Can Homophobia Be Justified?

[Caraani]

Those are some majestic mental gymnastics. You do know that civil unions exist, don't you?

105 years ago we would have been the weirdos advocating gay marriage.

True; and yet here we are, in 2021. I said it before, and I will say it again, slavery was always terrible, and it continued to be terrible after western countries started making it illegal but other countries kept practicing it, and it kept being terrible when most countries in the world finally understood that it was a crime against humanity. Like slavery, the idea that you ought to be able to beat, kill or deny rights to homosexuals is as repulsive today as it would be 105 years ago. We'd be in the wrong, not the idea of tolerating sexual minorities.

[Istoreya]

It's nothing to do with treating people differently. It's to do with denying people equal opportunities.

We deny children the right to marriage, the right to vote, the right to sign a contract.

Because children have underdeveloped mental capacity to make those kinds of decisions. Are you saying gay adults have the same mental capacity as a child?

[Caraani]

Those are some majestic mental gymnastics. You do know that civil unions exist, don't you?

Yes i support civil unions but it should not be called a Marriage and should definitely not happen in a Church.

Good. I personally don't care for churches. Just don't deny me my rights, so long as I pay my taxes. A citizen is a citizen. What you believe in private, and what god you pray to, is irrelevant. I have never understood gay people who wish to be religious. Religion is one of the prime causes of our strife. Gay people should actively practice atheism.

[Novokria]

Yes i support civil unions but it should not be called a Marriage and should definitely not happen in a Church.

Tough shit, they are called marriage and they happen wherever the people involved want.

You can not change the definition of Marriage this not up for discussion we are not in a Liberal Utopia we are in God's World

[Ethel mermania]

Yes. I support it mind you, but I am a westerner.

I personally don't think so - but if it is, then I'm all for actively imposing it on other parts of the world. Some ideas simply are better than others, and your >insert adjective of culture, region or country here< intolerance isn't even remotely equal to my, apparently European tolerance. We don't need to tolerate intolerance.

Fair, but as long as we understand what we are doing. And imposing the Western morality is exactly what we are doing by saying its a universal.

[Ethel mermania]

Tough shit, they are called marriage and they happen wherever the people involved want.

You can not change the definition of Marriage this not up for discussion we are not in a Liberal Utopia we are in God's World

I live in the state of New York, I can assure you it is not God's world.

[Istoreya]

Tough shit, they are called marriage and they happen wherever the people involved want.

You can not change the definition of Marriage this not up for discussion we are not in a Liberal Utopia we are in God's World

We aren't in God's world. God doesn't exist. A fake sky man cannot decide who and who I cannot marry.

If you believe in him, fine, go nuts. But your beliefs do not control my life.

[Caraani]

We "discover" them by the same mechanism that made us gather in large vertical blocks of concrete where we either sleep on soft beds or sit in such an unnatural manner to the point it literally messes up with our bodies - on chairs, staring into squares that emit light and typing away virtual letters on websites. It isn't that it is objectively existing, we have created and adapted to this way of living that we define as modern; and in it, we don't need men to die at the age of 20 in wars, women to breed and pump out more future soldiers for tribal conquests, and we don't need to kill gays because of what they're doing. We have adapted our morality to our way of life.

This is just you having failed to make the is/ought distinction.

And this is just you being a gadfly on a forum on the internet because Coronavirus made you miss the opportunity to do it in person at your philosophy lesson. We're discussing real people getting killed, not the objectivity of western morality.

[Ifreann]

Tough shit, they are called marriage and they happen wherever the people involved want.

You can not change the definition of Marriage this not up for discussion we are not in a Liberal Utopia we are in God's World

We did change the definition of marriage. It happened. If there is a God who opposed us then we defeated him, we won and He lost.

[An-Tanwir]

I understand calling out people on what they say.

I do not understand why we need to ban the slurs from being said in public. Like restricting speech is cringe and unbased

Well wouldn't calling people out on their racism and holding them accountable effectively be banning that speech? I don't really see the difference

[Novokria]

You can not change the definition of Marriage this not up for discussion we are not in a Liberal Utopia we are in God's World

We aren't in God's world. God doesn't exist. A fake sky man cannot decide who and who I cannot marry.

If you believe in him, fine, go nuts. But your beliefs do not control my life.

oh you are a Cultural-Marxist? this World belongs to God weather you like it or not.

[An-Tanwir]

If you want people treated unequally in society, you are against them.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman this is not to be Changed we can give Homosexuals respect and tolerance but we should not work against God

What about separation of church and state?

[Punished UMN]

105 years ago we would have been the weirdos advocating gay marriage.

True; and yet here we are, in 2021. I said it before, and I will say it again, slavery was always terrible, and it continued to be terrible after western countries started making it illegal but other countries kept practicing it, and it kept being terrible when most countries in the world finally understood that it was a crime against humanity. Like slavery, the idea that you ought to be able to beat, kill or deny rights to homosexuals is as repulsive today as it would be 105 years ago. We'd be in the wrong, not the idea of tolerating sexual minorities.

This whig history -- the idea that advancement towards what is good is inevitable -- is why the LGBT rights movement is failing in these countries. The LGBT rights movement in the West was successful, after decades of fighting, because it was able to win people over using domestically appealing ideas and, eventually, making allies in high places that were sympathetic and viewed the LGBT rights movement as a valuable demographic to court. That is to say, the LGBT movement increased its political capital by investing it in transactions which gained them a net-increase in their political capital.

In many other parts of the globe, the LGBT movement has failed because it has transplanted Western ideology and rhetoric to countries that don't value them, and in doing so, has directly challenged the regimes (by which I mean the state ideology rather than those in power) in these countries, which undermines the state and the government and alienated large segments of the population. Instead of trying to form alliance with groups that have clout and which might be able to help them, the movement, again following the poor judgement of Western governments that have co-opted them to the detriment of the movement, has instead made alliances with anti-regime types, which has provoked strong responses from powers-that-be that otherwise might not give a shit. When my Arab and Russian friends criticize the LGBT rights movement, it's actually almost never about the principles of the movement, but rather about how their political strategy is harmful to the country. A quote that stands out from a Saudi friend: "No one here cares that her [an activist] fucks women, but we're not gonna sympathize with her as she picks fights with powerful Muftis on social media even after they have tacitly supported her."

I'm not saying your ideas are bad, I'm saying they're not fucking working.

[National Capitalist United States]

I understand calling out people on what they say.

I do not understand why we need to ban the slurs from being said in public. Like restricting speech is cringe and unbased

Well wouldn't calling people out on their racism and holding them accountable effectively be banning that speech? I don't really see the difference

I mean if it's the government that does it, then it's banning it.

If it's just bored Twitter users and/or Twitter itself that does it, it's not banning it.

[Caraani]

I personally don't think so - but if it is, then I'm all for actively imposing it on other parts of the world. Some ideas simply are better than others, and your >insert adjective of culture, region or country here< intolerance isn't even remotely equal to my, apparently European tolerance. We don't need to tolerate intolerance.

Fair, but as long as we understand what we are doing. And imposing the Western morality is exactly what we are doing by saying its a universal.

I just disagree with the idea that this is western morality. In many parts of the world, before the eras of colonialism and imperialism, entire cultures had no issue with homosexuality, or women being part of the literati class. So these ideas of ours aren't particular to our culture. If anything, it was western morality that saw homophobia become a real thing in major parts of the world.

[Punished UMN]

This is just you having failed to make the is/ought distinction.

And this is just you being a gadfly on a forum on the internet because Coronavirus made you miss the opportunity to do it in person at your philosophy lesson. We're discussing real people getting killed, not the objectivity of western morality.

No, we're discussing that your political strategy has failed and you're falling back on abstract concepts and moral condemnations because you don't have a back-up plan for actually convincing people on the ground to support LGBT people.

[San Lumen]

We aren't in God's world. God doesn't exist. A fake sky man cannot decide who and who I cannot marry.

If you believe in him, fine, go nuts. But your beliefs do not control my life.

oh you are a Cultural-Marxist? this World belongs to God weather you like it or not.

Do religious institutions not have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples therefore why shouldnt it occur in a church? Are you against LGBT adoption too?

[Novokria]

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman this is not to be Changed we can give Homosexuals respect and tolerance but we should not work against God

What about separation of church and state?

The state can not be independent from the Church if the state wants to exist

[Istoreya]

We aren't in God's world. God doesn't exist. A fake sky man cannot decide who and who I cannot marry.

If you believe in him, fine, go nuts. But your beliefs do not control my life.

oh you are a Cultural-Marxist? this World belongs to God weather you like it or not.

Lmao no. It as much belongs to Jesus's Daddy as it belongs to the invisible space dinosaur that carries the Earth in its head.

[National Capitalist United States]

We aren't in God's world. God doesn't exist. A fake sky man cannot decide who and who I cannot marry.

If you believe in him, fine, go nuts. But your beliefs do not control my life.

oh you are a Cultural-Marxist? this World belongs to God weather you like it or not.

I'm fairly sure God is dead based on the things I've seen online

[An-Tanwir]

We aren't in God's world. God doesn't exist. A fake sky man cannot decide who and who I cannot marry.

If you believe in him, fine, go nuts. But your beliefs do not control my life.

oh you are a Cultural-Marxist? this World belongs to God weather you like it or not.

Oh god. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, or if you're just parroting terms you've heard from other anti-lgbt activists, but the term "Cultural-Marxism" refers to an antisemetic conspiracy theory that was spread by, yes, Nazi Germany.

[The Alma Mater]

Tough shit, they are called marriage and they happen wherever the people involved want.

You can not change the definition of Marriage this not up for discussion we are not in a Liberal Utopia we are in God's World

The concept of marriage predates christianity and judaism. It is christianity that stole the word from the state, not the other way around.

[An-Tanwir]

Well wouldn't calling people out on their racism and holding them accountable effectively be banning that speech? I don't really see the difference

I mean if it's the government that does it, then it's banning it.

If it's just bored Twitter users and/or Twitter itself that does it, it's not banning it.

Well what is the government?

I believe that in a truly democratic country, the masses and state effectively become one.

[Nakena]

We aren't in God's world. God doesn't exist. A fake sky man cannot decide who and who I cannot marry.

If you believe in him, fine, go nuts. But your beliefs do not control my life.

oh you are a Cultural-Marxist? this World belongs to God weather you like it or not.

No it doesn't. As far as you are concerned, it belongs to Satan, the Lord of Earth.

And I am not even a cultural marxist. lol.

[The Marlborough]

I mean some people prefer pasteurized milk over homogenized milk, so I guess it's possible to justify it.