Intersectionalism reaching full madness?

[United Muscovite Nations]

So we all agree that it's wrong, and that it being wrong isn't just an opinion, good.

You're against anti-LGBT+ laws, UMN? I couldn't be happier!

I'm against such laws on principle, that doesn't mean I wouldn't hold both LGBT and non-LGBT people to a higher standard of sexual morality than there is today.

[RiderSyl]

I mean, they're not entirely wrong. One man's idea of good is another man's idea of evil. I think philosophically dissecting morality is better suited for the thread currently talking about it, though.

It may be, but whether oppressing gays is wrong is a moral opinion, so if it's really just an opinion, we shouldn't be talking about forcing other societies to adopt our opinions, or talking about how oppression is bad.

In my opinion we can talk about our opinions about others' opinions, because this is NSG, and NSG exists for this reason IMO.

[The New California Republic]

You're against anti-LGBT+ laws, UMN? I couldn't be happier!

I'm against such laws on principle, that doesn't mean I wouldn't hold both LGBT and non-LGBT people to a higher standard of sexual morality than there is today.

So, using me as an example, you wouldn't have a problem with an LGBT person that is in a monogamous relationship?

[Anantpura]

Yes, the oppresive and homophobic culture that is Ancient Rome

What? The Roman Empire's borders never reached modern-day Iran.

I'm talking about the Abrahamic religions that dethroned Zoroastrianism in Iran

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm against such laws on principle, that doesn't mean I wouldn't hold both LGBT and non-LGBT people to a higher standard of sexual morality than there is today.

So, using me as an example, you wouldn't have a problem with an LGBT person that is in a monogamous relationship?

I wouldn't have a problem with it, maybe personally, but I don't think there should be any discrimination against it outside of religious institutions, and I think there should be affirming religious institutions to meet the needs of LGB people.

The T is different because I really don't think it's that related to LGB, and I'm a lot more open to T being not only morally permissible, but also religiously permissible.

[RiderSyl]

What? The Roman Empire's borders never reached modern-day Iran.

I'm talking about the Abrahamic religions that dethroned Zoroastrianism in Iran

With that clarification, you're just barely inside Ancient Rome's borders with 1/3 of the Abrahamic religions. Still mostly disconnected though.

[Purgatio]

And where did I say that? An invasion is to much but sanctions and calling them out is a very good response. Also a nation that makes it legal to kill gays over some outdated religious bullshit is not one I would call innocent.

Religion is bullshit? Really?
Anyways, as I don't subscribe to an Abrahamic religion, I have a question. Why were these laws created they must have a reason right? I mean the writers of holy books obviously weren't foolish. That's why they are controversial.

You understand that idiotic laws exist all over the world, right? There are countries where marital rape is legal. Apartheid and racial segregation by law used to be a thing. Just because 'laws exist' doesn't automatically mean they make sense.

[Purgatio]

Yes religious laws that state homosexuality is wrong is utter bullshit. And these laws were created by a society that was much more oppressive and had much more regressive ideas about homosexuality.

What's the reason? They wouldn't just write such laws for the evulz, right? It must have been the points I stated earlier.

How about, because there are prejudiced and narrow-minded people around the world you believe dangerous lies about homosexuals being dangerous sexual degenerates out to indoctrinate and rape your children? That kind of propaganda is directly why Uganda upgraded its punishments for homosexuality to the death penalty and why Russia bans 'gay propaganda' (to 'protect children', of course).

[Vassenor]

The Trump administration has clearly wanted to get into a war with Iran. This is just their ticket into one with European support.

Being used as an excuse to invade a country isn't a victory for the LGBT community. Let me know when this administration starts treating its own gay citizens with respect.

Problem is, if the rest of this thread is anything to go on, by saying that you have somehow pledged your undying support to Iran's actions against the LGBT community because reasons and logic.

No I don't get it either.

[Anantpura]

You understand that idiotic laws exist all over the world, right? There are countries where marital rape is legal. Apartheid and racial segregation by law used to be a thing. Just because 'laws exist' doesn't automatically mean they make sense.

I mean internally consistent reasons. Like, apartheid and racial segregation because it was "scientific" that different races are drastically different from each other.

[Purgatio]

You understand that idiotic laws exist all over the world, right? There are countries where marital rape is legal. Apartheid and racial segregation by law used to be a thing. Just because 'laws exist' doesn't automatically mean they make sense.

I mean internally consistent reasons. Like, apartheid and racial segregation because it was "scientific" that different races are drastically different from each other.

Fine, so then can you finally admit there are no externally factually-accurate reasons for supporting sodomy laws

[Anantpura]

I mean internally consistent reasons. Like, apartheid and racial segregation because it was "scientific" that different races are drastically different from each other.

Fine, so then can you finally admit there are no externally factually-accurate reasons for supporting sodomy laws

Given that all my concerns have been debunked (except for the slippery slope argument), I have to admit that there are no factually correct reasons. I still do have my doubts, afterall, the writers of the Bible weren't foolish or evil.

[Yusseria]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a funny thing.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Fine, so then can you finally admit there are no externally factually-accurate reasons for supporting sodomy laws

Given that all my concerns have been debunked (except for the slippery slope argument), I have to admit that there are no factually correct reasons. I still do have my doubts, afterall, the writers of the Bible weren't foolish or evil.

Only when considered in their own time. It’s got some pretty shit content in there.

[Anantpura]

Given that all my concerns have been debunked (except for the slippery slope argument), I have to admit that there are no factually correct reasons. I still do have my doubts, afterall, the writers of the Bible weren't foolish or evil.

Only when considered in their own time. It’s got some pretty shit content in there.

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

[The New California Republic]

Only when considered in their own time. It’s got some pretty shit content in there.

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

Prejudice?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

Prejudice?

Where’s that stupid "da poopoo comes aewt by ‘dere" meme when I need it...

[Purgatio]

Only when considered in their own time. It’s got some pretty shit content in there.

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

You...get that we're talking about a time when people thought women shouldn't have the same rights as men, right? The Bible says all sorts of stuff, like how women shouldn't have leadership positions over men, shouldn't speak in Church (and if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home), and the Old Testament actually says if a woman doesn't scream it's not really rape, and said woman should be stoned to death.

So...yeah, I really wouldn't run "but people in Biblical times believed it! there must be a sensible reason for it!" as a logical argument, if I were you.

[Purgatio]

Only when considered in their own time. It’s got some pretty shit content in there.

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

Oh, and need I add that slavery existed in the Roman Empire at the time? Something people then generally didn't think was a big deal? (Paul even returned a slave to his owner in the Book of Philemon)

[Anantpura]

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

You...get that we're talking about a time when people thought women shouldn't have the same rights as men, right? The Bible says all sorts of stuff, like how women shouldn't have leadership positions over men, shouldn't speak in Church (and if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home), and the Old Testament actually says if a woman doesn't scream it's not really rape, and said woman should be stoned to death.

So...yeah, I really wouldn't run "but people in Biblical times believed it! there must be a sensible reason for it!" as a logical argument, if I were you.

But there is a sensible (if archaic) argument for women not having equal rights in the antiquity. Warfare was the domain of the physically strong men, and women had to maintain their household. Of course they were not granted equal rights, warfare was the way rights were maintained.

What I am asking is reason for criminalising sodomy.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a funny thing.

Indeed it is

[The New California Republic]

What I am asking is reason for criminalising sodomy.

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

Prejudice?

[United Muscovite Nations]

So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?

Oh, and need I add that slavery existed in the Roman Empire at the time? Something people then generally didn't think was a big deal? (Paul even returned a slave to his owner in the Book of Philemon)

That story actually is meant to be understood that Paul convinced the slave owner to free his slave with rhetoric, for the record.

[Loben]

Oh, and need I add that slavery existed in the Roman Empire at the time? Something people then generally didn't think was a big deal? (Paul even returned a slave to his owner in the Book of Philemon)

That story actually is meant to be understood that Paul convinced the slave owner to free his slave with rhetoric, for the record.

Do you really think that matters to people to are actively only reading the Bible to use it as ass wipe?

[Purgatio]

Oh, and need I add that slavery existed in the Roman Empire at the time? Something people then generally didn't think was a big deal? (Paul even returned a slave to his owner in the Book of Philemon)

That story actually is meant to be understood that Paul convinced the slave owner to free his slave with rhetoric, for the record.

That's actually only one possible interpretation of the relevant passage (and in my view, in light of the language and the context, the less likely interpretation) which has been favoured by abolitionist writers.

In contrast, the more traditional/orthodox interpretation which is far more faithful to the text and historical context is that Paul was in fact imploring Philemon to either treat Onesimus kindly, or even free him, but Paul ultimately acknowledges this to a matter within Philemon's discretion, and he is under no binding spiritual obligation to free Onesimus. Cardinal Dulles puts it best when he describes the relevant passage in Philemon thusly - "while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, Paul does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had", but instead simply encourages rather than obligates Philemon to treat Onesimus as a "beloved brother". This is why many early defenders of slavery were able to so effectively capitalise on this passage, because Paul's message to Philemon fits very neatly into Confederate propaganda at the time (namely, that slavery was not an inherently morally-unacceptable institution, so long as masters treated their slaves 'kindly', which again, has been the traditional interpretation of that passage until very recent times when Christians had to revise their interpretation of Philemon as the public's opinion on slavery shifted dramatically).