Greece legalises equal marriage

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's possible, I don't know too much about religious trends in South Korea. I would still suspect that socioeconomic factors are probably contributing more to their depression though.

Yep. That's likely it.

I'm glad that "Trudeau in blackface" agrees with me. That's how I know I'm onto something.

[Neu California]

The Carefully Calculated Politics Behind Passing Same-Sex Marriage In Greece

[Juvencus]

-snip-

It's always and everywhere a good thing when churches lose legal/political struggles against secular society, and despite the efforts of reactionaries to try and shame us (...and for what, exactly, pointing out the obvious?) we are not shy about saying so.

May this be a century of losing, losing, and more losing for Orthodox Christians.

You're pathetic.

[San Lumen]

-snip-

It's always and everywhere a good thing when churches lose legal/political struggles against secular society, and despite the efforts of reactionaries to try and shame us (...and for what, exactly, pointing out the obvious?) we are not shy about saying so.

May this be a century of losing, losing, and more losing for Orthodox Christians.

There is no need for a comment like this.

[Kalaron]

It's always and everywhere a good thing when churches lose legal/political struggles against secular society, and despite the efforts of reactionaries to try and shame us (...and for what, exactly, pointing out the obvious?) we are not shy about saying so.

May this be a century of losing, losing, and more losing for Orthodox Christians.

There is no need for a comment like this.

There's also nothing inherently wrong about it?

[Godular]

I READ IT THUS:

You're pathetic.

Well, I suppose I should thank you for leaving little room for interpretation. Insulting people is not acceptable.

Juvencus is *** WARNED for flaming ***.

[Neutraligon]

It's always and everywhere a good thing when churches lose legal/political struggles against secular society, and despite the efforts of reactionaries to try and shame us (...and for what, exactly, pointing out the obvious?) we are not shy about saying so.

May this be a century of losing, losing, and more losing for Orthodox Christians.

There is no need for a comment like this.

What exactly is wrong with this comment? It is due to secular wins over the power of the churches that we have SSM in the Western world instead of having homosexuals being stoned to death. Secular wins over the institutions of religion are incredibly protective of people and their ability to live a good quality of life, without fear of being harmed or killed.

[The Archregimancy]

There is no need for a comment like this.

What exactly is wrong with this comment?

In the context of this specific thread, realistically nothing. In the context of broader Orthodox Christian history, however, 'losing, losing, and more losing' does, unfortunately, potentially raises the spectre of this sequence of events:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reli ... _Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... %80%931928)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... %80%931941)

But I very much doubt that either Northern Socialist Council Republics or San Lumen were reading a reference to the post-1917 Bolshevik persecutions of religion in that exchange; at least I hope not.

[ARIsyan-]

Really is a tragedy that the communists unanimously voted against, really shows they've given up on the whole "national liberation" part of marxism. Also disappointed in SYRIZA for complaining about the law not doing anything about the right to surrogacy, which would be quite the government overstep and violate the bodily autonomy of women.

In any case, really glad that the government stuck it to the Orthodox church and legalized this, the neo-fascists and christian fundamentalists can weep.

[Rusozak]

Really is a tragedy that the communists unanimously voted against, really shows they've given up on the whole "national liberation" part of marxism. Also disappointed in SYRIZA for complaining about the law not doing anything about the right to surrogacy, which would be quite the government overstep and violate the bodily autonomy of women.

In any case, really glad that the government stuck it to the Orthodox church and legalized this, the neo-fascists and christian fundamentalists can weep.

The KKE voted against? Why, some erroneous conflation of Gay rights with Western imperialism?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

There is no need for a comment like this.

There's also nothing inherently wrong about it?

Ehh. It reads as a little bit mean to the Orthodox Church.

Obviously it's good that they have lost on the issue of SSM, but the "I hope they keep losing" comes of a little mean.

I'm not even Christian, but I still have a soft spot for the EO Church. I don't even know why.

[Port Carverton]

Really is a tragedy that the communists unanimously voted against, really shows they've given up on the whole "national liberation" part of marxism. Also disappointed in SYRIZA for complaining about the law not doing anything about the right to surrogacy, which would be quite the government overstep and violate the bodily autonomy of women.

In any case, really glad that the government stuck it to the Orthodox church and legalized this, the neo-fascists and christian fundamentalists can weep.

The KKE voted against? Why, some erroneous conflation of Gay rights with Western imperialism?

Many successful communist movements, like Maoists, have decried same-sex relationships as bourgeois decadence. It's just communism being communism really.

[Kalaron]

The KKE voted against? Why, some erroneous conflation of Gay rights with Western imperialism?

Many successful communist movements, like Maoists, have decried same-sex relationships as bourgeois decadence. It's just communism being communism really.

There is nothing inherent to communism that says gay people are bad.

[Port Carverton]

Many successful communist movements, like Maoists, have decried same-sex relationships as bourgeois decadence. It's just communism being communism really.

There is nothing inherent to communism that says gay people are bad.

Except all the collectivism it requires.

[Kalaron]

There is nothing inherent to communism that says gay people are bad.

Except all the collectivism it requires.

This isn't an answer, and you know that communism doesn't require people to be straight.

[Cessarea]

There is nothing inherent to communism that says gay people are bad.

Except all the collectivism it requires.

Collectivism is when straight people.

[Kalaron]

Except all the collectivism it requires.

Collectivism is when straight people.

God damn government took my gay, now it's our gay

[Port Carverton]

Except all the collectivism it requires.

This isn't an answer, and you know that communism doesn't require people to be straight.

It is an answer, and although not explicitly collectivism requires social cohesion, so a communist society would likely be against same-sex relationships.

Except all the collectivism it requires.

Collectivism is when straight people.

What I said above.

[Kalaron]

This isn't an answer, and you know that communism doesn't require people to be straight.

It is an answer, and although not explicitly collectivism requires social cohesion, so a communist society would likely be against same-sex relationships.

Collectivism is when straight people.

What I said above.

So we've now motte-and-bailey'd from "Communism is against gays" to "Well uhhhh they'd probably(?) be against gay people?"

No, "social cohesion" doesn't mean there can't be gay people. Are you just trying to link communism and homophobia to "own" the communists?

[Cessarea]

This isn't an answer, and you know that communism doesn't require people to be straight.

It is an answer, and although not explicitly collectivism requires social cohesion, so a communist society would likely be against same-sex relationships.

Collectivism is when straight people.

What I said above.

You're speaking in extreme abstractions. I don't even know what this required "social cohesion" is, or if jt exists as a prominent part of any conception of a communist society. I suppose each local community needs to have a minimum of cooperation with each other, but be mindful that no revolution is complete without a cultural revolution: a communist society presupposes a social, political, economic, and cultural revolution that set the stage for it.

Again, this required, abstract "social cohesion" seems to be an element you've made up. I don't know if you've borrowed your concept of communism from the Borg or whatever, but homogenisation is a Cold War myth, not endemic to the theory.

[Port Carverton]

It is an answer, and although not explicitly collectivism requires social cohesion, so a communist society would likely be against same-sex relationships.
What I said above.

So we've now motte-and-bailey'd from "Communism is against gays" to "Well uhhhh they'd probably(?) be against gay people?"

No, "social cohesion" doesn't mean there can't be gay people. Are you just trying to link communism and homophobia to "own" the communists?

I didn't no such thing. Communist regimes, with very few exceptions have been against same-sex relationships usually calling it 'bourgeois'. An ideology which requires a strong united society (the proletariat) will require strict social norms as to what is acceptable.

It is an answer, and although not explicitly collectivism requires social cohesion, so a communist society would likely be against same-sex relationships.
What I said above.

You're speaking in extreme abstractions. I don't even know what this required "social cohesion" is, or if jt exists as a prominent part of any conception of a communist government. I suppose each local community needs to have a minimum of cooperation with each other, but be mindful that no revolution is complete without a cultural revolution: a communist society presupposes a social, political, economic, and cultural revolution that set the stage for it.

Again, this required, abstract "social cohesion" seems to be an element you've made up. I don't know if you've borrowed your concept of communism from the Borg or whatever, but homogenisation is a Cold War myth, not endemic to the theory.

Mao's cultural revolution notably continued this trend in his regime.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to look at what communists have done in practice as opposed to what they claim they will do.

[Neo-American States]

Supremely based and rainbowpilled.

[Kalaron]

So we've now motte-and-bailey'd from "Communism is against gays" to "Well uhhhh they'd probably(?) be against gay people?"

No, "social cohesion" doesn't mean there can't be gay people. Are you just trying to link communism and homophobia to "own" the communists?

I didn't no such thing. Communist regimes, with very few exceptions have been against same-sex relationships usually calling it 'bourgeois'. An ideology which requires a strong united society (the proletariat) will require strict social norms as to what is acceptable.

You're speaking in extreme abstractions. I don't even know what this required "social cohesion" is, or if jt exists as a prominent part of any conception of a communist government. I suppose each local community needs to have a minimum of cooperation with each other, but be mindful that no revolution is complete without a cultural revolution: a communist society presupposes a social, political, economic, and cultural revolution that set the stage for it.

Again, this required, abstract "social cohesion" seems to be an element you've made up. I don't know if you've borrowed your concept of communism from the Borg or whatever, but homogenisation is a Cold War myth, not endemic to the theory.

Mao's cultural revolution notably continued this trend in his regime.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to look at what communists have done in practice as opposed to what they claim they will do.

When you describe it as "Communism being communism" you're obviously saying that Communism is inherently against gay people. You motte-and-bailey'd by now moving the goalposts to "Well uh in this hypothetical they'd be against gay people probably", or "they'd usually do it with exceptions", which is obviously a much easier to defend position than "Communism is inherently anti-gay". This is the definition of motte-and-bailey.

Beyond that, no. Gay people aren't the enemy of communism, nor are they somehow unique harms to "social cohesion". That you think they are says a fair bit more about your perspective on 'em.

Again, are you just trying to link communism and homophobia to "own" the communists?

[Port Carverton]

I didn't no such thing. Communist regimes, with very few exceptions have been against same-sex relationships usually calling it 'bourgeois'. An ideology which requires a strong united society (the proletariat) will require strict social norms as to what is acceptable.


Mao's cultural revolution notably continued this trend in his regime.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to look at what communists have done in practice as opposed to what they claim they will do.

When you describe it as "Communism being communism" you're obviously saying that Communism is inherently against gay people. You motte-and-bailey'd by now moving the goalposts to "Well uh in this hypothetical they'd be against gay people probably", or "they'd usually do it with exceptions", which is obviously a much easier to defend position than "Communism is inherently anti-gay". This is the definition of motte-and-bailey.

Beyond that, no. Gay people aren't the enemy of communism, nor are they somehow unique harms to "social cohesion". That you think they are says a fair bit more about your perspective on 'em.

Again, are you just trying to link communism and homophobia to "own" the communists?

You're putting to much emphasis on adjectives. You also did the same fallacy the other day, so I think your comments about 'grandstanding' are really talking about yourself.

You're putting words in my mouth. LGBT people are not a problem to social cohesion if the society is individualist like in the West. Communism requires a highly collectivist society because it is an utopia, so everything deviating from the norm would have to be punished. That's just how it works. In a society where everything would belong to the community, you can't let people do whatever they want because they all must stay together, and the mores of the society would be strict as so to preserve this.

I don't have to. It happened in real-life.

[Kalaron]

When you describe it as "Communism being communism" you're obviously saying that Communism is inherently against gay people. You motte-and-bailey'd by now moving the goalposts to "Well uh in this hypothetical they'd be against gay people probably", or "they'd usually do it with exceptions", which is obviously a much easier to defend position than "Communism is inherently anti-gay". This is the definition of motte-and-bailey.

Beyond that, no. Gay people aren't the enemy of communism, nor are they somehow unique harms to "social cohesion". That you think they are says a fair bit more about your perspective on 'em.

Again, are you just trying to link communism and homophobia to "own" the communists?

You're putting to much emphasis on adjectives. You also did the same fallacy the other day, so I think your comments about 'grandstanding' are really talking about yourself.

You're putting words in my mouth. LGBT people are not a problem to social cohesion if the society is individualist like in the West. Communism requires a highly collectivist society because it is an utopia, so everything deviating from the norm would have to be punished. That's just how it works. In a society where everything would belong to the community, you can't let people do whatever they want because they all must stay together, and the mores of the society would be strict as so to preserve this.

I don't have to. It happened in real-life.

OK, Port.