Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Nakena]

I stopped argueing about those things a long time. I do reject it for theological and other reasons. But it is for the most part the way Sundiata and others here say it it. Thats (catholic) christianity. It is how it is. Theres no cherrypicking.

Just be straightforward about it and reject it. Do not try to make it bent but take it for what it is.

I have a question for you in the CDT.

TG me.

[San Lumen]

No I was pointing out you and others seemingly picking and chosing what part of the Bible you are going to follow.

I can see how it'd be confusing to those who aren't particularly well-versed in theology and the chronology of the bible. I still make mistakes with respect to the timeline of events myself. Anyway, anyone with a solid understanding of theology would tell you about the distinction between each set of laws and why the ancient laws of Israel don't apply to this day. Jesus fulfilled the law and established a new covenant. Makes sense? Keep in mind, I'm not a priest so the details pertaining to this topic are as good as I can give you.

With respect to this thread, laws against homosexuality would fall under moral laws.

And that is Old Testament is it not? Why do you get to pick and chose what parts of the Bible you will follow?

[Nakena]

I can see how it'd be confusing to those who aren't particularly well-versed in theology and the chronology of the bible. I still make mistakes with respect to the timeline of events myself. Anyway, anyone with a solid understanding of theology would tell you about the distinction between each set of laws and why the ancient laws of Israel don't apply to this day. Jesus fulfilled the law and established a new covenant. Makes sense? Keep in mind, I'm not a priest so the details pertaining to this topic are as good as I can give you.

With respect to this thread, laws against homosexuality would fall under moral laws.

And that is Old Testament is it not? Why do you get to pick and chose what parts of the Bible you will follow?

Why is it relevant for you as non-christian?

[Sundiata]

I can see how it'd be confusing to those who aren't particularly well-versed in theology and the chronology of the bible. I still make mistakes with respect to the timeline of events myself. Anyway, anyone with a solid understanding of theology would tell you about the distinction between each set of laws and why the ancient laws of Israel don't apply to this day. Jesus fulfilled the law and established a new covenant. Makes sense? Keep in mind, I'm not a priest so the details pertaining to this topic are as good as I can give you.

With respect to this thread, laws against homosexuality would fall under moral laws.

And that is Old Testament is it not? Why do you get to pick and chose what parts of the Bible you will follow?

Yeah, that's the Old Testament. I'm not choosing which parts of the bible to follow. Each covenant had its place and time. Why? Because of Christ's sacrifice. Without Christ we would still be bound by the old covenant of Moses. I don't want to dwell on theology here. I didn't choose to establish a new covenant Jesus (God) did.

If you have anymore misconceptions I can look up certain situations to clarify the context but I don't think this is the thread for it if we're not discussing instances that are relevant to the couple in the OP.

[San Lumen]

And that is Old Testament is it not? Why do you get to pick and chose what parts of the Bible you will follow?

Yeah, that's the Old Testament. I'm not choosing which parts of the bible to follow. Each covenant had its place and time. Why? Because of Christ's sacrifice. Without Christ we would still be bound by the old covenant of Moses. I don't want to dwell on theology here. I didn't choose to establish a new covenant Jesus (God) did.

If you have anymore misconceptions I can look up certain situations to clarify the context but I don't think this is the thread for it if we're not discussing instances that are relevant to the couple in the OP.

regardless I dont see why LGBT should be denied the right to marry or adopt children. You have yet to give any credible evidence ither than my morals say so. Its a guaranteed right under the 14the amendment,

My friend from college got a loving family from two amazing men who raised a wonderful young man. There is no reason for him to have languished in the system to wait for a man and woman to come along when two men were willing and able to adopt him.

[Nakena]

Yeah, that's the Old Testament. I'm not choosing which parts of the bible to follow. Each covenant had its place and time. Why? Because of Christ's sacrifice. Without Christ we would still be bound by the old covenant of Moses. I don't want to dwell on theology here. I didn't choose to establish a new covenant Jesus (God) did.

If you have anymore misconceptions I can look up certain situations to clarify the context but I don't think this is the thread for it if we're not discussing instances that are relevant to the couple in the OP.

regardless I dont see why LGBT should be denied the right to marry or adopt children. You have yet to give any credible evidence ither than my morals say so. Its a guaranteed right under the 14the amendment,

My friend from college got a loving family from two amazing men who raised a wonderful young man. There is no reason for him to have languished in the system to wait for a man and woman to come along when two men were willing and able to adopt him.

Again San Lumen, why is it important to you?

[San Lumen]

regardless I dont see why LGBT should be denied the right to marry or adopt children. You have yet to give any credible evidence ither than my morals say so. Its a guaranteed right under the 14the amendment,

My friend from college got a loving family from two amazing men who raised a wonderful young man. There is no reason for him to have languished in the system to wait for a man and woman to come along when two men were willing and able to adopt him.

Again San Lumen, why is it important to you?

Why is LGBT rights important to me? Im gay.

[Nakena]

Again San Lumen, why is it important to you?

Why is LGBT rights important to me? Im gay.

No. I meant why is the whole christian theology and stuff important to you?

[Nilokeras]

Why is LGBT rights important to me? Im gay.

No. I meant why is the whole christian theology and stuff important to you?

It is ultimately the basis of the arguments being put forward in favour of rolling back LGBT rights protections or on access to IVF. They may also have an interest in preventing Christian theology from being used by Sundiata and people like them as way to indulge their pride and take a self-centered stance proclaiming the necessity of doctrine while knee-deep in the onrushing tide of history.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, that's an understanding of the state I do have contentions with. It's also not set in stone despite being a constitutional norm. While church and state are and should be distinctive, their complete separation should be cause for worry. I think it's a great error, really. The state shouldn't only be oriented to temporal affairs but greater questions than material prosperity. The state also has a role in our total welfare. It's why there can't be a civil basis for any obstacles towards this end. It's an unfortunate norm. The concept of religious liberty is settling. Not all religions are the same. The state has virtually eradicated the sense of 'Christian' culture. It's unfortunate that the church has given up this primacy. Our morality has gone so astray, these are times of moral anarchy. Separation of church and state? No, no, no. We're far too pluralistic; we've conceded too much and adopted a defeatist attitude.

Meanwhile I am of the opinion that Christians like yourself are finally starting to be put appropriately in your place after having too much power over the populace. You are finally being made equal to everyone else, and are crying about it claiming discrimination. Christian culture has no place in a society that has so diverse a population, particularly the form of culture that claims it is moral to force kids to live an a foster system instead of with loving parents.

I, for one, am not claiming it's discrimination. I am of the opinion that no religion should dictate the law and freedom of and freedom from religion are both vital rights to be respected.

This is what they said. However I fail to see what is wrong with detaching sex and procreation, in fact seems to me it would be a good thing if sex and procreation where not necessarily linked, means there would be a lot fewer unwanted children if that where the case. The second part of the comment is intrinsically religious, and more specifically Christian in nature, so while the religion was not mentioned, it was hidden in the comment.

As far as my religious understanding goes, the concept of procreating is established by god, therefore god does not want artificial insemination, ergo God does not want people to be happy.

That's what it seems like, from Sundiata's perspective.

I mean... even when Ireland had a whole raft of very restrictive laws, under the jurisdiction of the then-very-influential Catholic Church (such as no abortions), they allowed IVF (in spite of the official position of the Catholic Church). And Catholics had it.

In part due to how those who are not mothers were viewed with -- from the article -- with disdain in the Irish Catholic Church.

Except the entire point of the AG thing is not the IVF, they do not care about the IVF, they are specifically targeting LGBT parents regardless of IVF. If you say you are agreeing with the AG then the things I said about harm hold and you support it.

You're missing the bigger picture Neutraligon. Yes, I agree with the AG.

I am for conjugal relations within heterosexual marriage that gives rise to human beings. Those are the moral conditions for creating human life. This standard isn't driven out of a hatred for homosexuals, sadism, or a blind hunger for power. There's a larger goal at play here that I would make clear if it didn't deviate from the general point of the thread.

It seems clear enough: you want everyone to follow your personal notion of morality.

Fortunately -- as we have all seen the kind of homophobia and misery that would result from your "moral" view (though you view them as side-effects and not the goal) -- we do not.

Society should not impose universal standards that do not effect people evenly, without alternatives to accommodate for people who are disproportionately and negatively affected by said standards.

I.e., don't require everyone to be able to safely traverse a set of stairs without having rails and a ramp in place.

Everyone experiences unique challenges though, that doesn't mean that the standard is inherently wrong; the issue is our weaknesses and failures. Most importantly, that's ok.

So, is homosexuality a weakness, as the LGBT+ community would be badly and disproportionately impacted by your universal oh-so-moral "standard"? Is infertility a personal moral failing that leaves someone unable to live up to the necessary opposite-sex spouse, picket fence, two (or twenty) children and a family dog named 'Lassie'?

How condescending and judgmental!

[Sundiata]

So, is homosexuality a weakness, as the LGBT+ community would be badly and disproportionately impacted by your universal oh-so-moral "standard"? Is infertility a personal moral failing that leaves someone unable to live up to the necessary opposite-sex spouse, picket fence, two (or twenty) children and a family dog named 'Lassie'?

How condescending and judgmental!

To answer your question homosexuality and infertility are not inherently weakness. It depends on the person and how they look at things, really.

[The Free Joy State]

So, is homosexuality a weakness, as the LGBT+ community would be badly and disproportionately impacted by your universal oh-so-moral "standard"? Is infertility a personal moral failing that leaves someone unable to live up to the necessary opposite-sex spouse, picket fence, two (or twenty) children and a family dog named 'Lassie'?

How condescending and judgmental!

To answer your question homosexuality and infertility are not inherently weakness. It depends on the person and how they look at things, really.

If it depends on the individual, then standards are, by definition, subjective. Ergo, this "one universal standard" for all does not exist.

My standard, for example, is that homosexuality is not a weakness as it is innate and harms no-one and that LGBT+ people should be legally able to form a family with another adult of the same-sex and create a family with them (the current legal standard in many countries). Therefore, what the AG in Indiana is doing is discriminatory and should be stricken down in the Supreme Court.

Or, in your eyes, is homosexuality only not a "weaknesses" if the LGBT+ individual ignores who they are, conceals themselves as gay people did for centuries. Marries a person of the opposite sex, or -- if they can't "buck up" and pretend -- remain celibate and live lonely, solitary existences... forever miserable and unfulfilled, with no loving arms about their shoulders?

And, if so, how does the infertile person pretend? Pray? Thank the Lord for the blessings of their misery? Look at their empty arms, the empty crib and say 'It's just not God's will that I be happy'?

[Sundiata]

If it depends on the individual, then standards are, by definition, subjective. Ergo, this "one universal standard" for all does not exist.

No, I'll respond to the rest later. The standard applies universally. Individual perception of objective moral law varies. The standard for all exists. Individual perceptions and reactions? Variable, subjective. I don't want any further confusion about this because this is important to grasp before going forward.

[Nilokeras]

To answer your question homosexuality and infertility are not inherently weakness. It depends on the person and how they look at things, really.

Your thinking is getting more and more muddled here. Are they or are they not an contradiction to the purpose of humankind? Telos is not a subjective quality.

[Sundiata]

To answer your question homosexuality and infertility are not inherently weakness. It depends on the person and how they look at things, really.

Your thinking is getting more and more muddled here. Are they or are they not an contradiction to the purpose of humankind? Telos is not a subjective quality.

Telos is not subjective. Individual perspective about Telos definitely is. Am I off? Not making sense?

[The Free Joy State]

If it depends on the individual, then standards are, by definition, subjective. Ergo, this "one universal standard" for all does not exist.

No, I'll respond to the rest later. The standard applies universally. Individual perception of objective truth varies. The standard for all exists. Individual perceptions and reactions? Variable, subjective.

It's the same difference.

If I don't believe homosexuality is in any way wrong, why would I care that X-group does? Why would I see the need to base laws around what X-group thinks -- and massively discriminate against the LGBT+ community, not to mention all infertile people -- for the sake of X-group's idea of a standard that has not been shown to exist, and making a lot of lives worse in the process?

It's like setting a test, and designing it so that pretty much all of the people sitting it will fail. Not only pointless, but cruel too.

[Nilokeras]

Telos is not subjective. Individual perspective about Telos definitely is.

So what is the point of your doctrine if the most articulate thing you can tell us through it is a shrug and a 'sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't'? Why expend so much blood, treasure and human fulfillment in pursuit of a grand cosmic 'meh'? To paraphrase a great film, say what you will about Protestant fundamentalism but at least it's a consistent teleology.

[Sundiata]

It's the same difference.

If I don't believe homosexuality is in any way wrong, why would I care that X-group does?

I hate to sound nitpicky or pedantic but it isn't homosexuality or same-sex attraction that's wrong. A person can experience same-sex attraction and master the seven heavenly virtues. True happiness isn't exclusive to heterosexuals.

[The Free Joy State]

It's the same difference.

If I don't believe homosexuality is in any way wrong, why would I care that X-group does?

I hate to sound nitpicky or pedantic but it isn't homosexuality or same-sex attraction that's wrong. A person can experience same-sex attraction and master the seven heavenly virtues. True happiness isn't exclusive to heterosexuals.

Then why want to restrict marriage from same-sex couples, which you have stated in thread? If LGBT+ people can be just as virtuous?

Or, again, is it only self-denying, celibate gay people -- those who forbid themselves to ever truly, fully love another person out of mortal terror and so never know happiness -- or spend their whole lives lying to others in a straight marriage that are virtuous in your eyes?

[Sundiata]

Then why want to restrict marriage from same-sex couples, which you have stated in thread? If LGBT+ people can be just as virtuous?#

Or, again, is it only self-denying, celibate gay people -- those who forbid themselves to ever love another person out of mortal terror and so never know happiness -- or spend their whole lives lying to others in a straight marriage that are virtuous in your eyes?

Yes, aside from the lying and never knowing happiness. That isn't true.

[Sundiata]

Telos is not subjective. Individual perspective about Telos definitely is.

So what is the point of your doctrine if the most articulate thing you can tell us through it is a shrug and a 'sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't'? Why expend so much blood, treasure and human fulfillment in pursuit of a grand cosmic 'meh'? To paraphrase a great film, say what you will about Protestant fundamentalism but at least it's a consistent teleology.

I'm not being inconsistent with respect to this matter. You work hard now, live a good life, and make sacrifices now to obtain your piece of absolute perfection. That's true happiness.

[The Free Joy State]

Then why want to restrict marriage from same-sex couples, which you have stated in thread? If LGBT+ people can be just as virtuous?#

Or, again, is it only self-denying, celibate gay people -- those who forbid themselves to ever love another person out of mortal terror and so never know happiness -- or spend their whole lives lying to others in a straight marriage that are virtuous in your eyes?

Yes, aside from the lying and never knowing happiness.

So, you like gay people... but only those who hide that they're gay or pretend to be straight?

And, FTR, you're wrong on both counts. Discrimination (such as disallowing marriage and IVF to same-sex couples) is shown to raise rates of depression and anxiety, while hiding the fact you're LGBT+ can lead to mental harm (including dissociation, self-hatred and low self-esteem), not to mention a mass of half-truths and small lies.

So... no. What you advocate is not a recipe for happiness. Or truth.

[Sundiata]

Yes, aside from the lying and never knowing happiness.

So, you like gay people... but only those who hide that they're gay or pretend to be straight?

And, FTR, you're wrong on both counts. Discrimination (such as disallowing marriage to same-sex couples) is shown to raise rates of depression and anxiety, while hiding the fact you're LGBT+ can lead to mental harm (including dissociation, self-hatred and low self-esteem), not to mention a mass of half-truths and small lies.

So... no. What you advocate is not a recipe for happiness. Or truth.

There is no recipe for joy in this life. Being virtuous doesn't mean that you'll be joyous or experience the emotion that is happiness. Most saints suffered greatly for most of their lives. Being a Christian is not a recipe for ending the sufferings of this life. What Christianity is is a guarantee that you won't suffer forever. Nobody should suffer forever.

[The Free Joy State]

So, you like gay people... but only those who hide that they're gay or pretend to be straight?

And, FTR, you're wrong on both counts. Discrimination (such as disallowing marriage to same-sex couples) is shown to raise rates of depression and anxiety, while hiding the fact you're LGBT+ can lead to mental harm (including dissociation, self-hatred and low self-esteem), not to mention a mass of half-truths and small lies.

So... no. What you advocate is not a recipe for happiness. Or truth.

There is no recipe for joy in this life. Being virtuous doesn't mean that you'll be joyous or experience the emotion this is happiness. Most saints suffered greatly for most of their lives. Being a Christian is not a recipe for ending the sufferings of this life. What Christianity is is a guarantee that you won't suffer forever. Nobody should suffer forever.

I think I would rather focus my energies on being decent to other human beings. You make going for sainthood sound rather depressing.

[Sundiata]

There is no recipe for joy in this life. Being virtuous doesn't mean that you'll be joyous or experience the emotion this is happiness. Most saints suffered greatly for most of their lives. Being a Christian is not a recipe for ending the sufferings of this life. What Christianity is is a guarantee that you won't suffer forever. Nobody should suffer forever.

I think I would rather focus my energies on being a decent human being. You make going for sainthood sound rather depressing.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that the lives of many saints are depressing. Many of the greatest Christians to ever walk this earth were crucified, tortured to death, burned alive, or died very painful deaths. Often for no other reason than wanting to help others. All of that said, actually being a saint is not depressing. It's the greatest thing a person could ever achieve because there is no suffering when someone finally achieves sainthood.