Do you think LGBTs will eventually be all rounded up?

[Vigilante justice]

God gave Adam and Eve the right to choose to eat the apple or not (free will). Eating the apple is when sin entered the world, which is why people complain about the world being so terrible. We're badly off topic, though.

And if god is going to act like such a crybaby when we use the right he gave us then he should not have given the right in the first place. If god is so incapable of dealing with the fact that some people enjoy sex with people of the same sex he is an asshole who should not have made it possible for that to be in the first place. If he is capable of interfering in the lives of others as he has done in the past supposedly, then he should certainly make it so that no one feels that attraction and so the idea of LGBT being rounded up would not even enter into people's heads because LGBT would not exist.

God hasn't spoken out about Homosexuality or anything since the old testament, and even then he just tells his people too avoid it, along with some other laws many Christians don't follow because they were only for the people of Israel to stay close to the path god set for them.

I would hardly call him a crybaby.

[San Lumen]

Uh... No its not. And in my city I'm safe from any such action. The governor and mayor would never allow it.

They could just tell the governor or mayor you have a 30 round Pmag and they'd let Pence take you away.

What are you talking about?

They could just tell the governor or mayor you have a 30 round Pmag and they'd let Pence take you away.

And that's assuming they are all law-abiding citizens.

Following the law is, from a certain point of view, optional. Just that if you take the option NOT to abide by the law, you get fined/jailed/executed.

A law or executive order rounding certain people up for sexual orientation or other things would face massive resistance from many corners of the country and arresting sitting mayors or governors for refusing to go along with a unconstitutional action would not go over very well.

[Neutraligon]

Well first i am an atheist so I don't believe in god. Second no he didn't have to create us, that doesn't change the fact that his actions make him an asshole. Third even if he did create us that does not mean he gets to tell me how to act, who to love etc anymore then my parents get to dictate every single thing I do or think. Fourth he didn't give us that right, we took it when we supposedly ate the apple against the will of god. Finally, if the result would be the world we live in today then I would prefer that god not have given us that right if it needed to be given to begin with.

I wouldn't call him an ass hole though. If he created us in his image (Genesis 1) then we should reflect him in a lot of ways.

If that was the case then clearly some part of god is LGBT.

He also created morals, so basically defines wrong or right, so really it's unfair to call him an ass for that.

Given the things he has done I do not think he is said to have done I do not see the god described as moral. Oh and dictating morals to people makes them amoral since they are basically acting like robots, which god is supposedly against since he gave free will supposedly.

Also (I was talking about free will earlier) he gave us the right to eat the apple when he created free will. About your second point, I honestly don't know how I feel about LGBT's yet. Being gay has to be a mental disorder, because there really isn't' much of a reason for it too exist.

Being gay is not a mental disorder according to the APA. THe gay uncle hypothesis is one possible reason, another being that the same genes that makes a person gay may also make them more fertile. Kinda like how the genes that fight against malaria also create sickle cell.

[Hakons]

God gave Adam and Eve the right to choose to eat the apple or not (free will). Eating the apple is when sin entered the world, which is why people complain about the world being so terrible. We're badly off topic, though.

And if god is going to act like such a crybaby when we use the right he gave us then he should not have given the right in the first place. If god is so incapable of dealing with the fact that some people enjoy sex with people of the same sex he is an asshole who should not have made it possible for that to be in the first place. If he is capable of interfering in the lives of others as he has done in the past supposedly, then he should certainly make it so that no one feels that attraction and so the idea of LGBT being rounded up would not even enter into people's heads because LGBT would not exist.

Free will is there to reveal who is willing to obey God. Those that resist our human imperfections are rewarded. God is not incapable with realizing that humans will sin, He actually died and threw Himself in hell for a bit so we could be saved from sin.

[Hashirajima]

... actually, if the whole "He made man (I mean the species) in his image" holds true... on average He IS an asshole.

*does not have much faith in Humanity*

[Neutraligon]

And if god is going to act like such a crybaby when we use the right he gave us then he should not have given the right in the first place. If god is so incapable of dealing with the fact that some people enjoy sex with people of the same sex he is an asshole who should not have made it possible for that to be in the first place. If he is capable of interfering in the lives of others as he has done in the past supposedly, then he should certainly make it so that no one feels that attraction and so the idea of LGBT being rounded up would not even enter into people's heads because LGBT would not exist.

God hasn't spoken out about Homosexuality or anything since the old testament, and even then he just tells his people too avoid it, along with some other laws many Christians don't follow because they were only for the people of Israel to stay close to the path god set for them.

I would hardly call him a crybaby.

Not according to UMN which is why I called him a crybaby.

[San Lumen]

Can we cease with the religion argument please and not thread jack? This is not an argument about religion.

[Vigilante justice]

I wouldn't call him an ass hole though. If he created us in his image (Genesis 1) then we should reflect him in a lot of ways. He also created morals, so basically defines wrong or right, so really it's unfair to call him an ass for that. Also (I was talking about free will earlier) he gave us the right to eat the apple when he created free will. About your second point, I honestly don't know how I feel about LGBT's yet. Being gay has to be a mental disorder, because there really isn't' much of a reason for it too exist.

It could be argued it exists as a means of population control though.

And to be fair, it wouldn't be off the mark since we're in a very stable society now where we don't have to kill each other and medicine makes long life viable. Viable enough to where people can dabble in sexuality and other things more than we could in the past.

In the past, it just wasn't viable to be homosexual because, well, life was short, and we had to have kids. Heterosexual reproduction took priority over exploring our sexuality. Sure, homosexuality existed before, but mind that it was not that well documented because it was only a few million people. We're 7 billion people, the probability that there were homosexual people was much greater than zero to begin with by sheer mathematics.

First off, good points.

About the birth control part, I find that doubtful only because of the size of the LGBT community. It's pretty small, and wouldn't be helping much.

The second is pretty viable though. Of course, if you don't believe in evolution or anything (like most of us christians and other religious folk), it might not be too convincing, because it sounds like it could be related to us evolving into that.

Of course, I really don't know what i'm saying anymore. Excuse me if i'm confusing you.

[Neutraligon]

And if god is going to act like such a crybaby when we use the right he gave us then he should not have given the right in the first place. If god is so incapable of dealing with the fact that some people enjoy sex with people of the same sex he is an asshole who should not have made it possible for that to be in the first place. If he is capable of interfering in the lives of others as he has done in the past supposedly, then he should certainly make it so that no one feels that attraction and so the idea of LGBT being rounded up would not even enter into people's heads because LGBT would not exist.

Free will is there to reveal who is willing to obey God.

Why should that matter?

Those that resist our human imperfections are rewarded.

In other words those who act as robots.

God is not incapable with realizing that humans will sin, He actually died and threw Himself in hell for a bit so we could be saved from sin.

Since I see the use of Jesus as a scapegoat as a bad thing I am not sure why this would make me think god is any less of an asshole. His use of Jesus does not make UMNs belief about homosexuality any less revolting, nor does it make the treatment of homosexuals, often when humans think they are doing the will of god, any less revolting. It does not absolve him of the fact that by supposedly allowing humans to be homosexual and then ordering them to not be homosexuals he has indirectly caused the mental and physical harm of homosexuals over the centuries, and opened them up to being placed in hell.

[Hakons]

And if god is going to act like such a crybaby when we use the right he gave us then he should not have given the right in the first place. If god is so incapable of dealing with the fact that some people enjoy sex with people of the same sex he is an asshole who should not have made it possible for that to be in the first place. If he is capable of interfering in the lives of others as he has done in the past supposedly, then he should certainly make it so that no one feels that attraction and so the idea of LGBT being rounded up would not even enter into people's heads because LGBT would not exist.

God hasn't spoken out about Homosexuality or anything since the old testament, and even then he just tells his people too avoid it, along with some other laws many Christians don't follow because they were only for the people of Israel to stay close to the path god set for them.

I would hardly call him a crybaby.

There are multiple passages in the New Testament that condemn sexual amorality. Given the context of those who wrote the Bible, this includes homosexuality, among other things. However, homosexual people can still be saved by Christ if they resist sin like every other Christian.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They could just tell the governor or mayor you have a 30 round Pmag and they'd let Pence take you away.

What are you talking about?

I'm making fun of your state and cities extremely draconian gun laws and the punishments they dish out over the silliest shit.

[Vigilante justice]

And if god is going to act like such a crybaby when we use the right he gave us then he should not have given the right in the first place. If god is so incapable of dealing with the fact that some people enjoy sex with people of the same sex he is an asshole who should not have made it possible for that to be in the first place. If he is capable of interfering in the lives of others as he has done in the past supposedly, then he should certainly make it so that no one feels that attraction and so the idea of LGBT being rounded up would not even enter into people's heads because LGBT would not exist.

Free will is there to reveal who is willing to obey God. Those that resist our human imperfections are rewarded. God is not incapable with realizing that humans will sin, He actually died and threw Himself in hell for a bit so we could be saved from sin.

Wait what? I mean, yeah he got crucified, but I don't know if he went to hell afterwards (sorry for thread jacking again)

[Hakons]

Sorry, I provoked threadjacking.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Can we cease with the religion argument please and not thread jack? This is not an argument about religion.

I mean what the hell is it we're supposed to argue about then?

I mean, have you NOTICED the very specific question the OP is posing?

[Hashirajima]

They could just tell the governor or mayor you have a 30 round Pmag and they'd let Pence take you away.

What are you talking about?

And that's assuming they are all law-abiding citizens.

Following the law is, from a certain point of view, optional. Just that if you take the option NOT to abide by the law, you get fined/jailed/executed.

A law or executive order rounding certain people up for sexual orientation or other things would face massive resistance from many corners of the country and arresting sitting mayors or governors for refusing to go along with a unconstitutional action would not go over very well.

That's the US, though admittedly true. But given the amount of decentralisation you guys seem to be pushing for (why bother being a united state in the first place then? But that's beside the point please don't reply to this part) I can ALSO see a few governors happily complying.

But in other countries, that might not be the case.

In any case, I'm referring more to the more extremist individuals actually breaking the law and going for the "Lynch the gays/fill-in-as-appropriate-it-applies-to-too-many-minority-groups" option. They just don't care about the law, which they might well see as "unlawful" in relation to their higher-priority beliefs.

[San Lumen]

What are you talking about?

I'm making fun of your state and cities extremely draconian gun laws and the punishments they dish out over the silliest shit.

They are not draconian and gun laws have absolutely nothing to do with what i said.

[Vigilante justice]

God hasn't spoken out about Homosexuality or anything since the old testament, and even then he just tells his people too avoid it, along with some other laws many Christians don't follow because they were only for the people of Israel to stay close to the path god set for them.

I would hardly call him a crybaby.

Not according to UMN which is why I called him a crybaby.

Yup. I forgot he was orthodox, that explains it.

[Agathyr]

For example, if you are gay, woman, or a minority you can say you got fired because of discrimination and ask for laws to be made to "protect" you.

Is it that you think nobody ever discriminates against gays, women, or minorities, or that you don't think there should be a law against doing so?

Imo people should be able to fire whoever they want to. Also, if people are different before the law, this situation can and will be misused.

I'll make it your way but it's a pain in the ass to reply this way, I'll screw up the quotations and it's your fault :

Nobody is actually claiming that conservatives will forcibly incarcerate LGBT people. OP suggested that this may be the logical conclusion to conservative homophobia, but never said that this was strictly what conservatives want. That in and of itself is, ironically, a strawman.

Saying it's the logical conclusion to" conservative homophobia" is totally not a fallacy aswell. You are one step away from saying conservatives secretly want to gas gay people. No wait, you just said its the LOGICAL conclusion so you pretty much said it already. And now you will say you didn't and this is a strawman right? Fun game.
btw I tried to explain in my post why this is not the logical conclusion to conservative "homophobia" in fact I implied that in many cases there is no such homophobia.

God forbid that marginalised people ever seek social/legal equality or reparations for past wrongdoings.

Who marginalises LGBT people again? This is the kind of victimhood some people are wearied of putting up with. Life is tough for everyone. We all have special circumstances but some groups and yell more than others and shout: LOOK AT US WE ARE THE VICTIMS!!! Have some self-respect, please. Stop acting like others owe you something.
"Reparations" and "equality" are buzzwords. The bread and butter of SJW.

Except this actually happens. Employees in right-to-work states can fire anyone for any reason; this can extend to simply being a racial or sexual minority.

Good. Anyone should be free to fire whoever they want. I don't leave in a country as free as yours sadly.

Why is levelling the playing field a bad thing? Are all men not created equal? Do people not deserve equality?

Because this is not a game, this is life. And no, we are not created equal! We should be equal before the law but we are here to be individuals not to depend on others, because that goes against the very nature of existence. And if the government interferes is like literally forcing someone else to carry part of your weight, which if anything is something people should do voluntarily, not forced. What a kindergarten a state is if "equality" is forced down our throats like that.

To be fair, the government is kinda created to serve the people, so it'd make sense that it's laws benefit all people.

Kind of but also we are all equal before the law not through the law but before the law. Or that's how it should be because one thing is not being equal by nature and other is to institutionalise discrimination which is what making laws for your particular benefit would be. Even if it's to level the playing field, which again, it's an expression because this is not a game, it's life.

We don't want "privileges." We mostly just wanna be recognised as people. Sure, I'd personally like if the government helped pay for my gender reassignment surgery, but that doesn't trump the "being treated as people" thing yet.

I wasn't aware you weren't recognised as people. I must be very blind about the problems the LGBT community suffer in 1st world countries. Either that or you are exaggerating.

Again, no special laws, we just don't want to be treated as second-class citizens just because we're not straight and/or cis.

Stop the victimism! Seriously, all your arguments are based on the fact that you are being denied rights which if you live in a 1st world country is not true except perhaps the right to get married which you should have but then again if a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple he shouldn't be forced to do so.

Excuse my English.

[Valgora]

God hasn't spoken out about Homosexuality or anything since the old testament, and even then he just tells his people too avoid it, along with some other laws many Christians don't follow because they were only for the people of Israel to stay close to the path god set for them.

I would hardly call him a crybaby.

There are multiple passages in the New Testament that condemn sexual amorality. Given the context of those who wrote the Bible, this includes homosexuality, among other things. However, homosexual people can still be saved by Christ if they resist sin like every other Christian.

I like Daniel Tosh's thoughts on why God doesn't like homosexuals.

When Adam and Eve ate the apple, what punishment did God give to Eve (and all women)? Menstrual cramps, painful childbirth. What punishment did he give to males? Having to deal with women.

God doesn't hate gays, he's just angry that they found a loophole in the system. How angry would you be if you came up with this great punishment, and their response is "you know what? We're just going to fuck each other."?

[San Lumen]

Is it that you think nobody ever discriminates against gays, women, or minorities, or that you don't think there should be a law against doing so?

Imo people should be able to fire whoever they want to. Also, if people are different before the law, this situation can and will be misused.

I'll make it your way but it's a pain in the ass to reply this way, I'll screw up the quotations and it's your fault :



Saying it's the logical conclusion to" conservative homophobia" is totally not a fallacy aswell. You are one step away from saying conservatives secretly want to gas gay people. No wait, you just said its the LOGICAL conclusion so you pretty much said it already. And now you will say you didn't and this is a strawman right? Fun fame.
btw I tried to explain in my post why this is not the logical conclusion to conservative "homophobia" in fact I implied that in many cases there is no such homophobia.


Who marginalises LGBT people again? This is the kind of victimhood some people are wearied of putting up with. Life is tough for everyone. We all have special circumstances but some groups and yell more than others and shout: LOOK AT US WE ARE THE VICTIMS!!! Have some self-respect, please. Stop acting like others owe you something.
"Reparations" and "equality" are buzzwords. The bread and butter of SJW.


Good. Anyone should be free to fire whoever they want. I don't leave in a country as yours sadly.


Because this is not a game, this is life. And no, we are not created equal! We should be equal before the law but we are here to be individuals not to depend on others, because that goes against the very nature of existence. And if the government interferes is like literally forcing someone else to carry part of your weight, which if anything is something people should do voluntarily, not forced. What a kindergarten a state is if "equality" is forced down our throats like that.


Kind of but also we are all equal before the law not through the law but before the law. Or that's how it should be because one thing is not being equal by nature and other is to institutionalise discrimination which is what making laws for your particular benefit would be. Even if it's to level the playing field, which again, it's an expression because this is not a game, it's life.


I wasn't aware you weren't recognised as people. I must be very blind about the problems the LGBT community suffer in 1st world countries. Either that or you are exaggerating.

Stop the victimism! Seriously, all your arguments are based on the fact that you are being denied rights which if you live in a 1st world country is not true except perhaps the right to get married which you should have but then again if a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple he shouldn't be forced to do so.

Excuse my English.

So if someone wanted to fire someone for being gay or because of their race you'd say oh well? I agree with you though that if a Priest or Rabbi or someone in any other religion doesn't want to preform a same sex marriage they should not be forced too.

[Vigilante justice]

There are multiple passages in the New Testament that condemn sexual amorality. Given the context of those who wrote the Bible, this includes homosexuality, among other things. However, homosexual people can still be saved by Christ if they resist sin like every other Christian.

I like Daniel Tosh's thoughts on why God doesn't like homosexuals.

When Adam and Eve ate the apple, what punishment did God give to Eve (and all women)? Menstrual cramps, painful childbirth. What punishment did he give to males? Having to deal with women.

God doesn't hate gays, he's just angry that they found a loophole in the system. How angry would you be if you came up with this great punishment, and their response is "you know what? We're just going to fuck each other."?

Well that's an interesting point of view...

Seems legit though. Good Job.

[Hashirajima]

Stop the victimism! Seriously, all your arguments are based on the fact that you are being denied rights which if you live in a 1st world country is not true except perhaps the right to get married which you should have but then again if a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple he shouldn't be forced to do so.

Excuse my English.

Actually, marriage has, in today's world, largely become a legal issue. Since it also involves, depending on where you stay, stuff like social benefits/social welfare, taxes/tax breaks, GUARDIANSHIP IN LEGAL AFFAIRS IN THE CASE OF INCAPACITATION, MEDICAL DECISIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADVANCED DIRECTIVE, and hell, if you're in Singapore (and perhaps other places), god damned HOUSING.

So do excuse us if we have issues when a government isn't legally recognising our marriage/union/whatever you want to call it.

[Hakons]

There are multiple passages in the New Testament that condemn sexual amorality. Given the context of those who wrote the Bible, this includes homosexuality, among other things. However, homosexual people can still be saved by Christ if they resist sin like every other Christian.

I like Daniel Tosh's thoughts on why God doesn't like homosexuals.

When Adam and Eve ate the apple, what punishment did God give to Eve (and all women)? Menstrual cramps, painful childbirth. What punishment did he give to males? Having to deal with women.

God doesn't hate gays, he's just angry that they found a loophole in the system. How angry would you be if you came up with this great punishment, and their response is "you know what? We're just going to fuck each other."?

I agree God doesn't hate gays. Christ died on the cross for everyone, so God actually loves everyone. This is why it's important for Christians to also love and be friendly to homosexual people.

[Agathyr]

So if someone wanted to fire someone for being gay or because of their race you'd say oh well? I agree with you though that if a Priest or Rabbi or someone in any other religion doesn't want to preform a same sex marriage they should not be forced too.

I would be pissed but it's their right because if I have a business and I want to fire someone because I don't like his face I should be able to do so because it's my business, it's my property, it's like my house only people I want to allow in should come in.

ps: you quoted me before I corrected the many typos!

xes/tax breaks, GUARDIANSHIP IN LEGAL AFFAIRS IN THE CASE OF INCAPACITATION, MEDICAL DECISIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADVANCED DIRECTIVE, and hell, if you're in Singapore (and perhaps other places), god damned HOUSING.

So do excuse us if we have issues when a government isn't legally recognising our marriage/union/whatever you want to call it.

I just said I agree with that. It's one of the few cases gay people actually lack a right the rest of the people have. We agree the civil unions should be equal for everyone. What's the problem?

The same laws and rights for everyone. See that is real equality, making a law to "compensate" things is not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It could be argued it exists as a means of population control though.

And to be fair, it wouldn't be off the mark since we're in a very stable society now where we don't have to kill each other and medicine makes long life viable. Viable enough to where people can dabble in sexuality and other things more than we could in the past.

In the past, it just wasn't viable to be homosexual because, well, life was short, and we had to have kids. Heterosexual reproduction took priority over exploring our sexuality. Sure, homosexuality existed before, but mind that it was not that well documented because it was only a few million people. We're 7 billion people, the probability that there were homosexual people was much greater than zero to begin with by sheer mathematics.

First off, good points.

About the birth control part, I find that doubtful only because of the size of the LGBT community. It's pretty small, and wouldn't be helping much.

The second is pretty viable though. Of course, if you don't believe in evolution or anything (like most of us christians and other religious folk), it might not be too convincing, because it sounds like it could be related to us evolving into that.

Of course, I really don't know what i'm saying anymore. Excuse me if i'm confusing you.

Not at all, and well, yea, I think I reached in too much with the birth control part. But, it cannot be denied that gay people are numerically greater than in the past due to a very stable society and population densities that allow it to exist.

Why does this happen at a biological level I wouldn't be sure, and mind that, in that, most of my conjectures are just that, conjectures. There are studied, but so far I haven't found much on the evolutionary origins of homosexuality in humans. I mean, if it isn't advantageous evolutionarily to be gay, then why does the trait exist in humans, is the question.

What I am saying here should not be discarded as "oh the bigot". I am honestly pondering it and discussing it with someone, because it is as much of a puzzle to me, the reason why many humans are homosexual from a biological standpoint. Socially, I don't have a problem with homosexuals.