LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Lady Scylla]

Then, perhaps, you should make a thread on the subject.

I don't feel strongly enough on homosexuality to do that.

Yet, apparently enough to be a general nuisance.

[Elepis]

and I would say that is a very good thing, why does it matter in the 21st century what a minority of people though in the 1st century?

Oh I never said it wasn't a good thing. I actually would be the first to say that it is a good thing.

I thought as much, it was just a question to the room (or internet) than you

[United Marxist Nations]

If I were to go into too much depth, it would hijack the topic a little bit, but I will elaborate a bit more.

The reasons I think homosexual activity are wrong are:

1) This is the primary reason: it is spiritually harmful, in that it alienates one from divinity, and thus will cause exposure to divinity to result in great harm.
2) I believe that marriage is strictly between a male and female, and that any and all sexual activity outside of marriage are wrong for the reasons specified earlier.
3) It is an activity purely for creating physical pleasure, it serves no higher purpose except debauchery. That is to say, it is selfish and decadent.

1) I don't know, when I'm with a guy and he bangs me against the headboard, its usually hard enough where I can see God. In that moment, I'm very close to divinity.
2) Your opinion on that does not mean that everyone else needs to live by that opinion. Next.
3) Sexual intercourse involves pleasure, yes, but it also can be an indicator of intimacy and love, which I think would hardly make it selfish and decadent. Also, your argument can be used for heterosexual sexual intercourse in which the participants use protection. Tell me, is that selfish and decadent too? Must we live like monks and nuns?

1) I'd like to ask you not to get very explicit, and please don't insult God in that way.
2) Well, I think the opinion is correct, so of course I think everyone should live by it. I accept, in this day and age, that most people don't share my opinion, though, so I don't have much hope.
3) The intimacy is a good argument, and one that I considered putting as an exception in my original post, and I'm glad you pointed it out. My main reservation on this front, is twofold: 1) if we accept one demographic to have sex outside of marriage, then it would encourage other people to, and 2) the LGBT movement has often used excessive debauchery as an image (see Pride Parades).

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1) I don't know, when I'm with a guy and he bangs me against the headboard, its usually hard enough where I can see God. In that moment, I'm very close to divinity.
2) Your opinion on that does not mean that everyone else needs to live by that opinion. Next.
3) Sexual intercourse involves pleasure, yes, but it also can be an indicator of intimacy and love, which I think would hardly make it selfish and decadent. Also, your argument can be used for heterosexual sexual intercourse in which the participants use protection. Tell me, is that selfish and decadent too? Must we live like monks and nuns?

1) I'd like to ask you not to get very explicit, and please don't insult God in that way.
2) Well, I think the opinion is correct, so of course I think everyone should live by it. I accept, in this day and age, that most people don't share my opinion, though, so I don't have much hope.
3) The intimacy is a good argument, and one that I considered putting as an exception in my original post, and I'm glad you pointed it out. My main reservation on this front, is twofold: 1) if we accept one demographic to have sex outside of marriage, then it would encourage other people to, and 2) the LGBT movement has often used excessive debauchery as an image (see Pride Parades).

For an omnipotent being, God seems awfully sensitive.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) I'd like to ask you not to get very explicit, and please don't insult God in that way.
2) Well, I think the opinion is correct, so of course I think everyone should live by it. I accept, in this day and age, that most people don't share my opinion, though, so I don't have much hope.
3) The intimacy is a good argument, and one that I considered putting as an exception in my original post, and I'm glad you pointed it out. My main reservation on this front, is twofold: 1) if we accept one demographic to have sex outside of marriage, then it would encourage other people to, and 2) the LGBT movement has often used excessive debauchery as an image (see Pride Parades).

For an omnipotent being, God seems awfully sensitive.

Wouldn't an omnipotent be sensitive? If one is omnipotent, then they can care about everything at once.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

For an omnipotent being, God seems awfully sensitive.

Wouldn't an omnipotent be sensitive? If one is omnipotent, then they can care about everything at once.

But you'd think he'd be above having his feelings hurt by someone making an offhand remark on the internet.

[Lady Scylla]

Wouldn't an omnipotent be sensitive? If one is omnipotent, then they can care about everything at once.

But you'd think he'd be above having his feelings hurt by someone making an offhand remark on the internet.

On the otherhand, maybe transcending the planes of existence needs a degree of psychopathy.

[United Marxist Nations]

Wouldn't an omnipotent be sensitive? If one is omnipotent, then they can care about everything at once.

But you'd think he'd be above having his feelings hurt by someone making an offhand remark on the internet.

Why? I've never understood people who think an omnipotent being is above something. That seems to imply that there is a limited amount that said being can care about.

That said, we are getting off topic, which is precisely why I was worried about talking about my reasons in a more in-depth way.

[The V O I D]

For an omnipotent being, God seems awfully sensitive.

Wouldn't an omnipotent be sensitive? If one is omnipotent, then they can care about everything at once.

If "God" is omnipotent, he can't be all-loving or all-compassionate or all-good. In fact, from reading some passages of the bible, I'm inclined to agree with Richard Dawkins.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
- Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion.

[Quokkastan]

Q: Why is homosexuality wrong?
A: God said so

Q: Why?
A: He doesn't like it.

Q: Why should I care what God does and does not like?
A: He'll punish you otherwise.

Conclusion: Screw you God. I'll see you in fucking court.

You've got it all wrong. He doesn't hate homosexuality. He just finds it very... distracting. It makes it hard for him to focus on his normal job of answering prayers and stopping hurricanes.

Don't believe me? Read the Bible. Just one foot rub and he totally let Judas get away with murder.

[Nature-Spirits]

I'd like to table a new topic for discussion: "heterosexual activity" is immoral, something I will endlessly assert without evidence or reasoning. All heterosexuals should be pressured by society to repress their desires, and it should be an offence to suggest otherwise.

I agree. Of course, it's not that we have anything against heterosexuals; they just shouldn't engage in their activities.

Then why do you even come into this thread? We reason, you don't; you just whine that "it's bad, it's bad, it's bad", and when asked to back that up you just ignore the question.s

You all just disregard my reasoning for why it is bad, because you don't accept the premises. I come to the thread to provide a voice of dissent every once in a while, but it typically spirals out of control.

How about I come into the Christian thread to "provide a voice of dissent"? I can just keep making posts about how Christians shouldn't practise their faith, because I don't like it.

1) I don't know, when I'm with a guy and he bangs me against the headboard, its usually hard enough where I can see God. In that moment, I'm very close to divinity.
2) Your opinion on that does not mean that everyone else needs to live by that opinion. Next.
3) Sexual intercourse involves pleasure, yes, but it also can be an indicator of intimacy and love, which I think would hardly make it selfish and decadent. Also, your argument can be used for heterosexual sexual intercourse in which the participants use protection. Tell me, is that selfish and decadent too? Must we live like monks and nuns?

1) I'd like to ask you not to get very explicit, and please don't insult God in that way.
2) Well, I think the opinion is correct, so of course I think everyone should live by it. I accept, in this day and age, that most people don't share my opinion, though, so I don't have much hope.
3) The intimacy is a good argument, and one that I considered putting as an exception in my original post, and I'm glad you pointed it out. My main reservation on this front, is twofold: 1) if we accept one demographic to have sex outside of marriage, then it would encourage other people to, and 2) the LGBT movement has often used excessive debauchery as an image (see Pride Parades).

1) Please don't insult us in that way, then.
2) I don't think everyone should live by all of my opinions. I think that people should just do what they want to do, as long as it harms no one.
3) Oh, for heaven's sake. Most people have sex outside of marriage. It's not a big deal. And really, why does it matter if people engage in "debauchery", as long as they enjoy it and they're not hurting anyone? (And no, hurting your delicate feelings doesn't count as harm.)

[Noraika]

In terms of belief versus fact, there's a reason why argument by belief is a logical fallacy, and argument by fact isn't. Facts trump beliefs and that's how the world works. Doesn't matter if you believe something is true as hard and fervently as you possibly can, if factually it is false or contradicted than it is irrelevant what your own beliefs on the matter are. Now that this little reminder of proper debating has been established, let's continue.

I know its not necessarily a new topic, but what do you think are the odds that Christian sects will open up to transgender people any time soon? We've seen probably the most lax pope on homosexuality that I know of, but of course transgender identity and people with it are still a danger to society, and a scapegoat for the world's problems. How long will they keep this up despite the fact that the congregation increasingly has no issue, and even supports, by an overwhelming majority, transgender people?

[Nature-Spirits]

I know its not necessarily a new topic, but what do you think are the odds that Christian sects will open up to transgender people any time soon? We've seen probably the most lax pope on homosexuality that I know of, but of course transgender identity and people with it are still a danger to society, and a scapegoat for the world's problems. How long will they keep this up despite the fact that the congregation increasingly has no issue, and even supports, by an overwhelming majority, transgender people?

Interestingly, the United church in my hometown has a trans minister. I've never had the pleasure of meeting her in person, but we have mutual friends and I've heard her speak.

[United Marxist Nations]

In terms of belief versus fact, there's a reason why argument by belief is a logical fallacy, and argument by fact isn't. Facts trump beliefs and that's how the world works. Doesn't matter if you believe something is true as hard and fervently as you possibly can, if factually it is false or contradicted than it is irrelevant what your own beliefs on the matter are. Now that this little reminder of proper debating has been established, let's continue.

I know its not necessarily a new topic, but what do you think are the odds that Christian sects will open up to transgender people any time soon? We've seen probably the most lax pope on homosexuality that I know of, but of course transgender identity and people with it are still a danger to society, and a scapegoat for the world's problems. How long will they keep this up despite the fact that the congregation increasingly has no issue, and even supports, by an overwhelming majority, transgender people?

I think it is pretty unlikely the Orthodox or Catholic Churches will change their policy on transgender persons. We Orthodox especially don't have to worry about it because the majority of our brothers aren't American. We historically haven't let interest groups change our doctrine.

[Grenartia]

why I wonder? They are a modern country (at least the west)

Because Russia doesn't like the west, and seeks all sorts of ways to be different from it. Being accepting of homosexuality is a symbol of the decadence of the west to many people around the world.

What's bad about "decadence"?

[Nature-Spirits]

Because Russia doesn't like the west, and seeks all sorts of ways to be different from it. Being accepting of homosexuality is a symbol of the decadence of the west to many people around the world.

What's bad about "decadence"?

I guess you can only be gay if you're a bourgie who doesn't have to worry about surviving day-to-day.

Which is stupid, because LGBT+ people in the West have higher rates of poverty and homelessness than cishets, but there you go.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What's bad about "decadence"?

I guess you can only be gay if you're a bourgie who doesn't have to worry about surviving day-to-day.

Which is stupid, because LGBT+ people in the West have higher rates of poverty and homelessness than cishets, but there you go.

Some people might suggest that ornate, lavishly decorated churches are an example of decadence. Those people are idiots. Real decadence is touching someone else's genitals with their consent.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I guess you can only be gay if you're a bourgie who doesn't have to worry about surviving day-to-day.

Which is stupid, because LGBT+ people in the West have higher rates of poverty and homelessness than cishets, but there you go.

Some people might suggest that ornate, lavishly decorated churches are an example of decadence. Those people are idiots. Real decadence is touching someone else's genitals with their consent.

You can only have true wealth if you have copious amounts of sex in ways that make preachers sob in their studies.

[Noraika]

I know its not necessarily a new topic, but what do you think are the odds that Christian sects will open up to transgender people any time soon? We've seen probably the most lax pope on homosexuality that I know of, but of course transgender identity and people with it are still a danger to society, and a scapegoat for the world's problems. How long will they keep this up despite the fact that the congregation increasingly has no issue, and even supports, by an overwhelming majority, transgender people?

Interestingly, the United church in my hometown has a trans minister. I've never had the pleasure of meeting her in person, but we have mutual friends and I've heard her speak.

That's great! Really happy for her! Its great to see not only a woman in the clergy, but also an LGBT+ woman to boot!
I was referring to the more mainstream sects of Christianity however, and particularly Catholicism, but its great to hear that progress and celebration of all of human diversity, is being celebrated in some sects.

[Tara Taranilor Romani]

wut

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Interestingly, the United church in my hometown has a trans minister. I've never had the pleasure of meeting her in person, but we have mutual friends and I've heard her speak.

That's great! Really happy for her! Its great to see not only a woman in the clergy, but also an LGBT+ woman to boot!
I was referring to the more mainstream sects of Christianity however, and particularly Catholicism, but its great to hear that progress and celebration of all of human diversity, is being celebrated in some sects.

What exactly has the Catholicism done, I am curious, I myself am a Catholic I just don't keep up to date with what they do.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Say NO to demonic homosexuality.

My friend, you have started a shit storm.

[Vassenor]

Say NO to demonic homosexuality.

Say NO to religious totalitarianism.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It doesn't help that your arguments seem to be generally lazy and half-assed with little, if any, depth. It comes off as sniping, with an intent of ruffling feathers and getting a reaction out of people, instead of actually adding anything productive to the discussion. So, I'm not all that surprised that you're met with hostility, to be frank.

If I were to go into too much depth, it would hijack the topic a little bit, but I will elaborate a bit more.

The reasons I think homosexual activity are wrong are:

1) This is the primary reason: it is spiritually harmful, in that it alienates one from divinity, and thus will cause exposure to divinity to result in great harm.
2) I believe that marriage is strictly between a male and female, and that any and all sexual activity outside of marriage are wrong for the reasons specified earlier.
3) It is an activity purely for creating physical pleasure, it serves no higher purpose except debauchery. That is to say, it is selfish and decadent.

The reasons that I think that homosexual activity isn't inherently wrong are:

1) This is the primary reason: Between two people who are attracted to the same sex, who are in a consensual relationship, and who treat each other with respect and love, it can be an opportunity to experience one of God's greatest gifts.

2) I believe that marriage is between any two people of the age of consent who honestly love each other, and show the maturity necessary to build a committed and loving relationship, and that sexual activity outside of marriage is fine so long as it is being approached maturely, sanely, and (as always) is between two individuals mature enough to give informed consent.

3) It is an activity not just for physical pleasure, but for expressing love and affection, and for growing closer, at least ideally. It serves the purpose of forming a personal bond. As Victor Hugo put it, "To love another person is to see the face of God".

[Jochizyd Republic]

Some people might suggest that ornate, lavishly decorated churches are an example of decadence. Those people are idiots. Real decadence is touching someone else's genitals with their consent.

You can only have true wealth if you have copious amounts of sex in ways that make preachers sob in their studies.

My face is in a knot.