LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[United Marxist Nations]

That is how every traditional body, including rabbinical teachers, claim it means (not anal sex, but homosexual activity). That is a solid consensus, and that is generally what is needed in the humanities.

Oh, shocker, traditionalists and general homophobic/transphobic people who are against LGBT Rights agree on something that, if religious law were enacted, would oppress LGBT people.

WHAT BIG SURPRISE.

The reason they are against LGBT rights is because they agree on the meaning of it, as the traditional Abrahamic condemnation of homosexual activity.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Oh, shocker, traditionalists and general homophobic/transphobic people who are against LGBT Rights agree on something that, if religious law were enacted, would oppress LGBT people.

WHAT BIG SURPRISE.

The reason they are against LGBT rights is because they agree on the meaning of it, as the traditional Abrahamic condemnation of homosexual activity.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the original attitude at ulterior motives? Oh, wait, thats right "muh church infallibility"

[United Marxist Nations]

The reason they are against LGBT rights is because they agree on the meaning of it, as the traditional Abrahamic condemnation of homosexual activity.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the original attitude at ulterior motives? Oh, wait, thats right "muh church infallibility"

How were the motives ulterior, and, even if they were, that doesn't make the motives wrong.

[RichardOfficial1]

I approve of LGBT rights, they should have the rights and freedoms as any heterosexual.

[Noraika]

Hello! I was thinking about something controversial recently, and I just decided to ask you guys about something religious, because Sexual and Gender rights generally face the most criticism from the religious section of the world.


So, firstly, I have to wonder, do you guys and grils feel that LGBT rights should be split up? I've heard several LBGT people say this before, as they feel that sexual rights are not equatable to the issues of gender rights?

My next question is "does dysphoria have to exist for you to be transgender"?

And finally, how do you feel about the religious community's relatively peaceful acceptance (with a few exceptions) of gays and the disavowment of Transgender people? (Specifically in the Occident), for example, Pope Francis has said that it can be alright to be gay (it is not sin so long as it is not acted upon), but Transgenders are "the annihilation of man".

To answer the other three questions:

1) No LGBT+ should not split up at all. Aside from facing much of the same variety and type of oppression and harassment, violence, and discrimination as each side, it is also not a move which is either just or fair, and this is supported by the most prominent official organizations.

"For decades, transgender people have worked alongside lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to advance equality for everyone, often leading the way in the movement for full equality and acceptance. Many trans people are also lesbian, gay, and bisexual — they are an inextricable and invaluable part of the LGB community. At a time when anti-LGBT activists continue to attack the basic rights and protections essential to all of our lives, we must stand together, rather than succumb to the ruin of divisiveness." - GLAAD president Sarach Kate Ellis

"This is unequivocally wrong. The hate that killed Matthew Shepard killed Zella Ziona. The bullies at school aren't just harassing the gay kids, they're harassing the transgender kids. The parents who could provide loving homes for the 400,000 children in foster care aren't only lesbian parents, or gay parents, they're bisexual parents and transgender parents. This idea that we are somehow separate and apart is patently untrue. We are one movement, stronger in our unity. We are one community, period. And the Human Rights Campaign will not be done working until equality reaches every single one of us."
-Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffen

[1] - both quotes

Add to that that there are several thousands off transgender people who are also LGB+ in some other fashion, in the United States alone, and you can find that Transgender people should not be removed from LGBT.

In addition to this, and to be perfectly blunt, most of the arguments I have seen regarding separating TQ from the LGB+ movement is based in transphobic reasoning, and non-acceptance or support of transgender people, as well as often a disdain for transgender movement and recognition of gender identity. I'm open to seeing arguments outside of this, but that is what I've seen consistently as the norm.

2) Dysphoria is a typical and common aspect of being transgender, but it is not a requirement. To put it another way, not all transgender people that can be diagnosed experience dysphoria, but dysphoria is a very big sign that someone may be transgender. Hope that makes sense.

3) The transgender community, and transgender people, are essentially in the same grouping as the rest of the LGB+ were 15 years ago, in that they've become known to the public, but have not been fully accepted by the public, or obtained much progress in the way of equal rights yet. Hopefully in less time than it was for LGB+ people transgender people can, too, start making strides towards equality and acceptance in society.

[The V O I D]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the original attitude at ulterior motives? Oh, wait, thats right "muh church infallibility"

How were the motives ulterior, and, even if they were, that doesn't make the motives wrong.

The motives at the time were to give people justification for the collective discrimination, slaughter and torture of those who were of the LGBT Community.

That isn't wrong, though, according to you.

[PaNTuXIa]

Oh, shocker, traditionalists and general homophobic/transphobic people who are against LGBT Rights agree on something that, if religious law were enacted, would oppress LGBT people.

WHAT BIG SURPRISE.

The reason they are against LGBT rights is because they agree on the meaning of it, as the traditional Abrahamic condemnation of homosexual activity.

So you follow Abrahamic laws?

[Vassenor]

Why does this have to keep devolving into people trying to force us to conform to their religious morals?

[The V O I D]

Why does this have to keep devolving into people trying to force us to conform to their religious morals?

Two reasons: 1. most anti-LGBT activists are religious zealots, semi-fundamentalists and those who believe the US is a christian nation (which it is not).

2. those who aren't the above, are usually just neo-nazis or hateful bigots who want to go back to the good ol' days of LGBT Genocide and super-discrimination.

[PaNTuXIa]

Why does this have to keep devolving into people trying to force us to conform to their religious morals?

Because we're all filthy degenerate scum that need to listen to their collection of scrolls written by old guys in the desert.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Why does this have to keep devolving into people trying to force us to conform to their religious morals?

Because a reasoned argument against LGBT rights is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Easier to start from an unprovable premise and bang on about morality.

[United Marxist Nations]

Why does this have to keep devolving into people trying to force us to conform to their religious morals?

Because a reasoned argument against LGBT rights is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Easier to start from an unprovable premise and bang on about morality.

It's not necessary to be reasonable, because rights themselves unreasonable. If you have an opinion, there's no reason to abandon it because of an absurd premise of "rights".

[The V O I D]

Because a reasoned argument against LGBT rights is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Easier to start from an unprovable premise and bang on about morality.

It's not necessary to be reasonable, because rights themselves unreasonable. If you have an opinion, there's no reason to abandon it because of an absurd premise of "rights".

Rights are perfectly reasonable. If you had no rights, you could own no property, could do nothing but be a slave to whoever or whatever entity owns you, etc.

Rights are reasonable. Religion is not. Since there can be no compromise, we must go with the reasonable option.

Also, it is 100% necessary to be reasonable. If you won't reason and actually give valid logic aside from "my pwecious gawd feefees" or "muh rewigion" or "muh maoraulitee!", then you have no argument to start with.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Because a reasoned argument against LGBT rights is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Easier to start from an unprovable premise and bang on about morality.

It's not necessary to be reasonable, because rights themselves unreasonable. If you have an opinion, there's no reason to abandon it because of an absurd premise of "rights".

What? Are you really going to open by conceding that you are being unreasonable?
What is so unreasonable about the concept of rights? They're a vital part of (one might even say the basic foundation of) a functioning society.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's not necessary to be reasonable, because rights themselves unreasonable. If you have an opinion, there's no reason to abandon it because of an absurd premise of "rights".

Rights are perfectly reasonable. If you had no rights, you could own no property, could do nothing but be a slave to whoever or whatever entity owns you, etc.

Rights are reasonable. Religion is not. Since there can be no compromise, we must go with the reasonable option.

Also, it is 100% necessary to be reasonable. If you won't reason and actually give valid logic aside from "my pwecious gawd feefees" or "muh rewigion" or "muh maoraulitee!", then you have no argument to start with.

None of what you said makes rights reasonable. They are a spook, just like property. They do not exist metaphysically, but only as a social contract.

Why must we go with the "reasonable option"?

[United Marxist Nations]

It's not necessary to be reasonable, because rights themselves unreasonable. If you have an opinion, there's no reason to abandon it because of an absurd premise of "rights".

What? Are you really going to open by conceding that you are being unreasonable?
What is so unreasonable about the concept of rights? They're a vital part of (one might even say the basic foundation of) a functioning society.

There have been plenty of societies that have functioned just fine without the idea of human rights.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

How many times does UMN come and argue a week?

[United Marxist Nations]

How many times does this happen a week.

Depends if someone makes a post that grabs my attention. Usually doesn't happen too often because I'm mostly inactive ITT.

[The V O I D]

Rights are perfectly reasonable. If you had no rights, you could own no property, could do nothing but be a slave to whoever or whatever entity owns you, etc.

Rights are reasonable. Religion is not. Since there can be no compromise, we must go with the reasonable option.

Also, it is 100% necessary to be reasonable. If you won't reason and actually give valid logic aside from "my pwecious gawd feefees" or "muh rewigion" or "muh maoraulitee!", then you have no argument to start with.

None of what you said makes rights reasonable. They are a spook, just like property. They do not exist metaphysically, but only as a social contract.

Why must we go with the "reasonable option"?

No one gives a flying duck about the metaphysical except for you and your supposed 'god' (who can't be proven existent anyway), which has a lot of disagreement among the faith overall (due to variable churches, interpretations, etc). The rest of what you said about it is irrelevant; they exist because of a social contract, sure, but it is a general consensus and agreed upon by much of the world.

Uh, I dunno, because going with the unreasonable option makes you insane?

[The V O I D]

What? Are you really going to open by conceding that you are being unreasonable?
What is so unreasonable about the concept of rights? They're a vital part of (one might even say the basic foundation of) a functioning society.

There have been plenty of societies that have functioned just fine without the idea of human rights.

Sure, if you ignore the genocide, slaughtering of dissidents, hate, discrimination and general evils that occurred and were state-sanctioned against people for no good reason.

[United Marxist Nations]

None of what you said makes rights reasonable. They are a spook, just like property. They do not exist metaphysically, but only as a social contract.

Why must we go with the "reasonable option"?

No one gives a flying duck about the metaphysical except for you and your supposed 'god' (who can't be proven existent anyway), which has a lot of disagreement among the faith overall (due to variable churches, interpretations, etc). The rest of what you said about it is irrelevant; they exist because of a social contract, sure, but it is a general consensus and agreed upon by much of the world.

Uh, I dunno, because going with the unreasonable option makes you insane?

There are those that disagree with rights.

Let me ask you a question, would it be immoral if I acted on my intense hatred of the promiscuous and firebombed a nightclub? I would say so, but, why? Where does this morality come from? The metaphysical is the only reasonable answer for an objective morality, otherwise, there is no reason not to carry out every impulse in your mind, except for the repercussions made by the dictatorship of men.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What? Are you really going to open by conceding that you are being unreasonable?
What is so unreasonable about the concept of rights? They're a vital part of (one might even say the basic foundation of) a functioning society.

There have been plenty of societies that have functioned just fine without the idea of human rights.

Go on. But first put those goalposts back where you found them, since I notice you've gone from "rights" to "human rights", which makes me suspect you're going to start pointing at any society that didn't have a bill of rights or UDHR style document codified in law, rather than societies that actually had no concept of things like property rights and the right to life.

[PaNTuXIa]

What? Are you really going to open by conceding that you are being unreasonable?
What is so unreasonable about the concept of rights? They're a vital part of (one might even say the basic foundation of) a functioning society.

There have been plenty of societies that have functioned just fine without the idea of human rights.

Ah yes, like Stainist Russia.

[The V O I D]

No one gives a flying duck about the metaphysical except for you and your supposed 'god' (who can't be proven existent anyway), which has a lot of disagreement among the faith overall (due to variable churches, interpretations, etc). The rest of what you said about it is irrelevant; they exist because of a social contract, sure, but it is a general consensus and agreed upon by much of the world.

Uh, I dunno, because going with the unreasonable option makes you insane?

There are those that disagree with rights.

Let me ask you a question, would it be immoral if I acted on my intense hatred of the promiscuous and firebombed a nightclub? I would say so, but, why? Where does this morality come from? The metaphysical is the only reasonable answer for an objective morality, otherwise, there is no reason not to carry out every impulse in your mind, except for the repercussions made by the dictatorship of men.

Those who disagree with human rights are usually dictators, insane, overzealous, or neo-nazis.

I would say to answer you: it is immoral because it involves killing citizens/members of society, as well as likely innocent people, which is immoral because that interrupts their given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing metaphysical about it. It is harming society, it is harming/killing people, and it interrupts people's rights. That's where the morality comes from. It is subjective on a case by case basis, based upon what rights are violated and such. There is no objective morality, and there is no 'metaphysical' nature to concern you.

[United Marxist Nations]

There have been plenty of societies that have functioned just fine without the idea of human rights.

Go on. But first put those goalposts back where you found them, since I notice you've gone from "rights" to "human rights", which makes me suspect you're going to start pointing at any society that didn't have a bill of rights or UDHR style document codified in law, rather than societies that actually had no concept of things like property rights and the right to life.

North Korea, Hoxhaist Albania, and a few others would be good examples, but I intended to mean human rights from the beginning, since LGBT rights are considered more under that idea. My mistake.