Do you think LGBTs will eventually be all rounded up?

[Aeringard]

Well, by rounding up you mean forcing them together on death marches and killing them, no. Such a thing will never happen globally, and better nations out there is there to protect us from that. That being said, I do believe in some parts of the world the LGBTQ community is better off not going due to the hostile environment and peoples barbaric and conservative ways.

[Internationalist Bastard]

In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003, states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.

I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.

Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.

Also a very real thing in several other countries, like Chechnya's "lack of gay men"

[San Lumen]

In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003 states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.

I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.

Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.

I sincerely doubt Lawerence V Texas will be overturned. A Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned because someone disagrees with the decision. You must present a different constitutional question than the previous.

[Major-Tom]

In a lot of places, this is the case, such as countries where fundamentalism is rampant. In the developed world, not a chance, gays are pretty much not at all taboo in a lot of the West now.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) They are both embracing sins.

2) I mean if you know they did it. If you know they did it, then you're just helping a murderer. If you are loyal to an individual more than you are to what you think is right, then you have no business raising children, because you would raise them with a moral weakness and idleness that will turn them into lousy excuses for human beings.

If I knew they'd done it, I'd still put an attorney on their case to get them out of it with a "no guilty" charge and I would not testify against them, but rather work with my lawyer to testify in my child's best interests.

I do find being loyal being right. I am loyal to my friends, lovers, and family. But with the same amount of loyalty I give I also expect a shitload of loyalty from them. The price of loyalty is a high one, but so are the rewards reaped out of being loyal.

See, I think that's pretty fucked up. If a family member murdered someone, I would feel morally compelled to turn them in and see to it that they were convicted for their crime.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.

Since I don't know what you mean by supreme good I have no way of answering that.

Supreme good = what makes things moral

I believe the supreme good = God
Utilitarians believe the supreme good = human happiness and lack of suffering
Nihilists believe there is no supreme good

That's a few examples.

[Neutraligon]

Since I don't know what you mean by supreme good I have no way of answering that.

Supreme good = what makes things moral

That does not clarify the meaning. Also since I think morals are simply opinions on how humans should interact with each other and other parts of our world I do not think there is a thing that makes things universally moral.

I believe the supreme good = God

How did you determine god is good?

Utilitarians believe the supreme good = human happiness and lack of suffering

I am not sure it is as simple as that

Nihilists believe there is no supreme good

I am not sure it is as simple as that.

That's a few examples.

That did not clarify anything and so I still cannot answer that.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003 states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.

I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.

Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.

I sincerely doubt Lawerence V Texas will be overturned. A Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned because someone disagrees with the decision. You must present a different constitutional question than the previous.

That is the hope yes, and I don't think that it is inevitable. But I do know that various attempts throughout the U.S. to build cases on that basis and for that reason, mostly by "Family Advocacy Groups" are already in the works.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Are you really going to claim that all "sins" are the same? And what if god demanded they commit that crime? He has ordered his people to kill in the past, supposedly.

If they committed the crime I would still attempt to get them to turn themselves in and try to get them a good lawyer so that they do not get the death penalty. I would not disinherit them nor would I stop talking to them. No matter what they are still my child. If you are going to ignore that your actions actively harm your child and are going to increase the chance they will commit suicide, if you are going to force your child to choose between you and their chance at happiness, if you are going to so harm your child's mental well being that you will turn against them then you should not have a child. Oh, and loyalty to my child is what is right.

So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.

No, but loyalty to my family is what is right, and my family's loyalty to me is what's right, as well.

Even a loyal criminal who won't murder you in cold blood is better than a disloyal son who won't think twice in poisoning your food.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Supreme good = what makes things moral

That does not clarify the meaning. Also since I think morals are simply opinions I do not think there is a thing that makes things universally moral.

I believe the supreme good = God

How did you determine god is good?

Utilitarians believe the supreme good = human happiness and lack of suffering

I am not sure it is as simple as that

Nihilists believe there is no supreme good

I am not sure it is as simple as that.

That's a few examples.

That did not clarify anything and so I still cannot answer that.

If you think that morals are simply opinions, how can loyalty to your family be what is right?

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003, states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.

I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.

Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.

Also a very real thing in several other countries, like Chechnya's "lack of gay men"

Oh certainly, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Iran (which recently had another police "purge"), just to name three, there are many more besides. As well as movements within nations in Europe as well as the U.S. and Canada which would love for these purges to be enacted.

I would also add that "Gay Conversion Camps" likely count as an aspect of "rounding up," and are considered legal in may places where being LGBT is no longer technically illegal.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If I knew they'd done it, I'd still put an attorney on their case to get them out of it with a "no guilty" charge and I would not testify against them, but rather work with my lawyer to testify in my child's best interests.

I do find being loyal being right. I am loyal to my friends, lovers, and family. But with the same amount of loyalty I give I also expect a shitload of loyalty from them. The price of loyalty is a high one, but so are the rewards reaped out of being loyal.

See, I think that's pretty fucked up. If a family member murdered someone, I would feel morally compelled to turn them in and see to it that they were convicted for their crime.

See, I wouldn't.

I would make them regret their mistake myself. The law isn't going to be more scary than I in that regard.

[San Lumen]

I sincerely doubt Lawerence V Texas will be overturned. A Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned because someone disagrees with the decision. You must present a different constitutional question than the previous.

That is the hope yes, and I don't think that it is inevitable. But I do know that various attempts throughout the U.S. to build cases on that basis and for that reason, mostly by "Family Advocacy Groups" are already in the works.

On what basis? A case built on "I disagree with this decision and have a right to not be around people i don't like" will not fly even in the most conservative of courts.

[Threlizdun]

Are you really going to claim that all "sins" are the same? And what if god demanded they commit that crime? He has ordered his people to kill in the past, supposedly.

If they committed the crime I would still attempt to get them to turn themselves in and try to get them a good lawyer so that they do not get the death penalty. I would not disinherit them nor would I stop talking to them. No matter what they are still my child. If you are going to ignore that your actions actively harm your child and are going to increase the chance they will commit suicide, if you are going to force your child to choose between you and their chance at happiness, if you are going to so harm your child's mental well being that you will turn against them then you should not have a child. Oh, and loyalty to my child is what is right.

So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.

They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?

[Neutraligon]

That does not clarify the meaning. Also since I think morals are simply opinions I do not think there is a thing that makes things universally moral.

How did you determine god is good?
I am not sure it is as simple as that
I am not sure it is as simple as that.


That did not clarify anything and so I still cannot answer that.

If you think that morals are simply opinions, how can loyalty to your family be what is right?

Simple, it is my opinion that loyalty to my child is what is right. I also added a little edit to what I said by the way. Morals are opinions on how humans should interact with each other as well as with the world on which we live (hence why animal abuse can be considered immoral).

So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.

They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?

Also this.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.

They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?

And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.

[Neutraligon]

They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?

And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.

Given that your actions tend to mean that they are more likely to commit suicide you are in fact working against their wellbeing.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.

Given that your actions tend to mean that they are more likely to commit suicide you are in fact working against their wellbeing.

They would also be more likely to turn away from such a lifestyle and return to the faith, which would be for their wellbeing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?

And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.

You can only do so much, though.

You can raise them to be good kids and all, but if they fuck up, they fuck up.

Now, there is a difference between fucking up and a betrayal, but that's not what you're talking about, here.

[Neutraligon]

Given that your actions tend to mean that they are more likely to commit suicide you are in fact working against their wellbeing.

They would also be more likely to turn away from such a lifestyle and return to the faith, which would be for their wellbeing.

Clearly not since they are more likely to commit suicide. Clearly not given the number of LGBT on the street. Clearly not given the number of homosexuals who have ended up disinherited and so have had the ties to their parents cut.

[Hashirajima]

And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.

1. We're not talking about kids killing other kids, we're talking about homosexuality. Jesus Christ.

1) They are both embracing sins.

... THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE is one of the biggest reasons why I have issues with Christian theology, or how some people interpret it. DID YOU JUST PRETTY MUCH EQUATE/RATE PRETTY DAMN EQUALLY MY PRIVATE BEDROOM FUN, AND/OR WHO I AM (which really just makes it worse), TO ME STABBING THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF SOMEONE'S JUGULAR?!

[United Muscovite Nations]

And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.

You can only do so much, though.

You can raise them to be good kids and all, but if they fuck up, they fuck up.

Now, there is a difference between fucking up and a betrayal, but that's not what you're talking about, here.

If they completely disregard everything I have taught them, then I could consider that a betrayal.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Given that your actions tend to mean that they are more likely to commit suicide you are in fact working against their wellbeing.

They would also be more likely to turn away from such a lifestyle and return to the faith, which would be for their wellbeing.

Or, you know, turn their backs away from you and not let you see them ever again, even if it turns out they are bisexual and they end up marrying and having children with a woman, they'd resent you and would not let you see your grandchildren ever again.

In fact, I would be more scared from children who are disloyal to me, than I would be about a child who is loyal but perhaps not the best I could have done in terms of raising them.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

That is the hope yes, and I don't think that it is inevitable. But I do know that various attempts throughout the U.S. to build cases on that basis and for that reason, mostly by "Family Advocacy Groups" are already in the works.

On what basis? A case built on "I disagree with this decision and have a right to not be around people i don't like" will not fly even in the most conservative of courts.

First, I want to admit that I'm not a master of the subject. I'm not part of any groups that are trying to do this and the literature that they hand out is less than informative on their actual process. But my understanding is that they are pursuing the issue from the angle of the 1st Amendment, and take issue with the ruling on the basis of the meaning of fundamental rights.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can only do so much, though.

You can raise them to be good kids and all, but if they fuck up, they fuck up.

Now, there is a difference between fucking up and a betrayal, but that's not what you're talking about, here.

If they completely disregard everything I have taught them, then I could consider that a betrayal.

Only if all you're going to teach them is how not to be raging, flaming homos.

And if that's all you're going to teach them then I hope you do succeed at at least not having homosexual kids.