Religion and LGBT Issues

[United Marxist Nations]

Why does their opinion matter? There are clearly other people who want them to be murdered or robbed.

Do they want to be murdered or robbed?

Why does that matter?

[Genivaria]

Not sure how you think you know that.

But what makes murder and theft bad? The fact that people don't want to be murdered or robbed I'd say.

Your ultimate defense is "feelings", thank you for answering honestly. That is what is ultimately what it boils down to. No different than the religious types here. "Secular" ethics are just as much a meme as the religious ones.

Not sure how that's what you read.

[Genivaria]

Do they want to be murdered or robbed?

Why does that matter?

Can you answer the question?

[The East Marches]

Your ultimate defense is "feelings", thank you for answering honestly. That is what is ultimately what it boils down to. No different than the religious types here. "Secular" ethics are just as much a meme as the religious ones.

Not sure how that's what you read.

"The fact that people don't want to be murdered or robbed"

Thats just a feeling my man. Its not any justification at all. Its like a Christian saying "it would violate my conscience". Thats all it is.

[United Marxist Nations]

Your ultimate defense is "feelings", thank you for answering honestly. That is what is ultimately what it boils down to. No different than the religious types here. "Secular" ethics are just as much a meme as the religious ones.

Not sure how that's what you read.

You said it is bad because of the feelings of the people being robbed and murdered.

[United Marxist Nations]

Why does that matter?

Can you answer the question?

Can you?

[Genivaria]

Not sure how that's what you read.

"The fact that people don't want to be murdered or robbed"

Thats just a feeling my man. Its not any justification at all. Its like a Christian saying "it would violate my conscience". Thats all it is.

No that's survival. You're asserting that it's just a feeling, how exactly?

[Genivaria]

Can you answer the question?

Can you?

Is this the kind of dishonesty I should expect from you?
Answer the question please so we can move the point along.

[United Marxist Nations]

Can you?

Is this the kind of dishonesty I should expect from you?
Answer the question please so we can move the point along.

They probably don't want to be murdered or robbed.

I don't think that changes the morality of it, or why it should matter to the murderers and robbers.

[The East Marches]

"The fact that people don't want to be murdered or robbed"

Thats just a feeling my man. Its not any justification at all. Its like a Christian saying "it would violate my conscience". Thats all it is.

No that's survival. You're asserting that it's just a feeling, how exactly?

"they don't want to be murdered or robbed". Want is just a feeling. Why does what somebody wants matter? So what? Thats no argument for me not murder them and take their shit if I can do it without consequence.

[Genivaria]

Is this the kind of dishonesty I should expect from you?
Answer the question please so we can move the point along.

They probably don't want to be murdered or robbed.

I don't think that changes the morality of it, or why it should matter to the murderers and robbers.

Maybe I should've specified my question.
So the murderers and the robbers don't want to be robbed or murdered either?

[The Oan Isles]

I wonder why the individual who started this thread thought it would go down peacefully. *Pass the popcorn* Is this still about Religion and LGBT, 'cause I'm lost. *Munch, munch*

I don't even fucking know at this point.
Ah now I remember I asked UMN why we should care about the Church's view on LGBT issues and then he derailed the thread into subjective vs objective morality.
He still has yet to get to a relevant point.

Oh okay. I'll come back when it makes sense.

[The East Marches]

They probably don't want to be murdered or robbed.

I don't think that changes the morality of it, or why it should matter to the murderers and robbers.

Maybe I should've specified my question.
So the murderers and the robbers don't want to be robbed or murdered either?

They clearly don't care about the feelings of others otherwise they would not engage in such a career. Again, your only defense and entire justification for your moral code is just "feelings".

[United Marxist Nations]

They probably don't want to be murdered or robbed.

I don't think that changes the morality of it, or why it should matter to the murderers and robbers.

Maybe I should've specified my question.
So the murderers and the robbers don't want to be robbed or murdered either?

Probably not. But why does that matter? They are not the ones being robbed or murdered.

[Genivaria]

Maybe I should've specified my question.
So the murderers and the robbers don't want to be robbed or murdered either?

Probably not. But why does that matter? They are not the ones being robbed or murdered.

Not at that moment, but they are perpetuating a system that certainly increases that possibility.

[USS Monitor]

All LGBT should die because they make the universe a worse place.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[United Marxist Nations]

Probably not. But why does that matter? They are not the ones being robbed or murdered.

Not at that moment, but they are perpetuating a system that certainly increases that possibility.

So? That makes the argument, not that it's the want to not be hurt that makes it wrong, but the possibility of harm to yourself.

[United Marxist Nations]

-snip-

*** Warned for trolling ***

Thank you, though, if you may, could you mod-edit his comment from the thread?

[Grenartia]

1. Traditional Christianity says that the universe is finite, with a flat Earth is its center. Traditional Christianity is objectively wrong.

2. With no actual reason to think so.

3. That's all "anathema" really means in this context. It is a barrier to God, and, from what you've said in this thread, not one imposed by God on Himself. That means God is not omnipotent.

1) Not really.
2) Other than that He said it is bad.
3) Sin is not a barrier to God. What I mean when I say anathema is that it is the opposite of God. It is ungodly. That's why people who are sinful experience hellfire.

Book, chapter, and verse for your claim.

Claim that it is sex outside of marriage? That there is no such thing, bibilically, as same sex marriage:

4. "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Genesis 2:18).
5. " ... a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2: 24)

1. What a stunning and complete refutation of science!
2. But what reason does He have for saying its bad?
3. You're not using "anathema" correctly.
4. That's pretty damn gender-neutral right there.
5. Can be reasonably interpreted as describing the way things usually go, not the way they have to be.

Claim that it is sex outside of marriage? That there is no such thing, bibilically, as same sex marriage:

"Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Genesis 2:18).
" ... a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2: 24)

Seems you're only going by omission...because nothing here says same-sex marriage cannot exist.

You could easily interpret the former as simply Adam being alone and needing a companion, sex being irrelevant (considering "Man" is used both as a gender, and as a synonym for "humanity"), and the latter as a description of a heterosexual marriage.

Exactly.

Seems you're only going by omission...because nothing here says same-sex marriage cannot exist.

You could easily interpret the former as simply Adam being alone and needing a companion, sex being irrelevant (considering "Man" is used both as a gender, and as a synonym for "humanity"), and the latter as a description of a heterosexual marriage.

"I will make him a helper fit for him."

Then God created woman. 1. We see that man and woman are two parts of the same whole. 2. Not man and man, or vice-versa, man and woman. 3. There is never in scripture any homosexual marriage.

1. That's actually a pretty sexist assertion.
2. No, there is absolutely nothing saying that any pairing other than man and woman was excluded.
3. There's also no cars, no computers, no guns, no planes, etc. Does that mean that all of those things are sins, too?

Yes, it is open for interpretation. My personal belief is that Adam and Eve were not singular persons, but that Adam is plural for men, and Eve plural for women.

Doesn't that go against the Church? Furthermore, does this mean their plurality all took part in eating the fruit, and were all led astray by a serpent?

And really, that assertion is pretty blatantly sexist. That every woman ate the fruit, and then seduced every man into eating it, too.

Also, that interpretation doesn't really fit in with the whole part about Adam and Eve having Cain and Abel. I mean, did every Adam and Eve have 2 kids, and named them Cain and Abel, and then one killed the other?

Doesn't that go against the Church? Furthermore, does this mean their plurality all took part in eating the fruit, and were all led astray by a serpent?

The Church doesn't really have a formal belief on on these things. I think there is both literal and symbolic interpretation, and that these interpretations can compliment one-another.

I've always interpreted that story as basically, Adam and Eve were the first humans to evolve, and eating the fruit was how they gained sentience.

...and you've yet to provide evidence of God explicitly condemning same-sex marriage.

Earlier, you were arguing like a literalist, but now you're arguing that the text has implied meanings. Pick one.

Paul condemns the act.

I've already debunked that assertion. He's condemning temple prostitution.

This is a weird subject for me as a Christian. See, with most sin, the reason the said action is forbidden is pretty easy for me to understand. There's usually a fairly obvious negative effect that comes out of sin. You can't kill, because it's not okay for you to end someone else's life. It infringes on what most would consider an essential human right. You can't assault people, because it causes pain and again, infringes on what most people would consider a human right. Rape, same story. Theft, same story. And so on and so forth. But when it comes to homosexuality, it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. It doesn't harm anyone, except (maybe) the participants. To be frank, I don't know what makes it sinful, besides "the Bible tells me so." Now don't get me wrong, I take the Bible seriously. I've read the whole thing. But this one issue is beyond what I can understand. What makes homosexuality bad? I don't have an answer.

When it comes down to it though, even if I had an irrefutable answer to that question, I still would support LGBT rights, and here's the biggest reason why: It's not the government's job to uphold or promote Christian morality. It's that simple.

See, for one thing, obedience to the laws of Christianity means absolutely nothing if it isn't done voluntarily. There's no value there. Following God is about free will, and choosing your beliefs and lifestyle. Keeping a gay guy from getting married does not make him any holier or any more Christian. If anything, it makes him angry. Which brings me to my other point. Using government to force non-Christians to follow Christian rules is just going to irk them and make them hostile toward Christians, their church, their God, and especially their rules. As a Christian, that's the opposite of the effect I want to see.

And let's not forget, the most successful time of growth for the Church was during the time of the Roman Empire, which didn't pay any heed to Christian morality until Constantine. Romans 12:2 says not to conform to the patterns of the world. Many Christians are twisting that and trying to make the world conform to their ways, which is a losing battle and will never work (nor would I want it to).

So all this to say, give the LGBT community their civil rights, whether you morally agree or not. No one is forcing you to partake in them, and it's not harming anyone. That said, don't try to make those who morally disagree with homosexuality party to it. I don't understand why a gay couple would want a homophobe to officiate their wedding anyway, but don't force it. Honestly, if both sides would just let the other be, that would be wonderful. Pipe dream, I know.

Really, we don't need or want to force a homophobic preacher to officiate our weddings. The big issue is when it comes to government employees. People who need to handle the legal paperwork.

According to Paul yes.
Muhammad is also divinely inspired...according to Muhammad.

Not terribly relevant, but Paul never claimed that his writings were divinely inspired. He wrote that all Scripture is God breathed (or God-inspired, depending on the translation) but he didn't know at that time that his letters would later be included in said Scripture.

This. Pretty much the entire set of what writings were inspired and which were not were decided 3 centuries after Christ.

What exactly is "seriously sick" about consensual non-monogamous relationships?

1. That it's a disease that disrupts social order and 2. promotes decadence.

3. But I was talking about how Pedophiles and other sex offenders basically use the LGBT community as a safe place to hide like they apparently did with the catholic church. Except to a much greater degree, and it's being coddled.

1. Says who?
2. Why do so many people keep saying "decadence" like its a bad thing? And its always some vaguely-defined, nebulous concept.
3. Prove it. I want numbers, not anecdotes.

Not just us. Dolphins and some other primates get pleasure from sex. Also, bonobos.

Hello NS from 2009

God I feel old.

Same.

I think ppl are running out of 1. s-h-i-t to do. 2. More specifically Civil Rights activists in the West. Making issues larger than they actually are.

1. You know we can actually fucking cuss on this damn forum, right? Also, even if we couldn't, its not like putting dashes between each word would allow you to weasel your way out of it.

2. Please, by all means, elaborate. I want to be able to tell you how wrong you are without resorting to strawmen.

I think ppl are running out of s-h-i-t to do. More specifically Civil Rights activists in the West. Making issues larger than they actually are.

Injustice and inequality should be fought wherever it is found.

Indeed. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And inequality is a prime example of injustice.

1. Not necessarily.

2. As do I. I'm just more vocal about my defense of secularism than most.

3. You presume a lot about me. And my stances are defended by many theologians.

4. But it doesn't, and neither does the basic definition of transgender.

5. Deuteronomy, invalid because Christ has already fulfilled the Old Testament Law. 1 Corinthians, has no relevance to the topic.

1. Can you care to cite these theologians, and why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches disagree with them?

2. Christ fulfilled the law, but that does not imply he abolished it. He directly states the opposite in Matthew 5:17–18 ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"). 3. Corinthians is more indirect, but enforces gender roles and clothing differences between man and women. 4. Logically too, it makes no sense for crossdressing to somehow become okay to God after ordering people who did it stoned to death.

5. The vast majority of transgender people (outside the ones who are closeted or non-binary) wear the clothes of the opposite sex. That is literally the definition of crossdressing.

1. The guy who wrote this article, for one, and the people he references, for more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nich ... 07342.html As for why the Catholic and Orthodox disagree, that's because old misconceptions die hard, and the fact that this misconception dates back all the way to before the Great Schism. Invalidating the misconceptions would cast doubt on the legitimacy of both churches. Thus losing membership.

2. That "until all is accomplished" bit could easily refer to the Crucifixion and events preceding his ascension to heaven. After all, in Acts, we see a clear invalidation of the Jewish dietary laws.

3. Yeah, people back in biblical days were pretty damn sexist. But Paul's sexism doesn't necessarily translate to God mandating that trans people and crossdressers are sinning.

4. Source on the stoning bit? Also, it makes just as much sense on God abolishing the dietary laws.

5. No, the definition of crossdressing is wearing clothes associated with the opposite gender. There is a difference.

I didn't mean to say all homosexuals are pedophiles.

1: Just that it's common among them. For reasons often pertaining to it being something 2: sexually abused people sometimes use to manifest anti-social behavior. It would probably explain the 3: high infidelity rate and mental instability records among the promiscuous. 4: Which is apparently most of them at this point.

5: Which is too bad. I imagine it makes the well meaning among them look bad. I know how that is.

1: False. Most male child predators/pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relationships.

2: If you're parroting the old argument that gayness is a result of sexual abuse, that's also false

3: Provide a source for this, please.

4: This, too.

5: You've found a whole new level of condescension, which is admirable.

Indeed.

Ha! Because you say so?

Give literally one way in which morality can be objective without God.

Technically, morality that depends on God isn't objective, either.

Define 'objective'.

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

A definition which only reinforces what I just said.

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

"Ow, that hurts! Please don't do it!" doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me.

In this context, everything is arbitrary. But, what you said is pretty much the best way to go.

Seriously why does the Golden Rule have to be explained all over again so many times?

You realize the "Golden Rule" originated in Christianity and Judaism, right?

So you are practicing Christian morality. Albeit a very stripped down version.

Actually, it appears in all major cultures and religions, in some form or another. Only the label "Golden Rule" is Judeo-Christian. The secular/academic term is "Ethic of reciprocity".

First off the Golden Rule is not a 'religious principle', that's just a silly and demonstrably false assertion.
And yes it is based in the real world because it deals with the physical and not the supernatural and unprovable, simply asserting otherwise proves nothing.

Sure it does. If hurting you benefits me and has no adverse effect on societal stability, why not?

Harming somebody does have an adverse effect on society, however.

All LGBT should die.

When?

Also, what if I don't die? Should I see a doctor?

All LGBT should die because they make the universe a worse place.

Lying is bad, honey.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Not sure how you think you know that.

But what makes murder and theft bad? The fact that people don't want to be murdered or robbed I'd say.

Your ultimate defense is "feelings", thank you for answering honestly. That is what is ultimately what it boils down to. No different than the religious types here. "Secular" ethics are just as much a meme as the religious ones.

There is a difference. Secular ethics are a useful tool for building a functioning, harmonious society. No one is claiming that they are infallible or that they originate from some cosmic source of ultimate truth.

[Genivaria]

Not at that moment, but they are perpetuating a system that certainly increases that possibility.

So? That makes the argument, not that it's the want to not be hurt that makes it wrong, but the possibility of harm to yourself.

Yep. As I said before, Mutual Reciprocation.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"Ow, that hurts! Please don't do it!" doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me.

In this context, everything is arbitrary. But, what you said is pretty much the best way to go.

What the individual chooses to consent to may be arbitrary, but the principle of consent is not. We can define consent and apply it with reasonable consistency.

[Southerly Gentleman]

Your ultimate defense is "feelings", thank you for answering honestly. That is what is ultimately what it boils down to. No different than the religious types here. "Secular" ethics are just as much a meme as the religious ones.

There is a difference. Secular ethics are a useful tool for building a functioning, harmonious society. No one is claiming that they are infallible or that they originate from some cosmic source of ultimate truth.

what makes religious ethics any worse for that purpose? One reason scandinavia does so well is because of its so-called Protestant virtues

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Not really.
2) Other than that He said it is bad.
3) Sin is not a barrier to God. What I mean when I say anathema is that it is the opposite of God. It is ungodly. That's why people who are sinful experience hellfire.



Claim that it is sex outside of marriage? That there is no such thing, bibilically, as same sex marriage:

4. "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Genesis 2:18).
5. " ... a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2: 24)

1. What a stunning and complete refutation of science!
2. But what reason does He have for saying its bad?
3. You're not using "anathema" correctly.
4. That's pretty damn gender-neutral right there.
5. Can be reasonably interpreted as describing the way things usually go, not the way they have to be.

Seems you're only going by omission...because nothing here says same-sex marriage cannot exist.

You could easily interpret the former as simply Adam being alone and needing a companion, sex being irrelevant (considering "Man" is used both as a gender, and as a synonym for "humanity"), and the latter as a description of a heterosexual marriage.

Exactly.

"I will make him a helper fit for him."

Then God created woman. 1. We see that man and woman are two parts of the same whole. 2. Not man and man, or vice-versa, man and woman. 3. There is never in scripture any homosexual marriage.

1. That's actually a pretty sexist assertion.
2. No, there is absolutely nothing saying that any pairing other than man and woman was excluded.
3. There's also no cars, no computers, no guns, no planes, etc. Does that mean that all of those things are sins, too?

Doesn't that go against the Church? Furthermore, does this mean their plurality all took part in eating the fruit, and were all led astray by a serpent?

And really, that assertion is pretty blatantly sexist. That every woman ate the fruit, and then seduced every man into eating it, too.

Also, that interpretation doesn't really fit in with the whole part about Adam and Eve having Cain and Abel. I mean, did every Adam and Eve have 2 kids, and named them Cain and Abel, and then one killed the other?

The Church doesn't really have a formal belief on on these things. I think there is both literal and symbolic interpretation, and that these interpretations can compliment one-another.

I've always interpreted that story as basically, Adam and Eve were the first humans to evolve, and eating the fruit was how they gained sentience.

Paul condemns the act.

I've already debunked that assertion. He's condemning temple prostitution.

This is a weird subject for me as a Christian. See, with most sin, the reason the said action is forbidden is pretty easy for me to understand. There's usually a fairly obvious negative effect that comes out of sin. You can't kill, because it's not okay for you to end someone else's life. It infringes on what most would consider an essential human right. You can't assault people, because it causes pain and again, infringes on what most people would consider a human right. Rape, same story. Theft, same story. And so on and so forth. But when it comes to homosexuality, it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. It doesn't harm anyone, except (maybe) the participants. To be frank, I don't know what makes it sinful, besides "the Bible tells me so." Now don't get me wrong, I take the Bible seriously. I've read the whole thing. But this one issue is beyond what I can understand. What makes homosexuality bad? I don't have an answer.

When it comes down to it though, even if I had an irrefutable answer to that question, I still would support LGBT rights, and here's the biggest reason why: It's not the government's job to uphold or promote Christian morality. It's that simple.

See, for one thing, obedience to the laws of Christianity means absolutely nothing if it isn't done voluntarily. There's no value there. Following God is about free will, and choosing your beliefs and lifestyle. Keeping a gay guy from getting married does not make him any holier or any more Christian. If anything, it makes him angry. Which brings me to my other point. Using government to force non-Christians to follow Christian rules is just going to irk them and make them hostile toward Christians, their church, their God, and especially their rules. As a Christian, that's the opposite of the effect I want to see.

And let's not forget, the most successful time of growth for the Church was during the time of the Roman Empire, which didn't pay any heed to Christian morality until Constantine. Romans 12:2 says not to conform to the patterns of the world. Many Christians are twisting that and trying to make the world conform to their ways, which is a losing battle and will never work (nor would I want it to).

So all this to say, give the LGBT community their civil rights, whether you morally agree or not. No one is forcing you to partake in them, and it's not harming anyone. That said, don't try to make those who morally disagree with homosexuality party to it. I don't understand why a gay couple would want a homophobe to officiate their wedding anyway, but don't force it. Honestly, if both sides would just let the other be, that would be wonderful. Pipe dream, I know.

Really, we don't need or want to force a homophobic preacher to officiate our weddings. The big issue is when it comes to government employees. People who need to handle the legal paperwork.

Not terribly relevant, but Paul never claimed that his writings were divinely inspired. He wrote that all Scripture is God breathed (or God-inspired, depending on the translation) but he didn't know at that time that his letters would later be included in said Scripture.

This. Pretty much the entire set of what writings were inspired and which were not were decided 3 centuries after Christ.

1. That it's a disease that disrupts social order and 2. promotes decadence.

3. But I was talking about how Pedophiles and other sex offenders basically use the LGBT community as a safe place to hide like they apparently did with the catholic church. Except to a much greater degree, and it's being coddled.

1. Says who?
2. Why do so many people keep saying "decadence" like its a bad thing? And its always some vaguely-defined, nebulous concept.
3. Prove it. I want numbers, not anecdotes.

God I feel old.

Same.

I think ppl are running out of 1. s-h-i-t to do. 2. More specifically Civil Rights activists in the West. Making issues larger than they actually are.

1. You know we can actually fucking cuss on this damn forum, right? Also, even if we couldn't, its not like putting dashes between each word would allow you to weasel your way out of it.

2. Please, by all means, elaborate. I want to be able to tell you how wrong you are without resorting to strawmen.

Injustice and inequality should be fought wherever it is found.

Indeed. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And inequality is a prime example of injustice.

1. Can you care to cite these theologians, and why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches disagree with them?

2. Christ fulfilled the law, but that does not imply he abolished it. He directly states the opposite in Matthew 5:17–18 ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"). 3. Corinthians is more indirect, but enforces gender roles and clothing differences between man and women. 4. Logically too, it makes no sense for crossdressing to somehow become okay to God after ordering people who did it stoned to death.

5. The vast majority of transgender people (outside the ones who are closeted or non-binary) wear the clothes of the opposite sex. That is literally the definition of crossdressing.

1. The guy who wrote this article, for one, and the people he references, for more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nich ... 07342.html As for why the Catholic and Orthodox disagree, that's because old misconceptions die hard, and the fact that this misconception dates back all the way to before the Great Schism. Invalidating the misconceptions would cast doubt on the legitimacy of both churches. Thus losing membership.

2. That "until all is accomplished" bit could easily refer to the Crucifixion and events preceding his ascension to heaven. After all, in Acts, we see a clear invalidation of the Jewish dietary laws.

3. Yeah, people back in biblical days were pretty damn sexist. But Paul's sexism doesn't necessarily translate to God mandating that trans people and crossdressers are sinning.

4. Source on the stoning bit? Also, it makes just as much sense on God abolishing the dietary laws.

5. No, the definition of crossdressing is wearing clothes associated with the opposite gender. There is a difference.

1: False. Most male child predators/pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relationships.

2: If you're parroting the old argument that gayness is a result of sexual abuse, that's also false

3: Provide a source for this, please.

4: This, too.

5: You've found a whole new level of condescension, which is admirable.

Indeed.

Give literally one way in which morality can be objective without God.

Technically, morality that depends on God isn't objective, either.

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

A definition which only reinforces what I just said.

"Ow, that hurts! Please don't do it!" doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me.

In this context, everything is arbitrary. But, what you said is pretty much the best way to go.

You realize the "Golden Rule" originated in Christianity and Judaism, right?

So you are practicing Christian morality. Albeit a very stripped down version.

Actually, it appears in all major cultures and religions, in some form or another. Only the label "Golden Rule" is Judeo-Christian. The secular/academic term is "Ethic of reciprocity".

Harming somebody does have an adverse effect on society, however.

All LGBT should die.

When?

Also, what if I don't die? Should I see a doctor?

All LGBT should die because they make the universe a worse place.

Lying is bad, honey.

It's not "gender neutral", because that sentence is describing the creation of Eve.

The entirety of Church tradition and ancient interpretation has been that it refers to homosexuality, and that Christian marriage is based on the complimentary roles of man-and-woman.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

There is a difference. Secular ethics are a useful tool for building a functioning, harmonious society. No one is claiming that they are infallible or that they originate from some cosmic source of ultimate truth.

what makes religious ethics any worse for that purpose? One reason scandinavia does so well is because of its so-called Protestant virtues

Going by the opinions of those in this thread, they are entirely dependent on the caprices of a cosmic sociopath.