to society, period.

[Cekoviu]

Blind majoritarianism and relativism like that is subservience to tyranny and oppression. The majority may will an oppressive condition, but the minority does not.



LGBT couples can adopt children and produce biological offspring through things like surrogacy.

Subservience is no sin for the greater-good. Oppression, in some form, will always exist. We are not a hive mind- I am of the view, however, that people who are oppressed ought to be given the right to leave, or secede from the nation, under the right conditions. And at the bottom line of my point on marriage, I just feel like a term like that, and getting churches involved in the whole matter, is a waste of time and energy. People should be recognized on the contributions they make to society, period.

I have a similar viewpoint in that I completely reject the idea of marriage, as you can observe in my nation. If its lack of legal recognition of marriage were the case everywhere, we wouldn't even have to have these arguments over same-sex marriage politically, with it simply becoming a religious issue or even non-issue. Unfortunately, it's a deeply ingrained institution in nearly all cultures and societies around the world, though some small tribes removed from the influence of Western civilization may not have it (I don't know if there are any that actually don't have marriage, but it seems possible).

[El Hamidah]

Showing the religious right that we can practice our faith, however that manifests, in an authentic, traditional sort of way would be great.

But I don't think allying with them would solve much.

[The Widening Gyre]

Subservience is no sin for the greater-good.

So you want to go on the record and say subservience to a majority opinion that, say, all Muslims should be converted or killed is 'for the greater good'?

Oppression, in some form, will always exist.

To be blunt, that's a spineless and cowardly view to take in the face of oppression that, in this case, is 100% combatable.

We are not a hive mind- I am of the view, however, that people who are oppressed ought to be given the right to leave, or secede from the nation, under the right conditions.

Oh how generous of you.

And at the bottom line of my point on marriage, I just feel like a term like that, and getting churches involved in the whole matter, is a waste of time and energy. People should be recognized on the contributions they make to society, period.

Again, godspeed and all that, but odds are you're never ever going to get the state out of the institution of marriage.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

As a blanket statement to most of the rest, I refer to my statements on a state's duty to ensuring productivity; specifically, I bring up my point that gays who make other unique contributions to society ought to be recognized and compensated. I don't see why making a religious authority consecrate two people's relationship makes all that much of a difference.

Religious authorities aren't required to consecrate relationships; very few people have actually advocated such a thing. What same-sex marriage advocates want is for civil marriage (that is, marriage licenses given by the government, completely distinct from the marriage traditions of various religions) to be available for same-sex couples. If a religious institution doesn't want to perform their religious rites of marriage for a certain person, that's fine; we aren't advocating for mandating that private establishments allow people they don't like to participate in their private activities. Since the government is the institution that actually grants marriage licenses and registers marriages, what we want is for the government to not discriminate on who can and can not get married based on petty grounds. Religiously consecrated marriage is completely distinct from civil marriage; one is legally recognized and actually has legal consequences, whereas the other is purely a ceremony performed by a private organization.

Maybe you think that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, and that's a valid position, but while it is involved in marriage, why should it ban people from receiving completely secular marriages? Religious establishments aren't being forced to do anything. Besides, there are a small handful of religious establishments who condone same-sex marriage; what about them? Banning same-sex marriage on the grounds of not wanting to go against the wishes of religious authorities, when some religious authorities perform same-sex marriage, seems quite strange.

[Salus Maior]

1.Well, imagine my shock; a whole lot of personal attacks, and not a whole lot of actually having an argument. You and your friends really do have quite a penchant for non-sequitur remarks, you know that? Not that I'm surprised; I've seen it over and over and over again from you people. You'd think that actually addressing what someone said would be simple, but for people like you, it's just too damn difficult, and making attacks on someone's personal character is just so much easier.

Either way, nothing I said is incorrect. Christianity does, indeed, contain scriptural basis for genocide in the form of the Tanakh which it upholds as holy; whether the church authorities currently believe the laws in question still need to be followed or not is irrelevant, the justification is there whether the clergy supports it or not. And it's really rich to talk about the "traditional" position being to oppose anti-homosexual murder when the Church spent almost its entire existence sponsoring the murder of homosexuals along with many, many other people. The Church, in its divine wisdom, has traditionally gone out of its way to massacre anyone it doesn't like, whether they be Waldensians, Cathars, Protestants, homosexuals, atheists, or anyone else. Don't give me this fucking bullshit about the "traditional Christian position" because we all know that the Church only recently, relative to its age, decided to stop promoting sectarian violence and murder. Considering the countless centuries it spent actively engaging in these practices, trying to tell people that Christianity traditionally opposes them is beyond absurd, but I wouldn't expect any kind of remotely honest argument coming from Judaism-loving genocide-apologists like you who are so utterly determined to believe in contradiction-ridden, completely immoral garbage that you will delude yourself into thinking that your disgusting religion is incapable of wrongdoing no matter what.

1. People call you out because you always come across as agitated and incredibly bitter and unwilling to consider that your incredibly obscure, Nazi endorsed belief system might not be coherent or right in any significant sense regardless of the debate. Nevermind the incredible irony of complaining about personal attacks while also doing the same thing and angrily lashing out whenever someone criticizes you or what you believe.

2. Medieval politics and warfare aside, doctrinally what I've said is true in the traditional Christian churches (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and similarly minded Protestants).

3. If having the coherent and well-backed belief that the New and Old Testaments are connected is "Judaism loving" then sure, I love Judaism.

[Grenartia]

I mean, to be fair, regression of same-sex marriage IS a big deal.

Well, I don't really see any rights being lost here. Gays need to find common ground with the religious-right, or else we'll find ourselves more and morr isolated

Marriage is a right. Losing marriage equality, then, is losing a right.

As for "finding common ground", that's bullshit. I know the religious right (I used to be one of them). You give them an inch, and they demand a mile, and use every dirty trick and tactic to get that mile, and then take another for good measure.

Well, I don't really see any rights being lost here. Gays need to find common ground with the religious-right, or else we'll find ourselves more and morr isolated

Don't be ridiculous. Suggesting that homosexuals need to find common ground with theocracy-loving religious zealots is like saying Jews need to find common ground with neo-Nazis. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the most common religions in the West (Christianity in particular), all contain scriptural teachings directly commanding genocide against homosexuals, and the religious authorities of all three religions (Islam especially) tend to actively condemn homosexuals for the crime of existing and openly lobby in favor of either denying basic equality to homosexuals or outright imprisoning or murdering them. There is no common ground between a homosexual and someone who believes there's a magical wizard who transcends space and time who teaches that all homosexuals are abominations deserving of death.

Besides, us homosexuals have done perfectly fine for ourselves in America without trying to make compromises with the religious establishments. It used to be that homosexuality was illegal in many states, courtesy of the religious people you seem to be so fond of, and, in much of the country, someone would be thrown in jail because the religious lobby refuses and has always refused to tolerate the very existence of anyone and anything their worthless gods don't like. Then, state bans on homosexuality were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas), making homosexuality legal across the whole country, without a single compromise having been made with the religious zealots who wanted to keep unjustly imprisoning adults for consensual sexual activities in private. Later, in spite of continued attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality carried out almost exclusively by the religious lobby, state bans on same-sex marriage were deemed unconstitutional and homosexuals were granted full marriage equality, without a single compromise having been made with religious zealots.

No, homosexuals don't need to find common ground with the religious right; there is no common ground to find. They are enemies of the homosexual community; they always have been and always will be. Pretending that there's even a remote chance, let alone a need, for reconciliation between the two, when one of the two groups literally believes in the existence of a magical, all-powerful, invisible psychopath who supports genocide against the other group, is absolutely ludicrous. It's naive at best to think we can be friends with those kinds of people, quite frankly, and it would set a dangerous precedent if we started conceding our fundamental right to equal treatment just to placate the make-believe magic wizards conjured up by the primitive imaginations of illiterate madmen who died thousands of years ago.

I mean, as a religious queer person, I wouldn't go as far as to say that all three religions inherently are anti-queer, but there are most certainly large elements from all 3 that are anti-queer, and I do agree that striking deals with those elements is equivalent to Jewish people trying to make deals with Nazis.

[El Hamidah]

1.Well, imagine my shock; a whole lot of personal attacks, and not a whole lot of actually having an argument. You and your friends really do have quite a penchant for non-sequitur remarks, you know that? Not that I'm surprised; I've seen it over and over and over again from you people. You'd think that actually addressing what someone said would be simple, but for people like you, it's just too damn difficult, and making attacks on someone's personal character is just so much easier.

Either way, nothing I said is incorrect. Christianity does, indeed, contain scriptural basis for genocide in the form of the Tanakh which it upholds as holy; whether the church authorities currently believe the laws in question still need to be followed or not is irrelevant, the justification is there whether the clergy supports it or not. And it's really rich to talk about the "traditional" position being to oppose anti-homosexual murder when the Church spent almost its entire existence sponsoring the murder of homosexuals along with many, many other people. The Church, in its divine wisdom, has traditionally gone out of its way to massacre anyone it doesn't like, whether they be Waldensians, Cathars, Protestants, homosexuals, atheists, or anyone else. Don't give me this fucking bullshit about the "traditional Christian position" because we all know that the Church only recently, relative to its age, decided to stop promoting sectarian violence and murder. Considering the countless centuries it spent actively engaging in these practices, trying to tell people that Christianity traditionally opposes them is beyond absurd, but I wouldn't expect any kind of remotely honest argument coming from Judaism-loving genocide-apologists like you who are so utterly determined to believe in contradiction-ridden, completely immoral garbage that you will delude yourself into thinking that your disgusting religion is incapable of wrongdoing no matter what.

1. People call you out because you always come across as agitated and incredibly bitter and unwilling to consider that your incredibly obscure, Nazi endorsed belief system might not be coherent or right in any significant sense regardless of the debate. Nevermind the incredible irony of complaining about personal attacks while also doing the same thing and angrily lashing out whenever someone criticizes you or what you believe.

2. Medieval politics and warfare aside, doctrinally what I've said is true in the traditional Christian churches (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and similarly minded Protestants).

3. If having the coherent and well-backed belief that the New and Old Testaments are connected is "Judaism loving" then sure, I love Judaism.

Despite this weird thing about Jews he seems to have, he's not wrong about the church.

The Traditional position really is to put Gays to death

[El Hamidah]

>Is a Christian
>Is a gay
>Is a denomination where my pastor would marry me to my same-sex partner if I asked

Oops

First of all, I'm considered an apostate by most of the Christians here (or a heretic, or a Satanist, or a pagan, depending on who you ask; very uncommonly does anyone say that I am a Christian), I'm a vehement opponent of most sects of Christianity (and most religion in general, for that matter), and the theological beliefs I endorse are believed only by a very small minority of Christians. Second of all, I said the religious authorities tend to actively oppose homosexuality, which is completely true, especially in Islam which almost universally has violent opposition to homosexuality. Third, the specific demographic in question was the "religious right" in the west who are openly supportive of theocratic laws and almost absolutely always oppose homosexuality.

I have not contradicted myself. If you disagree with what I said, how about you actually write a real rebuttal to it?

That takes quite a stretch of the imagination to claim genocide against homosexuals has basis in Christianity or Islam- Judaism, yes. That being said, yes I am fully aware of the genocide which is taking place across the world, with members of these religious communities claiming scriptural justification for it, basis or no; these are not the ones who I would like to see concessions being made for, though I am of the view rule of law ought to be respected, and that changes be made on a reasonable basis. But, there's a big difference between a state promoting a genocide against any given group, and a state which enforces an unequal system of rules among its citizens- and why, pray tell, should we even be equal? We are not contributing to the growth of the state's population, we are forming a dead-end to our linage, thus reducing the impact our culture has on the world, and we're going about, stirring people up to riot over what ought to be the most private, intimate action a human can perform. What've we done to deserve marriage? Life, yes. The right to be open of our sexuality, yes. But the right to claim ourselves a unit as productive to the state as a married man and a woman? Some of us, maybe, but as a default, no. Civil unions fit us just fine; I personally feel the state ought not recognize any marriage whatsoever, only civil unions between any two members of society- that takes the religious equation out of it.

Christianity normally upholds the Jewish Tanakh, a book we all know states that homosexuals are abominations who must be killed, as being sacred and written by an all-powerful perfect creator. Yes, it's true that many mainstream schools of Christianity tend to believe there is no obligation to actually follow the laws of the Tanakh, but the scriptural commands are still there, whether the priesthood says they need to be followed or not, and a fairly significant number of Christians and Christian sects believe the Tanakh, including its laws about homosexuality, still must be obeyed. As for Islam, there's really no question about the Islamic stance on homosexuality; I can show you precisely where the Islamic sources specifically call for genocide.

Qu'ran Surah 27 verses 54-58

And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."

But the answer of his people was not except that they said, "Expel the family of Lot from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure."

So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be of those who remained behind.

And We rained upon them a rain [of stones], and evil was the rain of those who were warned.

So, what you read here, in Islam's most trusted source, is that the people of Lot were supposedly wicked sinners who Allah murdered with a rain of stones on the sole basis that they were attracted to men and not women. This verse alone clearly sets the precedent that Allah believes homosexuals deserve to be murdered, but this isn't the really important source on the subject; this is mostly just for context.

Sunan abu Dawud, Book Forty, Hadith 112

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
Abu Dawud said: A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Sulaiman b. Bilal from 'Amr b. Abi 'Umar. And 'Abbad b. Mansur transmitted it from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ). It has also been transmitted by Ibn Juraij from Ibrahim from Dawud b. Al-Husain from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ).

Anyone doing as Lot's people did (which is homosexuality, as the Qu'ran clearly stated in the verse above) is to be killed, according to Mohammad himself as stated in this Hasan-Sahih (very good authenticity, according to Islamic scholars) hadith. It doesn't get much clearer than that. The hadith directly following this one says something quite similar:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.
Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak

There's also a Shi'ite hadith (in Arabic; there aren't always English translations of hadiths) where Ali endorses the murder of homosexuals, so it isn't just the Sunni sources that support such practices. Read it if you'd like; it pretty clearly contradicts the narrative that there is no precedent for killing homosexuals in Islam.

[url]http://hadith.net/ar/post/3879/أقضية-رسول-الله-صلي-الله-عليه-و-آله-و-أحكامه/?n=634&q=عنقك-بالغة[/url]

So, yes, there absolutely is scriptural justification for anti-homosexual genocide in both Christianity and Islam; Islam more clearly so.

Your second point is that the rule of law ought to be respected. When the state perpetrates violence against its own citizens on the sole basis that some ancient prophet said those people were evil, said state completely loses its right to rule. A government is supposed to protect its citizens, not actively kill or imprison them unjustly. When the state does such things, we have no obligation whatsoever to continue respecting its legal process; a government which uses its power to attack its own citizenry without just cause is an illegitimate government which deserves nothing but disrespect. The same principle applies to any government which actively deprives any segment of the population of equal treatment without any justification; a state which unjustly persecutes its citizens is an illegitimate state deserving of no respect.

As for your question, why we should even be equal, the answer should be self-evident; because we are tax-paying citizens who contribute to the nation and have done nothing to warrant our rights being denied. A much better question would be why should we be not be equal. These are the main justifications the religious lobby will answer that question with:

[insert illiterate man who died centuries ago here] said homosexuals are evil!
The gay agenda is plotting to destroy the west!
If we let the gayz marry, people are going to marry their horses!
Think about da children! The gayz will turn them into more gayz!

It's always, always, always either a ridiculous moral argument based on the moral teachings of long-gone eras of human history or a completely ludicrous conspiracy about how the "gay agenda" wants to destroy western civilization. There's never a rational reason. Of course, there have been atheist governments which have been hostile to homosexuals (the Soviet Union and Communist China come to mind); they didn't use any kind of rational justification, either. Mao wanted to outlaw homosexuality purely because it was legal under the Kuomintang government, and, therefore, he thought it was a symbol of capitalism and outlawed it just because he didn't like it. The Soviet Union under Stalin outlawed homosexuality most likely because he believed, falsely so, that imprisoning people for being homosexuals would lead to an increased birthrate and therefore strengthen his country; not only was that reasoning completely baseless, it was also hypocritical coming from someone who literally created mass-famines in his country (Ukraine specifically).

There's no rational reason why homosexuals should be deprived of equal rights; there's never been. So, why does there need to be a reason why we shouldn't be deprived of equal rights? Your next point is to claim that we don't contribute to population growth. First of all, there are tons of places in the world, including places in the West, where the population is way higher than it should be; population growth is outright detrimental in those locations. Penalizing people for not contributing to overpopulation is ridiculous. Beyond that, homosexuals can and do contribute to population growth via impregnating a surrogate mother in the case of male homosexuals or using a sperm donor to become pregnant in the case of female homosexuals. The idea that we can't produce children is simply false; it's true that we don't produce them as often as heterosexuals, but claiming that we can't do it at all is just not true. Beyond that, even if it were true that we couldn't produce children, there's quite a few homosexuals that would adopt orphan children if given the opportunity, and having a demographic of people who reduce the orphan population is good for society; it would ease the financial burden on orphanages and allow more children to have a proper upbringing, and that's a good thing. And, besides, what about other people who actually can't produce children? There's a fairly large number of infertile men and women who will never be able to produce kids; should they also be denied equal rights on these grounds?

Your next point is that we supposedly go around stirring people up to riot. First of all, there really aren't a whole lot of homosexual riots in America; most riots are performed by either Communists (Antifa) or anti-white radicals (Black Lives Matter). Are there homosexuals who participate in riots? Sure, but the vast majority of rioters are not homosexuals, and most homosexuals probably don't support them, so I don't really get what you're trying to establish with this point.

Finally, what we've done to deserve marriage. We've done the same things that heterosexuals have done to deserve marriage; absolutely fucking nothing. Nobody has ever done anything to earn marriage; it's never been a privilege that needs to be earned. Why do heterosexuals deserve marriage rights? What have they done to earn them? Nothing, beyond having more children on average, and if having children is the only merit required to get married in your eyes then infertile people (including women past a certain age, because all women eventually lose the ability to bear children) should be banned from getting married. Everybody is equally entitled to the right to get married, because it isn't a privilege for people to earn. Needlessly depriving people of marriage rights, or re-branding their marriages and calling them something else just because them getting married might offend somebody, is just absolutely pointless; it doesn't accomplish anything. All it serves to do is attempt to placate the religious people who hate us, and it wouldn't work; they would continue to lobby for further and further restrictions on our rights until homosexuality became illegal again. There's no point reasoning with zealots; they'll never even accept our existence. Most irreligious Christians and Jews in the west already support homosexual equality; we don't need to limit our own rights to compromise with them, because they already support full equality generally speaking.

You know maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive of people in those religions trying to reform them. Because maybe the reforming is, y'know, a good thing.

I have no idea why all these "conservative counter culture" internet pundits and their fans care so much about Gay Muslims.

[Grenartia]

I'd also point out that religious ministers perform marriages by the privilege to do so granted to them by the state via a marriage license.

It's this meddling of the state in church affairs that makes the opinions of the religious right even relevant in the matter- as far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason to drop the matter of state recognition of marriage altogether.

EDIT: dunno what happened to my response the first time

See, what you're doing here is throwing the baby out with the bath water over some misinformation.

First, at least in the US, no church can be forced by the state to conduct a wedding that violates its religious beliefs, for whatever reason. Yes, that means that any story you hear about some pastor in some church in some backwoods part of the asscrack of the South, being forced to marry two gay guys, is utter bullshit.

Second, if we get rid of state-recognized marriage, then how will all of the crucial rights relevant to marriage be guaranteed? How do we ensure a couple has hospital visitation rights, next of kin status, survivorship benefits, etc., without state recognition of marriages?

[Salus Maior]

Despite this weird thing about Jews he seems to have, he's not wrong about the church.

The Traditional position really is to put Gays to death

The Medieval position was that, yes. Under sodomy laws.

However, the sodomy charge was only for the act of homosexual sex. Not merely for being born with a specific orientation which was something they did not know about back then (regardless, I am not in support of any such laws under any circumstance).

It's not the Church's position to condemn people for being born a specific way (and I don't believe there was ever such a position knowingly), and with new knowledge this comes with sexual orientation. Which is also likely part of the reason why the Church position has seemed to soften.

[El Hamidah]

However, the sodomy charge was only for the act of homosexual sex. Not merely for being born with a specific orientation which was something they did not know about back then (regardless, I am not in support of any such laws under any circumstance).

Yeah I know the argument.

It really doesn't change much.

[Liencia]

>Is a Christian
>Is a gay
>Is a denomination where my pastor would marry me to my same-sex partner if I asked

Oops

First of all, I'm considered an apostate by most of the Christians here (or a heretic, or a Satanist, or a pagan, depending on who you ask; very uncommonly does anyone say that I am a Christian), I'm a vehement opponent of most sects of Christianity (and most religion in general, for that matter), and the theological beliefs I endorse are believed only by a very small minority of Christians. Second of all, I said the religious authorities tend to actively oppose homosexuality, which is completely true, especially in Islam which almost universally has violent opposition to homosexuality. Third, the specific demographic in question was the "religious right" in the west who are openly supportive of theocratic laws and almost absolutely always oppose homosexuality.

I have not contradicted myself. If you disagree with what I said, how about you actually write a real rebuttal to it?

That takes quite a stretch of the imagination to claim genocide against homosexuals has basis in Christianity or Islam- Judaism, yes. That being said, yes I am fully aware of the genocide which is taking place across the world, with members of these religious communities claiming scriptural justification for it, basis or no; these are not the ones who I would like to see concessions being made for, though I am of the view rule of law ought to be respected, and that changes be made on a reasonable basis. But, there's a big difference between a state promoting a genocide against any given group, and a state which enforces an unequal system of rules among its citizens- and why, pray tell, should we even be equal? We are not contributing to the growth of the state's population, we are forming a dead-end to our linage, thus reducing the impact our culture has on the world, and we're going about, stirring people up to riot over what ought to be the most private, intimate action a human can perform. What've we done to deserve marriage? Life, yes. The right to be open of our sexuality, yes. But the right to claim ourselves a unit as productive to the state as a married man and a woman? Some of us, maybe, but as a default, no. Civil unions fit us just fine; I personally feel the state ought not recognize any marriage whatsoever, only civil unions between any two members of society- that takes the religious equation out of it.

Christianity normally upholds the Jewish Tanakh, a book we all know states that homosexuals are abominations who must be killed, as being sacred and written by an all-powerful perfect creator. Yes, it's true that many mainstream schools of Christianity tend to believe there is no obligation to actually follow the laws of the Tanakh, but the scriptural commands are still there, whether the priesthood says they need to be followed or not, and a fairly significant number of Christians and Christian sects believe the Tanakh, including its laws about homosexuality, still must be obeyed. As for Islam, there's really no question about the Islamic stance on homosexuality; I can show you precisely where the Islamic sources specifically call for genocide.

Qu'ran Surah 27 verses 54-58

And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."

But the answer of his people was not except that they said, "Expel the family of Lot from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure."

So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be of those who remained behind.

And We rained upon them a rain [of stones], and evil was the rain of those who were warned.

So, what you read here, in Islam's most trusted source, is that the people of Lot were supposedly wicked sinners who Allah murdered with a rain of stones on the sole basis that they were attracted to men and not women. This verse alone clearly sets the precedent that Allah believes homosexuals deserve to be murdered, but this isn't the really important source on the subject; this is mostly just for context.

Sunan abu Dawud, Book Forty, Hadith 112

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
Abu Dawud said: A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Sulaiman b. Bilal from 'Amr b. Abi 'Umar. And 'Abbad b. Mansur transmitted it from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ). It has also been transmitted by Ibn Juraij from Ibrahim from Dawud b. Al-Husain from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ).

Anyone doing as Lot's people did (which is homosexuality, as the Qu'ran clearly stated in the verse above) is to be killed, according to Mohammad himself as stated in this Hasan-Sahih (very good authenticity, according to Islamic scholars) hadith. It doesn't get much clearer than that. The hadith directly following this one says something quite similar:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.
Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak

There's also a Shi'ite hadith (in Arabic; there aren't always English translations of hadiths) where Ali endorses the murder of homosexuals, so it isn't just the Sunni sources that support such practices. Read it if you'd like; it pretty clearly contradicts the narrative that there is no precedent for killing homosexuals in Islam.

[url]http://hadith.net/ar/post/3879/أقضية-رسول-الله-صلي-الله-عليه-و-آله-و-أحكامه/?n=634&q=عنقك-بالغة[/url]

So, yes, there absolutely is scriptural justification for anti-homosexual genocide in both Christianity and Islam; Islam more clearly so.

Your second point is that the rule of law ought to be respected. When the state perpetrates violence against its own citizens on the sole basis that some ancient prophet said those people were evil, said state completely loses its right to rule. A government is supposed to protect its citizens, not actively kill or imprison them unjustly. When the state does such things, we have no obligation whatsoever to continue respecting its legal process; a government which uses its power to attack its own citizenry without just cause is an illegitimate government which deserves nothing but disrespect. The same principle applies to any government which actively deprives any segment of the population of equal treatment without any justification; a state which unjustly persecutes its citizens is an illegitimate state deserving of no respect.

As for your question, why we should even be equal, the answer should be self-evident; because we are tax-paying citizens who contribute to the nation and have done nothing to warrant our rights being denied. A much better question would be why should we be not be equal. These are the main justifications the religious lobby will answer that question with:

[insert illiterate man who died centuries ago here] said homosexuals are evil!
The gay agenda is plotting to destroy the west!
If we let the gayz marry, people are going to marry their horses!
Think about da children! The gayz will turn them into more gayz!

It's always, always, always either a ridiculous moral argument based on the moral teachings of long-gone eras of human history or a completely ludicrous conspiracy about how the "gay agenda" wants to destroy western civilization. There's never a rational reason. Of course, there have been atheist governments which have been hostile to homosexuals (the Soviet Union and Communist China come to mind); they didn't use any kind of rational justification, either. Mao wanted to outlaw homosexuality purely because it was legal under the Kuomintang government, and, therefore, he thought it was a symbol of capitalism and outlawed it just because he didn't like it. The Soviet Union under Stalin outlawed homosexuality most likely because he believed, falsely so, that imprisoning people for being homosexuals would lead to an increased birthrate and therefore strengthen his country; not only was that reasoning completely baseless, it was also hypocritical coming from someone who literally created mass-famines in his country (Ukraine specifically).

There's no rational reason why homosexuals should be deprived of equal rights; there's never been. So, why does there need to be a reason why we shouldn't be deprived of equal rights? Your next point is to claim that we don't contribute to population growth. First of all, there are tons of places in the world, including places in the West, where the population is way higher than it should be; population growth is outright detrimental in those locations. Penalizing people for not contributing to overpopulation is ridiculous. Beyond that, homosexuals can and do contribute to population growth via impregnating a surrogate mother in the case of male homosexuals or using a sperm donor to become pregnant in the case of female homosexuals. The idea that we can't produce children is simply false; it's true that we don't produce them as often as heterosexuals, but claiming that we can't do it at all is just not true. Beyond that, even if it were true that we couldn't produce children, there's quite a few homosexuals that would adopt orphan children if given the opportunity, and having a demographic of people who reduce the orphan population is good for society; it would ease the financial burden on orphanages and allow more children to have a proper upbringing, and that's a good thing. And, besides, what about other people who actually can't produce children? There's a fairly large number of infertile men and women who will never be able to produce kids; should they also be denied equal rights on these grounds?

Your next point is that we supposedly go around stirring people up to riot. First of all, there really aren't a whole lot of homosexual riots in America; most riots are performed by either Communists (Antifa) or anti-white radicals (Black Lives Matter). Are there homosexuals who participate in riots? Sure, but the vast majority of rioters are not homosexuals, and most homosexuals probably don't support them, so I don't really get what you're trying to establish with this point.

Finally, what we've done to deserve marriage. We've done the same things that heterosexuals have done to deserve marriage; absolutely fucking nothing. Nobody has ever done anything to earn marriage; it's never been a privilege that needs to be earned. Why do heterosexuals deserve marriage rights? What have they done to earn them? Nothing, beyond having more children on average, and if having children is the only merit required to get married in your eyes then infertile people (including women past a certain age, because all women eventually lose the ability to bear children) should be banned from getting married. Everybody is equally entitled to the right to get married, because it isn't a privilege for people to earn. Needlessly depriving people of marriage rights, or re-branding their marriages and calling them something else just because them getting married might offend somebody, is just absolutely pointless; it doesn't accomplish anything. All it serves to do is attempt to placate the religious people who hate us, and it wouldn't work; they would continue to lobby for further and further restrictions on our rights until homosexuality became illegal again. There's no point reasoning with zealots; they'll never even accept our existence. Most irreligious Christians and Jews in the west already support homosexual equality; we don't need to limit our own rights to compromise with them, because they already support full equality generally speaking.

Hadiths aren't universally followed or trusted by muslims (I don't follow any hadiths myself). Not to mention in Abrahamic theology, Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed by Allah (swt) for being corrupt in generall, not for simply being gay. Many muslims, like myself, view homosexuality as a sin, but don't think you should be stoned for it. Just because Allah (swt) killed them, doesn't mean we're allowed to. It says nowhere in the Quran that we are permitted to kill homosexuals.

[Salus Maior]

It's this meddling of the state in church affairs that makes the opinions of the religious right even relevant in the matter- as far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason to drop the matter of state recognition of marriage altogether.

EDIT: dunno what happened to my response the first time

See, what you're doing here is throwing the baby out with the bath water over some misinformation.

First, at least in the US, no church can be forced by the state to conduct a wedding that violates its religious beliefs, for whatever reason. Yes, that means that any story you hear about some pastor in some church in some backwoods part of the asscrack of the South, being forced to marry two gay guys, is utter bullshit.

Second, if we get rid of state-recognized marriage, then how will all of the crucial rights relevant to marriage be guaranteed? How do we ensure a couple has hospital visitation rights, next of kin status, survivorship benefits, etc., without state recognition of marriages?

Tbh, I think things like hospital visitation should be revised to allow non-spouses to visit. There are a number of longterm couples who are not married, or perhaps say a single asexual person wants a close friend to be allowed visitation etc.

[Salus Maior]

However, the sodomy charge was only for the act of homosexual sex. Not merely for being born with a specific orientation which was something they did not know about back then (regardless, I am not in support of any such laws under any circumstance).

Yeah I know the argument.

It really doesn't change much.

I know it doesn't in the end. But knowing the distinction between orientation and act helps explain the Church's position today.

[El Hamidah]

Seriously how does killing someone because they had sex with another man make it any better than just killing someone who says they're gay? It's the same thing.

[El Hamidah]

Yeah I know the argument.

It really doesn't change much.

I know it doesn't in the end. But knowing the distinction between orientation and act helps explain the Church's position today.

Oh. Well, yeah.

I mean, I don't like that the whole of being Gay or Bi is narrowed down to sex exclusively, but I really don't think the sexual acts are anything the Church needs to worry about. It's not a very important issue religiously or morally.

[Liencia]

Seriously how does killing someone because they had sex with another man make it any better than just killing someone who says they're gay? It's the same thing.

It's similar to pedophilia, you get arrested for endulging in the act, not for having the attraction.

And no, I don't view pedos and homosexuals as the samething, it's just an analogy.