Other Anyone part of the lgbt community?

[Rachael of the Shire]

I used to go for the "hate the sin, but not the sinner thing" for quite a while. Oh, boy, was I a homophobic little stinker. Just the way my parents wanted me to be. But I couldn't help the feelings that I had. It's an interesting feeling to be a virgin and to swear that you will remain celibate until you marry a man... and then to realize that you like both boys and girls. It took a lot of love and support away from my parents before I could accept myself as who I was. As a virgin who has up to this point avoided all sexual contact, I can say the behavior is avoidable... but feelings don't go away. Not even if you want them to.

 

[Captain_Sheriarty]

I'm asexual!!! Since the day I've been born no sexual feelings over here.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

And there's nothing wrong with that! I had no romantic feelings for anybody until after I turned 16 and no sexual ones until 18. Some people it happens sooner, some people it happens later, and some people it doesn't happen at all. Just do what makes you happy.

 

[All thats seein]

While I'm not any form of gay. I really don't see why people think it's so bad. And it's not like being any of the lgbtq's are a worldwide sin. Since just a few years ago Ireland started allowing gay marriage

 

[Pine]

Again, a speaker came who told us about how she was once a lesbian and overnight chose to no longer become a lesbian.

did she suddenly stop being attracted to women? you can choose not to date women, but that isn't the same as just changing your sexual orientation overnight imo. and if she did suddenly "lose" that attraction and suddenly "became" attracted to men, i would argue that she was bi and is simply repressing those feelings for women because she has another option. (a common conflict that people attracted to more than one gender face. some people, like myself, say that attraction to one gender feels very different from attraction to another gender, and it can be hard to recognize As attraction for that very reason, and there's a lot of self-doubt involved with this. if, for example, a bi girl has a preference for men in spite of a still present attraction for women, it's easy to dismiss that attraction as just an appreciation for women's beauty. conversely, a bi girl may call herself a lesbian because of trauma related to/a distrust in men or just REALLY wanting to embrace their gay identity + a good number of lesbians refusing to date women who love women if they arent lesbians because they want men totally out of their lives. there's a lot of pressure to "pick a side" both within and outside of the lgbt community. we're trying to fix bi erasure on our end.)

regardless, that's just one speaker. that's the argumentative fallacy that is commonly used in pseudoscience tactics where you find the ONE outlier, give them a platform, then suddenly act like their narrative can/should apply to everyone. there's P L E N T Y of other lgbt that say it isn't a choice for them no matter how hard they've tried to be "normal" for the sake of not getting kicked out of their house, getting discriminated against, etc. that was one speaker at a church just feeding into people's confirmation bias and invalidating the probably hundreds of stories that the people on this thread have read as a collective that say the opposite.

Plus, I'm not taxed in my mental health, even though I've never followed through with my feelings. Oftentimes I repress them.

repression is a coping strategy, and within the field of psychology, argued to be one of the more unhealthy ones. expressing yourself has been supported to ease emotional tension (with the exception of aggression, which only leads to more aggression). i would gander that someone who claims to rely on repression has either found some other outlet for release that they aren't aware of or are not in tune with their emotions well enough to consciously recognize whether or not their mental health really is suffering (as ignoring your feelings is in the very nature of repression).

I hope he'll be able to change his mind, but other than that, best of luck to him.

i personally don't want to see him go down the route of trying to suppress a part of himself again. he's a lot happier now and i would hate for him to miss out on the opportunity to let himself loved and be loved by something just because he feels guilty for things he can't help. i was terrified that he would force himself into a marriage because he believes he needs to reproduce, which would lead to 1. the rest of his mortal life being spent in misery 2. whoever he chose to marry living a life unloved by her husband and 3. setting a poor example for their children as to what a happy and healthy relationship should look like.

i don't mean to contradict my previous point about the argumentative fallacy of citing one singular person. i just mean to use him as an example because this is something i have personally watched someone struggle with and i also have heard similar stories from many other people (i.e. lgbt christian narratives).

I think I'll decline to answer.

that's fair.

Oh ye I have 0 doubt. I honestly feel like everyone talking about this has been very good and kind. I really think it's because of how great you guys are. I was jokingly referring to the fact that I was literally everything that the left dislikes. I'm white, I'm cisgender, I'm Christian, I'm male, I'm straight, and I'm conservative. It just seemed funny, so I thought I'd show up and say howdy.

okay, that makes sense. i just know there are christians who seem to really believe that lgbt people are attacking their faith. i personally have sat through a sermon where the preacher claimed that lgbt have put "the crosshairs on christianity" and how legalizing gay marriage was infringing on their rights. i hope you can understand that i, as well as some others on this thread, would have interpreted that post as baiting for an argument.

If you mean like gays being thrown off rooftops in ISIS territories and just being gay being illegal in muslim countries... well, it's still going on there.
It's because those states feel that their rights were violated. They felt that it was their right to choose whether or not gay marriage was legal, and when the government decided for them, well, they did their best in retaliation to the government's decision to limit gay marriages.

i've got a classic case of American Ignorance™ and don't know shit about what's going on in the rest of the world. im trying to correct this and learn more, but it's a slow process (hopefully sped up by my muslim coworkers having the patience to tell me their stories). so no, i was referring to stuff like the state of america less than 100 years ago, where police would raid gay bars and present a line of criminals on a newspaper with homosexuals right next to murderers, and keeping in mind people like alan turing in the uk who were given the option of death or castration for being gay. also i was keeping in mind those concentration camps that im pretty sure opened up/got exposed recently in russia for killing or imprisoning gays?

From our perspective, we are doing our very best, against the government's wishes, to help you. We believe that being gay is a choice, and since we care so much about you and want you to be in heaven, we are willing to take drastic action to bring you in. You may not see it this way, but we're doing it out of love. There's a point where it's misguided love, but that point isn't always crossed.

okay, i get what you're saying and have personal experience with something similar, which i think my approach to it can be applied here not to get too #Personal or anything. i had a christian friend that i've known for years. when he learned that i was agnostic, he tried almost everything to get me to "believe again." i know that he meant well, and from his perspective, he was genuinely just trying to save me from eternal damnation. i can't hate him for that. i know that's what he genuinely believes will happen to me and he was doing it out of fear/caring for me.

however, the issue becomes that he never stopped to consider my perspective. i've spent well over a decade raised into and passively trying to fit the christian faith into my understanding of the world. in spite of my instinct that divine intervention is unrealistic and vain to believe in, i gave it the benefit of the doubt and would sometimes remember to try praying (i was taught the gospel as a given truth and wasn't aware there were different beliefs). for all the time i tried to understand and believe in christianity, had to go through confirmation and do some half-assed methodist-equivalent to baptism, my friend didn't spare a second trying to understand and respect my beliefs. he just told me that i had to believe in something and that it was impossible to have some middle ground between theism and atheism.

i was pissed off at the time and told him that i understand that what he thinks he's doing is saving me, but i couldn't stand it if he only ever looked at me as someone to convert. he said he couldn't do that, so i said goodbye and cut him out of my life forever.

like again, i know that this isn't coming from a place of malice from either of you guys, but when you or anyone else tries to convert people over to your religion/beliefs, you aren't respecting that we're intelligent beings that can decide things for ourselves. there's absolute zero trust that we know what's best for ourselves. these people are saying "i know better than you, you don't know what's good for yourself," and all the "love" you have for them isn't even real, because for us, you aren't willing to accept us as we are, and all the love is just for what we could potentially be if you find a way to "fix" us. you're assuming that you're right and everyone else is wrong in a world full of people who think that they're right and everyone else must be wrong. at a certain point, it just seems like arrogance, and it spurs unneeded hatred between religious groups that lead to violent conflicts.

i may believe that morality is relative, but within my own personal system, imposing your will on someone else and closing off their options to choose for themselves is among the worst and most evil things that someone can do. i would much rather that christians (within the context of the u.s.) be there and willing to teach people of their faith if they want to learn rather than attacking groups that don't align with their beliefs with threats of hellfire and brimstone and corrupting a government that's supposed to be non-partisan and accommodating for all citizens. i think christians would be whistling a very different tune about religion in government if judaism had the most powerful voice of organized religion in this country.

 

[Hall Kervean]

did she suddenly stop being attracted to women? you can choose not to date women, but that isn't the same as just changing your sexual orientation overnight imo. and if she did suddenly "lose" that attraction and suddenly "became" attracted to men, i would argue that she was bi and is simply repressing those feelings for women because she has another option. (a common conflict that people attracted to more than one gender face. some people, like myself, say that attraction to one gender feels very different from attraction to another gender, and it can be hard to recognize As attraction for that very reason, and there's a lot of self-doubt involved with this. if, for example, a bi girl has a preference for men in spite of a still present attraction for women, it's easy to dismiss that attraction as just an appreciation for women's beauty. conversely, a bi girl may call herself a lesbian because of trauma related to/a distrust in men or just REALLY wanting to embrace their gay identity + a good number of lesbians refusing to date women who love women if they arent lesbians because they want men totally out of their lives. there's a lot of pressure to "pick a side" both within and outside of the lgbt community. we're trying to fix bi erasure on our end.)

regardless, that's just one speaker. that's the argumentative fallacy that is commonly used in pseudoscience tactics where you find the ONE outlier, give them a platform, then suddenly act like their narrative can/should apply to everyone. there's P L E N T Y of other lgbt that say it isn't a choice for them no matter how hard they've tried to be "normal" for the sake of not getting kicked out of their house, getting discriminated against, etc. that was one speaker at a church just feeding into people's confirmation bias and invalidating the probably hundreds of stories that the people on this thread have read as a collective that say the opposite.



repression is a coping strategy, and within the field of psychology, argued to be one of the more unhealthy ones. expressing yourself has been supported to ease emotional tension (with the exception of aggression, which only leads to more aggression). i would gander that someone who claims to rely on repression has either found some other outlet for release that they aren't aware of or are not in tune with their emotions well enough to consciously recognize whether or not their mental health really is suffering (as ignoring your feelings is in the very nature of repression).



i personally don't want to see him go down the route of trying to suppress a part of himself again. he's a lot happier now and i would hate for him to miss out on the opportunity to let himself loved and be loved by something just because he feels guilty for things he can't help. i was terrified that he would force himself into a marriage because he believes he needs to reproduce, which would lead to 1. the rest of his mortal life being spent in misery 2. whoever he chose to marry living a life unloved by her husband and 3. setting a poor example for their children as to what a happy and healthy relationship should look like.

i don't mean to contradict my previous point about the argumentative fallacy of citing one singular person. i just mean to use him as an example because this is something i have personally watched someone struggle with and i also have heard similar stories from many other people (i.e. lgbt christian narratives).



that's fair.



okay, that makes sense. i just know there are christians who seem to really believe that lgbt people are attacking their faith. i personally have sat through a sermon where the preacher claimed that lgbt have put "the crosshairs on christianity" and how legalizing gay marriage was infringing on their rights. i hope you can understand that i, as well as some others on this thread, would have interpreted that post as baiting for an argument.



i've got a classic case of American Ignorance™ and don't know shit about what's going on in the rest of the world. im trying to correct this and learn more, but it's a slow process (hopefully sped up by my muslim coworkers having the patience to tell me their stories). so no, i was referring to stuff like the state of america less than 100 years ago, where police would raid gay bars and present a line of criminals on a newspaper with homosexuals right next to murderers, and keeping in mind people like alan turing in the uk who were given the option of death or castration for being gay. also i was keeping in mind those concentration camps that im pretty sure opened up/got exposed recently in russia for killing or imprisoning gays?



okay, i get what you're saying and have personal experience with something similar, which i think my approach to it can be applied here not to get too #Personal or anything. i had a christian friend that i've known for years. when he learned that i was agnostic, he tried almost everything to get me to "believe again." i know that he meant well, and from his perspective, he was genuinely just trying to save me from eternal damnation. i can't hate him for that. i know that's what he genuinely believes will happen to me and he was doing it out of fear/caring for me.

however, the issue becomes that he never stopped to consider my perspective. i've spent well over a decade raised into and passively trying to fit the christian faith into my understanding of the world. in spite of my instinct that divine intervention is unrealistic and vain to believe in, i gave it the benefit of the doubt and would sometimes remember to try praying (i was taught the gospel as a given truth and wasn't aware there were different beliefs). for all the time i tried to understand and believe in christianity, had to go through confirmation and do some half-assed methodist-equivalent to baptism, my friend didn't spare a second trying to understand and respect my beliefs. he just told me that i had to believe in something and that it was impossible to have some middle ground between theism and atheism.

i was pissed off at the time and told him that i understand that what he thinks he's doing is saving me, but i couldn't stand it if he only ever looked at me as someone to convert. he said he couldn't do that, so i said goodbye and cut him out of my life forever.

like again, i know that this isn't coming from a place of malice from either of you guys, but when you or anyone else tries to convert people over to your religion/beliefs, you aren't respecting that we're intelligent beings that can decide things for ourselves. these people are saying "i know better than you, you don't know what's good for yourself," and all the "love" you have for them isn't even real, because for us, you aren't willing to accept us as we are, and all the love is just for what we could potentially be if you find a way to "fix" us. you're assuming that you're right and everyone else is wrong in a world full of people who think that they're right and everyone else must be wrong. at a certain point, it just seems like arrogance, and it spurs unneeded hatred between religious groups that lead to violent conflicts.

i may believe that morality is relative, but within my own personal system, imposing your will on someone else and closing off their options to choose for themselves is among the worst and most evil things that someone can do. i would much rather that christians (within the context of the u.s.) be there and willing to teach people of their faith if they want to learn rather than attacking groups that don't align with their beliefs with threats of hellfire and brimstone and corrupting a government that's supposed to be non-partisan and accommodating for all citizens. i think christians would be whistling a very different tune about religion in government if judaism had the most powerful voice of organized religion in this country.

Yeet.
No, it was a conscious decision to stop being attracted to women. I highly doubt she was bi. But even if she was, she isn't now. She's heterosexual.
There are circumstances that, I'm sure, would lead to her being an outlier, and there are circumstances to many others being... an inlier? Either way, if the Bible makes being gay out as a sin, then it's a choice. Plus there aren't hundreds who have responded to this thread.

I assure you, there is no other outlet, at least in my case. And mentally, I'm fiiiiiine

That's... a poor reason to marry anyways. "hey, fam wanna marry so we can play our part in ensuring that America is a growing nation?"
If you're a Christian, then down here is the absolute worst it will get. If you're not, then down here is the absolute best it will get. That's how I see it.
I was using the speaker as an example as well.

I do, and I hope you'll see it from our perspective. In our eyes, our entire country is moving further and further from its roots, which were Christian. And it's moving into a generally unwelcoming environment for Christians. Aside from the fact that it is a sin, we see that many Christians are called haters and bigots unnecessarily We've seen the Bible removed from schools (to the point where a child bringing a Bible to school is viewed as unwelcome), we've seen abortion become legal, and now we've seen a sin become legalized, normalized, and even praised. So from our perspective, we're seeing a lot of discrimination against Christianity and its ideas. (Meanwhile, many muslims are praised for their religion, which does condone sexism against women, homophobia worse than what the Bible calls for, the killing of infidels, etc.)

We're talking about now. Less than 100 years ago, that happened, black people were second-class citizens, women couldn't vote, etc. I have no idea what that is, but if it was during the U.S.S.R., it wasn't part of the Western world. Even if it's modern-day, the Russians aren't really considered part of the Western world.
I think the point I was trying to make was that there is homophobia punishable by death in the Middle East. There is people who at worst name call you and ask you to distance yourself from them. Y'all don't have it that bad in the U.S. In fact, much of the media praises gays and lesbians. I really and truly don't see systematic oppression, and I don't see severe oppression.

I have heard and seen miracles happen; i.e. someone was cured completely of cancer, though they contracted it again and perished afterwards. The first tumor was large, I don't remember how large. Miracles can be small, too. We needed food for something and we had only 5 dollars to spend. Nothing more. So we got just enough, checked out, and the total was exactly 5 dollars. Had we gotten any other items, we would have gone over or not had enough.
Unfortunately, he's somewhat right, even if his approach was wrong. There is no middle ground. Either you're with me or you're against me is what Jesus said. So either you are for him or you are against him.
I have a feeling that that was probably worded differently, because I literally can't see anyone saying that they can't not see someone as just something to convert.
Sorry, no, that's not at all what it is. Some people haven't heard it before, some people haven't consider it before, etc. It's like planting a seed, y'see? The first person ministers, and it's planted. The second person ministers or teaches, and it's watered. The growing process can take days, weeks, months, years, even decades.
It's not our choice who gets in and who doesn't, though. God chooses that, not us. What we try to do is to make sure that you do get in. If the way you are will not let you in by God's standards, then we will do our very best to try to get you to change so you can be accepted.
God said to love thy neighbor. Doesn't say "Love thy Christian neighbors," it says "Love thy neighbors." We do love you, enough to be willing to put years of friendship and possibly even relationships with our families on the line to preach to them.
The only objectively right thing in the world is the Bible. Everything in it is right. Anything outside of that is subjectively right and subjectively wrong.
We're not acting like we're right and everyone else is wrong, we're acting like the Bible is right and everything the Bible condemns is wrong.
By your standards, the law is evil, since it does not give people the choice of whether or not to commit a crime... I think.
Mk, there's multiple definitions of attack. Physical attacks are wrong, verbal attacks are not sharing the truth in love, and sharing the word of God in a loving manner to an unreceptive audience is not attacking.
Many Christians are willing to take that route, but some people need to be reached. Would you propose that Christian medical organizations do not go to Third World countries and share the Lord? And in first world countries, are homeless shelters and food drives that have a Christian base cruel and evil?
I have never seen it myself, because I have a relatively good church. But there are members of any group that will go to any lengths to share their faith. Why, look at muslims. They have a sect that is dedicated to going any lengths to sharing the love and peace of Allah.
Corrupting... what? When? I seriously cannot see Christianity corrupting the government. Especially if we go legally and imply bribery and blackmail.
We might. Depends on the laws passed. But you would too if the government was filled with Liberals or if it was filled with muslims. Each response is based off what the government is at the time. Hence, we weren't crying out during the Civil War era, when the government was mostly Christian. And many Republicans aren't crying out now that a Republican is in charge. And many Democrats weren't crying out when Obama was in charge.
Happy Friday!

 

[Pine]

No, it was a conscious decision to stop being attracted to women.

alright. even if im skeptical, i can't dispute the fact of what she said.

Plus there aren't hundreds who have responded to this thread.

to clarify, i wasn't talking about hundreds of people on this thread. i've talking about the stories people have read outside of rpn. i think it's common for lgbt people who are in a safe place to do so to research lgbt-related topics, which would lead to reading stories about lgbt people discovering their identity, etc.

That's... a poor reason to marry anyways. "hey, fam wanna marry so we can play our part in ensuring that America is a growing nation?"

more like he believes/believes that it was his duty as a christian to reproduce. i think there are sects of christianity where they see raising a biological family as something of a requirement.

If you're a Christian, then down here is the absolute worst it will get. If you're not, then down here is the absolute best it will get. That's how I see it.

i'm sorry i'm... not sure what you mean by this exactly? are you saying that christians are having a harder time than any other group?

In our eyes, our entire country is moving further and further from its roots, which were Christian.

america being founded on christianity is a common misconception. a good chunk of the early influential political figures in forming are government were deists, not christian. a lot of things that you see with religious/christian implications were introduced during the cold war because of american paranoia over communism, which i guess they saw as un-godly/-christian or some shit. separation of church and state is literally the first amendment of the constitution. they didn't want the church to have influence over the government as it had in england at x time period. yeah christianity was the Hot Thing To Be back then, but it wasn't the only thing, and the constitution was mindful of that. this is only a christian nation socially, not fundamentally.

Aside from the fact that it is a sin, we see that many Christians are called haters and bigots unnecessarily.

it's seen as hateful and bigoted because various sects of christianity are literally telling people how to live their lives based on their beliefs.

We've seen the Bible removed from schools (to the point where a child bringing a Bible to school is viewed as unwelcome)

because public schools are funded by the government, which i reiterate should be non-partisan. if they taught bible at the schools, then that would be the equivalent of the government teaching christianity, which it's supposed to be aside from.

we've seen abortion become legal,

under the pretense that it's a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. i think a lot of moderates agree at least that a woman that's been raped by a man shouldn't be forced to carry his child. the government can't stop abortions from happening even if it's outlawed/not supported, but what they can do is offer is as an OPTION that will be much more safe for women.

and now we've seen a sin become legalized, normalized, and even praised.

because the government acknowledges that people of different beliefs who do not see it as a sin and want to be able to make a choice for themselves. america has shifted towards an individualistic culture within the past several decades and it wouldn't make sense for something that is harmless to the people's safety around them to be outlawed. i think people being able to live their lives as they want to (again, without harming others) is something more than worthy of praise. also normalization = safety.

So from our perspective, we're seeing a lot of discrimination against Christianity and its ideas.

it would be discrimination if christians were not allowed to bring their bibles but muslims were able to bring their qurans. it would be discrimination if christians needed to legally abort their children. it would be discrimination if heterosexual marriage was outlawed and homosexual marriage remained legal. i have never heard of anyone advocating for these things seriously. all that's happening is that christian beliefs are staying out of the government's influence. this "moral decline" in america is just a progressive movement to a more non-partisan government (with many hiccups along the way from an overwhelming number of christian biases in our elected representatives).

(Meanwhile, many muslims are praised for their religion, which does condone sexism against women, homophobia worse than what the Bible calls for, the killing of infidels, etc.)

have you studied islamic faith, particularly outside of a church setting? i know i have yet to do so, but i plan on it. i'm sure once i do that i'll find, just as with christianity, most sects of modern islamic faith having moved beyond literal interpretations of the quran. i was literally talking to my muslim coworker last night about Gay things and he didn't say a single cross thing about it. i think it's a very important time to encourage and support muslims because even the most meek and polite, like my coworker, has been accused of being a terrorist, and being seen as a threat/terrorist by anyone is a very dangerous position to be in. also, islamic faith is not the dominating religion here, and they have basically zero political power/influence to make asses out of themselves in the government. they're just trying to survive at this point in an environment which is extremely hostile towards them.

We're talking about now. Less than 100 years ago, that happened, black people were second-class citizens, women couldn't vote, etc. I have no idea what that is, but if it was during the U.S.S.R., it wasn't part of the Western world. Even if it's modern-day, the Russians aren't really considered part of the Western world.

i think anything within the past century is pretty recent, but either way, just as kib mentioned, there was the pulse shooting only just last year. the concentrations camps have been a thing within the past few months. even if we don't consider russia part of the western world, we undoubtedly have connected interactions with them, ala whatever's going on with trump trying to build some sort of relationship with russia.

There is people who at worst name call you and ask you to distance yourself from them. Y'all don't have it that bad in the U.S. In fact, much of the media praises gays and lesbians. I really and truly don't see systematic oppression, and I don't see severe oppression.

again, the pulse shooting. children being threatened to be disowned (my datemate being among them) or actually being disowned. transwomen especially transwomen of color are at such a high risk of harassment, including but not limited to sexual harassment. violent hate crimes have by no means been absolved of in the u.s. yes, we don't have it anywhere near as bad here as we do in other parts of the world, but that isn't a reason to ignore our current condition. if america is going to act like the world leader, then we need to be setting an example for other countries as to what tolerance really looks like.

I have heard and seen miracles happen

i'm not here to tell you that your belief is right or wrong. if you believe that good things happen to you and other people because of a higher power's intervention, that's fine. i do find many types of beliefs that follow an external locus of control to be problematic, but i'm not going to tell you to stop thinking that way just because i personally don't believe in it.

Either you're with me or you're against me is what Jesus said. So either you are for him or you are against him.

i don't think that leaves much room for people that subscribe to the christian faith but are having doubts. i don't know how much i can really being against something when i'm dubious of its existence, but overall i guess that makes a little more sense when you word it that way.

I have a feeling that that was probably worded differently, because I literally can't see anyone saying that they can't not see someone as just something to convert.

yes, im sure it was worded differently. i deleted the conversation a long time ago so unfortunately i can't directly quote anything from it.

It's not our choice who gets in and who doesn't, though. God chooses that, not us. What we try to do is to make sure that you do get in. If the way you are will not let you in by God's standards, then we will do our very best to try to get you to change so you can be accepted.

but different sects of christianity believe in different requirements in order to get into heaven. there's man's influence in it any time they say what things god has chosen.

We do love you, enough to be willing to put years of friendship and possibly even relationships with our families on the line to preach to them.

our definitions of love are very different from each other, but i suppose i should have already known that. i don't think there's any way for either of us to change each other's mind on that.

By your standards, the law is evil, since it does not give people the choice of whether or not to commit a crime... I think.

certain laws, yes, but not all. issuing punishment for speeding/driving drunk is reasonable because it's meant to protect others from potentially irresponsible and dangerous actions. theft, for another example, is taking the possession of others without permission, and thus imposing themselves on that person/group of people. i have no qualms with things of that nature being outlawed.

Mk, there's multiple definitions of attack. Physical attacks are wrong, verbal attacks are not sharing the truth in love, and sharing the word of God in a loving manner to an unreceptive audience is not attacking.

i used "attack" in the context of trying to bar people's options in life through the legal system, i.e. placing limitations on lgbt people's rights

The only objectively right thing in the world is the Bible. Everything in it is right. Anything outside of that is subjectively right and subjectively wrong.
We're not acting like we're right and everyone else is wrong, we're acting like the Bible is right and everything the Bible condemns is wrong.

how is saying that the bible is objectively right and everything else is subjectively right/wrong NOT saying that your personal interpretation of the bible is right and no other faith can be right as well like ???? by saying the bible is the only truth you're automatically excluding most if not all aspects of other religious beliefs from the possibility of being "the truth." you understand that anyone else can pick up whatever ancient text that's ALSO been translated who-knows-how-many-time and claim that it is The One and it is Objectively Right and condemn all others. if someone were to do that, you would be baffled that person didn't even consider the possibility that what you FIRMLY believe in could be the truth. neither you nor that person would have any real leverage against each other that i know of.

Would you propose that Christian medical organizations do not go to Third World countries and share the Lord? And in first world countries, are homeless shelters and food drives that have a Christian base cruel and evil?

not exactly. i propose that christian [medical] organizations provide the option to learn of their faith for those that want to learn and that these organizations continue to do wonderful things for disadvantaged people without giving priority to some for being christian

But there are members of any group that will go to any lengths to share their faith. Why, look at muslims. They have a sect that is dedicated to going any lengths to sharing the love and peace of Allah.

i think we both can acknowledge that every group has their extremists

Corrupting... what? When? I seriously cannot see Christianity corrupting the government. Especially if we go legally and imply bribery and blackmail.

corruption referring to influencing the government to be partisan and favor certain groups over others

But you would too if the government was filled with Liberals or if it was filled with muslims.

i like to think i would be saying the exact same thing if any other religious denomination advocated for outlawing things that i view to be my inherent rights


but yes happy friday

 

[Hall Kervean]

alright. even if im skeptical, i can't dispute the fact of what she said.



to clarify, i wasn't talking about hundreds of people on this thread. i've talking about the stories people have read outside of rpn. i think it's common for lgbt people who are in a safe place to do so to research lgbt-related topics, which would lead to reading stories about lgbt people discovering their identity, etc.



more like he believes/believes that it was his duty as a christian to reproduce. i think there are sects of christianity where they see raising a biological family as something of a requirement.



i'm sorry i'm... not sure what you mean by this exactly? are you saying that christians are having a harder time than any other group?



america being founded on christianity is a common misconception. a good chunk of the early influential political figures in forming are government were deists, not christian. a lot of things that you see with religious/christian implications were introduced during the cold war because of american paranoia over communism, which i guess they saw as un-godly/-christian or some shit. separation of church and state is literally the first amendment of the constitution. they didn't want the church to have influence over the government as it had in england at x time period. yeah christianity was the Hot Thing To Be back then, but it wasn't the only thing, and the constitution was mindful of that. this is only a christian nation socially, not fundamentally.



it's seen as hateful and bigoted because various sects of christianity are literally telling people how to live their lives based on their beliefs.



because public schools are funded by the government, which i reiterate should be non-partisan. if they taught bible at the schools, then that would be the equivalent of the government teaching christianity, which it's supposed to be aside from.



under the pretense that it's a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. i think a lot of moderates agree at least that a woman that's been raped by a man shouldn't be forced to carry his child. the government can't stop abortions from happening even if it's outlawed/not supported, but what they can do is offer is as an OPTION that will be much more safe for women.



because the government acknowledges that people of different beliefs who do not see it as a sin and want to be able to make a choice for themselves. america has shifted towards an individualistic culture within the past several decades and it wouldn't make sense for something that is harmless to the people's safety around them to be outlawed. i think people being able to live their lives as they want to (again, without harming others) is something more than worthy of praise. also normalization = safety.



it would be discrimination if christians were not allowed to bring their bibles but muslims were able to bring their qurans. it would be discrimination if christians needed to legally abort their children. it would be discrimination if heterosexual marriage was outlawed and homosexual marriage remained legal. i have never heard of anyone advocating for these things seriously. all that's happening is that christian beliefs are staying out of the government's influence. this "moral decline" in america is just a progressive movement to a more non-partisan government (with many hiccups along the way from an overwhelming number of christian biases in our elected representatives).



have you studied islamic faith, particularly outside of a church setting? i know i have yet to do so, but i plan on it. i'm sure once i do that i'll find, just as with christianity, most sects of modern islamic faith having moved beyond literal interpretations of the quran. i was literally talking to my muslim coworker last night about Gay things and he didn't say a single cross thing about it. i think it's a very important time to encourage and support muslims because even the most meek and polite, like my coworker, has been accused of being a terrorist, and being seen as a threat/terrorist by anyone is a very dangerous position to be in. also, islamic faith is not the dominating religion here, and they have basically zero political power/influence to make asses out of themselves in the government. they're just trying to survive at this point in an environment which is extremely hostile towards them.



i think anything within the past century is pretty recent, but either way, just as kib mentioned, there was the pulse shooting only just last year. the concentrations camps have been a thing within the past few months. even if we don't consider russia part of the western world, we undoubtedly have connected interactions with them, ala whatever's going on with trump trying to build some sort of relationship with russia.



again, the pulse shooting. children being threatened to be disowned (my datemate being among them) or actually being disowned. transwomen especially transwomen of color are at such a high risk of harassment, including but not limited to sexual harassment. violent hate crimes have by no means been absolved of in the u.s. yes, we don't have it anywhere near as bad here as we do in other parts of the world, but that isn't a reason to ignore our current condition. if america is going to act like the world leader, then we need to be setting an example for other countries as to what tolerance really looks like.



i'm not here to tell you that your belief is right or wrong. if you believe that good things happen to you and other people because of a higher power's intervention, that's fine. i do find many types of beliefs that follow an external locus of control to be problematic, but i'm not going to tell you to stop thinking that way just because i personally don't believe in it.



i don't think that leaves much room for people that subscribe to the christian faith but are having doubts. i don't know how much i can really being against something when i'm dubious of its existence, but overall i guess that makes a little more sense when you word it that way.



yes, im sure it was worded differently. i deleted the conversation a long time ago so unfortunately i can't directly quote anything from it.



but different sects of christianity believe in different requirements in order to get into heaven. there's man's influence in it any time they say what things god has chosen.



our definitions of love are very different from each other, but i suppose i should have already known that. i don't think there's any way for either of us to change each other's mind on that.



certain laws, yes, but not all. issuing punishment for speeding/driving drunk is reasonable because it's meant to protect others from potentially irresponsible and dangerous actions. theft, for another example, is taking the possession of others without permission, and thus imposing themselves on that person/group of people. i have no qualms with things of that nature being outlawed.



i used "attack" in the context of trying to bar people's options in life through the legal system, i.e. placing limitations on lgbt people's rights



how is saying that the bible is objectively right and everything else is subjectively right/wrong NOT saying that your personal interpretation of the bible is right and no other faith can be right as well like ???? by saying the bible is the only truth you're automatically excluding most if not all aspects of other religious beliefs from the possibility of being "the truth." you understand that anyone else can pick up whatever ancient text that's ALSO been translated who-knows-how-many-time and claim that it is The One and it is Objectively Right and condemn all others. if someone were to do that, you would be baffled that person didn't even consider the possibility that what you FIRMLY believe in could be the truth. neither you nor that person would have any real leverage against each other that i know of.



not exactly. i propose that christian [medical] organizations provide the option to learn of their faith for those that want to learn and that these organizations continue to do wonderful things for disadvantaged people without giving priority to some for being christian



i think we both can acknowledge that every group has their extremists



corruption referring to influencing the government to be partisan and favor certain groups over others



i think like to think i would be saying the exact same thing if any other religious denomination advocated for outlawing things that i view to be my inherent rights


but yes happy friday

Oh Lord give me strength, only because my arms are going to tire out.
That's better. But you know, I would think that more people would be willing to share about them being LGBT online than those who became straight again, because one warrants more positive attention than the other. In that order.
Huuuuh. That's... strange. And not... backed up in the Bible, to my knowledge.
Not what I meant. I mean that since we are going to heaven afterwards, this is the worst we will ever have it. Everyone else is going to hades/hell afterwards, so this is the best they're going to have it. Thanks for letting me know your confusion.
Oh ye, I know it's not fundamentally one. And Soviet Christians were rounded up and shot, just like probably most religious groups in the U.S.S.R. So it was un-Christian.
I was merely saying that there are Christians who are called haters and bigots for teaching what the Bible says. And what you're saying is sounding like "advising." There are many who do that, and many are justified. If there's an ex-alcoholic, we would advise that he not come in contact or go anywhere near alcohol, so as to ensure he doesn't fall into temptation again. He will choose whether or not he follows the advice.
Not what i said. I said children bringing a Bible to school is frowned upon. Voluntary and optional prayers in the morning are prohibited. And there are designated prayer areas for Muslim students in all public schools in Dearborn, Michigan, which has an Islamic majority.
The problem being that many, many more times than not, a woman will abort a baby because it is inconvenient, rather than because she was raped. I actually agree that if a woman is in danger of death, she should have the option of abortion. But again, too often, women will just use it as an option to get rid of something that is inconvenient for their life. http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8
Less than 1% of mothers get an abortion because of danger to the mother's life.
And here's where you and I can't argue any further, since my argument is based off of my faith and yours off of your lack thereof. I stated that it is a sin, and to see it become praised is frightening. You see it as just a *choice,* and to see it become praised is a victory. This one will bring us into an infinite loop, so I vote we drop this specific point.
I point you to Dearborn, Michigan, where public schools have Muslim prayer areas that taxpayer dollars went towards, and they are not being pegged for it by anyone.
Alrighty, let me try this another way.
As a Christian, I take the Bible literally, since any other way of taking it could fall under "Anyone who adds to the Bible will have punishment added to them, and any who take away from it will have their share of the kingdom taken away" if you're not careful. Before you ask if I follow the law, I'd like to remind you that Christians are no longer under the law.
So, with that in mind, I would expect muslims to take their religious text with the utmost seriousness and treat it exactly as written, without tampering with the definition.

Spoiler: Verses that don't support Islam

Women's rights
Quran (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse 4:176). In Islam, sexism is mathematically established.
Quran (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Muslim apologists offer creative explanations to explain why Allah felt that a man's testimony in court should be valued twice as highly as a woman's, but studies consistently show that women are actually less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they make more reliable witnesses.

Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

Quran (5:6) - "And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it" Men are to rub dirt on their hands, if there is no water to purify them, following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).

Quran (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye. (To be fair, men are told to do the same thing in the prior verse).

Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." A man has dominion over his wives' bodies as he does his land. This verse is overtly sexual. There is some dispute as to whether it is referring to the practice of anal intercourse. If this is what Muhammad meant, then it would appear to contradict what he said in Muslim (8:3365).

Quran (4:3) - (Wife-to-husband ratio) "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four" Inequality by numbers.

Quran (53:27) - "Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names." Angels are sublime beings, and would therefore be male.

Quran (4:24) and Quran (33:50) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage. Note that the verse distinguishes wives from captives (those whom they right hand possesses).

Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (6:301) - "[Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'"

Sahih Bukhari (6:301) - continued - "[Muhammad said] 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her religion.'" Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.

Sahih Bukhari (2:28) & Sahih Bukhari (54:464) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven mentioned explicitly by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).

Sahih Bukhari (62:81) - "The Prophet said: "'The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).'" In other words, the most important thing a woman brings to marriage is between her legs.

Sahih Bukhari (62:58) - A woman presents herself in marriage to Muhammad, but he does not find her attractive, so he "donates" her on the spot to another man.

Sahih Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses'" These are the words of Muhammad's favorite wife, complaining of the role assigned to women under Islam.

Abu Dawud (2:704) - "...the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw."

Abu Dawud (2155) - Women are compared to slaves and camels with regard to the "evil" in them.

Ishaq 734 - "As for Ali, he said, 'Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another.'" Ali was raised as a son by Muhammad. He was also the 4th caliph. This comment was made in Muhammad's presence without a word of rebuke from him.

Ishaq 878 - "From the captives of Hunayn, Allah's Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Rayta and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar a girl to whom Umar gave to his son." - Even in this world, Muhammad treated women like party favors, handing out enslaved women to his cronies for sex.

Ibn Ishaq 693 - "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." Muhammad traded captured women for horses.

Al-Tirmidhi 3272 - "When Allah's Messenger was asked which woman was best he replied, 'The one who pleases (her husband) when he looks at her, obeys him when he gives a command, and does not go against his wishes regarding her person or property by doing anything of which he disapproves'." (See also Abu Dawud 1664)

Tabari VIII:117 - The fate of more captured farm wives, whom the Muslims distributed amongst themselves as sex slaves: "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims."

Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty."

Ishaq 969 - "Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their persons." - This same text also says that wives may be beaten for "unseemliness".

Tabari Vol 9, Number 1754 - "Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves." From Muhammad's 'Farewell Sermon'.

Homosexuality (Note there is no "muslims are no longer under the law")

Quran (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. (Inexplicably, the story is also repeated in three other suras: 15:74, 27:58 and 29:40).

Quran (7:81) - "Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being "among great sins."

Quran (26:165-166) - "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing"

Quran (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone" This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word "men" and simply says "two from among you." Yusuf Ali may have added the word "men" because the verse seems to refer to a different set than referred to in the prior verse (explicitly denoted as "your women"). In other words, since 4:15 refers to "your women", 4:16 is presumably written to and refers to men.

Hadith and Sira
Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done." (This is a sahih hadith)

Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one's wife).

Sahih Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses .' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2 - "May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did." This is also repeated in three other places.

There are several lesser hadith stating, "if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses," "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (Abu Dawud 4462 and al-Tirmidhi 1456)

Muslims who leave the religion are kill on sight
Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." Verse 4:65 says that those who have faith are in "full submission" to Muhammad's teachings. This verse explains what should happen to Muslims who do not have faith.

There are over 109 verses condonign violence against unbelievers, according to this website.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Before you declare it biased, I have to ask you if they would have done their research. I would think so.

If you read all that, then you should have gotten that homosexuality is punishable by death according to the Quran, those who leave the faith should be executed, women are either half a man or no better than domestic animals, Mohammed isn't clear, and unbelievers should be warred against.
HOWEVER! Before you call me an Islamophobe, I would like you to know that I believe that moderate muslims exist. I know that the majority of muslims are not terrorists, and I know that the majority (or minority, depends if you take Ben Shapiro's numbers or not.) do not condone terror attacks or Shariah Law, although the majority may not be as big or as small as many people think. And I have never called a muslim a terrorist, unless we were discussing a confirmed terrorist. My definition of confirmed terrorist is the guy who conducted a terror attack, don't worry.
The Pulse shooting was an act of terror committed by Islamic extremists, not by our government. I already explained why I don't count that. That does not mean gays are persecuted or under attack, in means that ISIS is still a major threat. On the other hand, I would rather Russia be our ally than our enemy. Those responsible for those camps should be punished accordingly.
Also I love how Trump is the first president to go into office as pro-gay, and you low-key implied he's involved with that.
Depending on the age of the child is what I say. Doing that to someone under 18 should not be allowed and *could* be child abuse. (Idk if it is or not) Doing that to someone over 18 is hurtful and mentally taxing, yes, but I would phrase it as distancing rather than disowning, from what you've said so far.
Not our topic. But there have been multiple cases of faked hate crimes. Milo Yiannopoulos, I believe, pointed out some of them during a talk. And I would say that both the left and the right have done numerous acts of intolerance. Perhaps equal numbers. But this is politics, and not our topic.
Thanks. I appreciate that. I'd welcome you to try again, but that's as far as I can and will go.
It does. If you are in the Christian faith and believe in the Lord, than you are for Him. If you are having doubts about your faith, you are still for Him. The instant you decide to leave the Christian faith because of your doubts, you are against Him.
If someone said that, like literally that, then I would advise giving them a good hard hit to the head to knock some sense into them. I'm actually joking please don't assault someone. I know you wouldn't but now that I said that I am absolved of any responsibility if anyone else sees this and follows through with it.
The requirements outlined by the Bible are believe in the Lord and receive Him. Anything else doesn't have evidence in the Bible. For example, you don't need to be Baptized to be saved, otherwise the man on the cross next to Jesus who repented wouldn't have gone to paradise like Jesus said he would.
I think we do. I was just trying to show you our point of view. We are willing to sacrifice the earthly friendship if it gets you into heaven. I mean, hurts us too, fam.
Lol my point is that since they restrict people's choices, by your standard that you mentioned, which had no exception, you find laws the worst evil humanity has ever known. Vive le Revalucion. T'was a jest. Do not fear.
I see. Attacking with threats of hellfire and brimstone and legal punishment. The rain of tears. Well, again, I think I already mentioned this. This isn't necessarily Christians, this may be disgruntled states who were frustrated that the choice that they thought was theirs to make was made by the government, and want to negate it as much as possible. Do Christians have a hand in it? Undoubtedly. Are there nonChristians involved? Also undoubtedly.
That's where you forget that as a Christian, I believe the Bible is right. And every word in it is true. (Except the parables because those are acknowledged as not true) By extension, anything contrary to it is wrong. However, anything that is not contrary to the Holy and Infallible Word of the Lord is subjectively right and wrong.
They could say that about it.
They'd just be wrong. :3
Wow, the parallels between this argument were just highlighted in about 3 different colors and underlined in pen. I'm glad we all realize that this is pointless, yet entertaining.
Woah woah woaaaah. That's not what I implied at all.
There aren't advantages given in care to anyone by Christian organizations. In fact, chances are, the opposite is more likely to occur, since the nonbeliever will go to hell and the Christian will go to heaven.
I implied that since they will teach their faith while over there, they would not follow your standards.
I feel like now would be a good time to mention that anyone who declines to be witnessed to should, for the most part, be left alone.
Do you... mean to tell me... That in this argument on morals and values essential to our characters... we agree on something!?
WWOOO YE! LET'S HEAR IT FOR SMRTNESS!
Oh ok. So, like, if I flipped that round, you wouldn't like it if there were a bunch of Muslims in the government, right?
I'm certainly glad to hear that. It's just that many on the left, which I believe you are, don't seem to mind the push for Shariah Law taking place in our nation. Which, coincidentally, wants gays dead and women treated as half of a man. And I think, that for the second time today, we can agree that that is not good.

 

[Pine]

But you know, I would think that more people would be willing to share about them being LGBT online than those who became straight again, because one warrants more positive attention than the other. In that order.

depends on where you go. "how i turned straight again" is great for baiting. also if you have the right target audience, you can get a lot of support for that kind of stuff. you have no idea how many times i've tried to browse some article, youtube video, or facebook comments to find at least guy say something like "anyway when are we going to kill all the gays." a lot about how they're going to burn in hell, attention seeking millennials, mentally ill, etc. yeah you could get a cross reaction from the lgbt community, but dont think that there arent people out there who would love to hear that and people knowing there's an audience that's into that kind of shit. to draw a parallel, i've seen a lot of videos pop up in my suggested videos on youtube for people who detransition. while it is something the lgbt community tends to avoid discussing, it does happen. however, people that take that as some sort of "proof" to invalidate the overwhelming majority of trans people who don't detransition and have significantly improved in all areas of happiness, mental health, etc. since transitioning and really don't regret it.

Huuuuh. That's... strange. And not... backed up in the Bible, to my knowledge.

his dad is a minister or some other type of person with a position in church. he's baptist, at least now, if that helps at all.

I mean that since we are going to heaven afterwards, this is the worst we will ever have it. Everyone else is going to hades/hell afterwards, so this is the best they're going to have it.

oh alright, thanks for the clarification.

Oh ye, I know it's not fundamentally one.

so if it isn't fundamentally one, then how was america founded by christianity, as you say?

I was merely saying that there are Christians who are called haters and bigots for teaching what the Bible says.

that doesn't sound too far off from the verbal harassment that lgbt, or any deviant from gender roles (esp male), are subject to at the very least. christians are liable to preaching that about how sinful the gay agenda is and get called a hater and a bigot (probably while keeping in mind the tolerance other christians have of lgbt), then lgbt people can be called the f word among other things for just showing affection to their partner in public. the difference is christians reaching out to the public sphere for interactions, while lgbt people can be verbally abused while keeping to themselves. im against name-calling of all forms because it shuts down conversation and just makes people angry/pushes them further to a more extreme level of their beliefs, but i think it's easy to see why people would do that.

And what you're saying is sounding like "advising." There are many who do that, and many are justified.

when people speak in de-facto absolutes, i.e. you ARE going to hell, you NEED to repent in order to get into the kingdom of heaving, etc. i think that moves beyond giving just mild advising for what they should do to telling them what they should/need to do.

I said children bringing a Bible to school is frowned upon. Voluntary and optional prayers in the morning are prohibited.

i've never heard of children being discouraged from bringing a bible to class, but then again, i live in the bible bet where my band had a student council with a specific person appointed to directing prayer before each football game. as far as im concerned, all the prayer that's been removed is directed by the school. i cant picture a kid doing some quick jesus praying getting yanked by the arm and thrown in the principal's office. if that is the case, then that's infringing on religious rights, but i have a feeling that isn't what you're talking about.

And there are designated prayer areas for Muslim students in all public schools in Dearborn, Michigan, which has an Islamic majority.

I point you to Dearborn, Michigan, where public schools have Muslim prayer areas that taxpayer dollars went towards, and they are not being pegged for it by anyone.

okay but praying for muslims has a lot of different requirements? like a clean space and im pretty damn sure no one's supposed to walk in front of them while they're in prayer? and when you have to get on your knees to pray im pretty damn sure no one wants to lay on the ground only to get trampled on in the hallway/get in everyone's way in a classroom. unlike what used to exist for christians in the public school system, this is voluntary on the students' part and isn't lead by the school over some speakers or smth. all they're doing is creating a space which ALLOWS students to pray as they see fit. in contrast, i was raised that all i have to do to jesus pray is clap my hands together (closed eyes is optional but preferred because it might look weird) and where i am spatially literally makes no difference. i've prayed once or twice in my childhood while i was taking a shit. im sure if jesus praying was half as extra as muslim praying is, then christians would also be provided a space to allow them to pray.

Less than 1% of mothers get an abortion because of danger to the mother's life.

im sure, to be honest. but if moderates/the right wants to accommodate for situations like that, then they should be more clear that they want abortion legalized with regulations as opposed to just outlawing it altogether. i would also advise that an unexpected childbirth isn't simply a matter of the mother's laziness/inconvenience. it's about contributing to a debatable overpopulation in humans, not having the enormous sums of money it requires to financially support a child (let alone if you want to see them through college) because the mother hadn't been saving up for something like this and now whoops you have maybe like eight months to try to get that kind of $ to accommodate, or if the mother acknowledges that she would not be able to provide the financial support necessary for the kid to lead a happy & healthy life, then it's off to the adoption center, where either the kid is going to be trapped in some foster care system and lead to growing up in an unstable environment, or they DO get adopted and live a happy life with their adoptive family, but then whoever that family would have adopted if that child had not been there is no longer being adopted. im not going to try to convince you that abortion should be free-for-all, no matter what my views are on it, but i implore you to keep these things in mind next time you think of an unplanned pregnancy as a simple "inconvenience."

As a Christian, I take the Bible literally, since any other way of taking it could fall under "Anyone who adds to the Bible will have punishment added to them, and any who take away from it will have their share of the kingdom taken away" if you're not careful.

but even if you take every single word of the bible literally, not every christian does that. why else would there be different sects of christianity, where one bans contraceptives, alcohol, and eating meat that isn't fish on x day(s) of the week, then another sect takes a laissez faire in all of these things? my dad has told me that his interpretation of the bible is that it is filled to the brim with metaphors not to be taken literally, and i assure you that he isn't the only christian in my family or on this earth that thinks the same way.

Before you ask if I follow the law, I'd like to remind you that Christians are no longer under the law.

wait what law are you talking about omg. the old testament?

Before you declare it biased, I have to ask you if they would have done their research. I would think so.

i appreciate their efforts to look into different scholars and take direct quotes from the religious texts. however, even if the website is non-partisan, there is a clear agenda of "exposing" islamic faith. i'd be willing to bet that the site wasn't created by one person/a group of people that just pick up islamic texts and went "holy shit this is problematic i need to make a website about this," but rather they went into reading the texts already with the association of muslim = extremist terrorist groups and searched through the text and other scholarly articles to confirm this existing bias. as well informed as this is to go directly to the source, i think much of their argument relies on literal interpretations, which i reiterate again, i would assume to be most modern muslims. it doesn't make much sense to me otherwise that women continue to devote themselves to the islamic faith in countries like america, where a feminist movement is very prominent, except that muslims are moving/have moved beyond literal interpretations of the text.

non-partisan is a step above a christian website trying to talk about a different religious faith, but i want to hear what actual muslims have to say about the islamic faith. there's no real moderation of opinion without an insider's look into the culture and religion. if you're acknowledging the existence of moderate muslims the same way that i am (in that not every muslim follows the text literally), then i'm not sure what point you're trying to make with these quotes.

i could also find some non-theist website that points out every passage of the bible that's degrading towards women and people of color. i know those websites exist. i don't think you would like that very much, and i wouldn't enjoy throwing that in your face very much because my understanding of the context of said quotes is very limited and a site like that wouldn't be very sympathetic towards modern christian values and interpretations.

The Pulse shooting was an act of terror committed by Islamic extremists, not by our government. I already explained why I don't count that. That does not mean gays are persecuted or under attack, in means that ISIS is still a major threat.

an extremist that was born and raised in our country. isis had no hand in the pulse shooting. things dont HAVE to be government-mandated to be a persisting problem. this is the culture that we live in and it needs to be changed for the safety of lgbt people. the religious beliefs of the person behind the shooting does no invalidate this point.

Also I love how Trump is the first president to go into office as pro-gay, and you low-key implied he's involved with that.

if it sounded like i implied that he was involved with the camps, that is not what i meant. what i meant is that he's building relationships with a country that's sustaining that practice. as far as i've read, putin isn't exactly ruffled by the existence of these camps. no, i don't think that trump wants the genocide of gays, but i also don't buy into him having any strong feelings of protection for the community. just because he says he's pro-gay doesn't mean that he is. at best, i would consider him gay-tolerant. he already repealed the eo that obama put into place that protected a lot of trans rights and claimed that it was a state issue. this allowed bullshit bathroom laws to be passed in north carolina (thankfully to be later repealed) and for texas to push for a similar thing with sb6. while i understand the republican party emphasizes state government over federal power, it's stuff like this that makes him lose his credibility as a self-proclaimed "pro-lgbt."

Depending on the age of the child is what I say. Doing that to someone under 18 should not be allowed and *could* be child abuse. (Idk if it is or not) Doing that to someone over 18 is hurtful and mentally taxing, yes, but I would phrase it as distancing rather than disowning, from what you've said so far.

maybe if this were still the 1950s or smth where baby boomers hopped out of high school with their shiny new diploma and landed a well-paying job that could easily cover rent for an apartment while having plenty leftover to buy a house afterwards, but that isn't really the case anymore. (note: not that simple for people of color to get a decent job back then. im talking about the generational difference of the affordability of housing that applies to even us white folks.) modern day, we're putting more emphasis on getting a bachelor and master's degree (which isn't even guaranteed to get you a job and takes a fuckton of money/debt to get you through the next four-six years of dependence on your parents) or getting a good job via networking, which i find isn't a common thing for high schoolers to consider. i think this goes beyond hurt feelings and a little extra stress. this is ripping out the security of a middle-class life right out from under them without reliable direction of where to go next. this goes from a little hard work to get your degree to a fuckton of work of learning financial responsibility completely on your own, and it really is no wonder that lgbt homes are a thing.

Not our topic. But there have been multiple cases of faked hate crimes. Milo Yiannopoulos, I believe, pointed out some of them during a talk. And I would say that both the left and the right have done numerous acts of intolerance. Perhaps equal numbers. But this is politics, and not our topic.

yes, i have no doubt that both the left and right are guilty of staging things for the sake of trying to make a point.

I was just trying to show you our point of view. We are willing to sacrifice the earthly friendship if it gets you into heaven. I mean, hurts us too, fam.

yes, i've personally heard that point of view before. and see, if we're going to talk about choice v. something that you can't help, i perceive denouncing lgbt individuals/attempting to actively convert them in some way/give up their "lifestyle" as a choice. if it hurts you guys, then i can't help but see it as a problem that you started and then victimizing yourselves for the consequences that you should have already expected.

This isn't necessarily Christians, this may be disgruntled states who were frustrated that the choice that they thought was theirs to make was made by the government, and want to negate it as much as possible.

and by the "choice," i'm assuming that you're referred to the "choice" to ban gay marriage or not? that's literally being upset that your state doesn't get to decide on whether individuals can decide for themselves, like?? unless EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that state was heterosexual and voted to outlaw gay marriage... like... i'm sorry but that's so fucking hypocritical.

Do Christians have a hand in it? Undoubtedly. Are there nonChristians involved? Also undoubtedly.

i don't place all of the blame for anti-lgbt movements on christians. i know there's a lot of atheists out there humping the idea of biological fitness and view homosexuality as ineffective for the survival of our species (conveniently forgetting the use in population control and the existence of artificial insemination). one of my friends' dad is a hardcore atheist, but he's disgustingly racist and homophobic. again, he can't be the only one out there like that. there's gross people in every group.

i often find that people use things like religious beliefs as a means of justifying their hatred. what immediately comes to mind is the narrative of the life of frederick douglass. in it, frederick douglass discussed how christian slaveholders were often much more cruel than non-christian slaveholders, because the christian slaveholders were convinced that god was on their side and condoned them lording over other men. note: i am NOT saying that every religious person thinks this way and i am NOT saying that lgbt discrimination is on the same level of oppression that pocs have faced in the past and continue to face in modern-day life. all i'm saying is that there are people who abuse religion and nitpick religious texts in search on confirmation for their discrimination and absolve themselves of moral responsibility for their cruel actions. i would even venture to guess it's mentalities like this that are responsible for cults and groups like isis.

That's where you forget that as a Christian, I believe the Bible is right.

i haven't forgotten that for a single moment in this conversation. i'm asking you to even for one moment to entertain the [perceived] hypothetical that the bible isn't right/your interpretation of the bible isn't right, or at the very least acknowledge that there's a large population of people who firmly believe the christian bible to not be true. i don't think that following that train of thought makes you any less of a christian, and i'm certainly not trying to abandon your religion. i'm literally just asking you to empathize and think outside of the assumption that christianity is the only possible truth in this world.

There aren't advantages given in care to anyone by Christian organizations. In fact, chances are, the opposite is more likely to occur, since the nonbeliever will go to hell and the Christian will go to heaven.
I implied that since they will teach their faith while over there, they would not follow your standards.
I feel like now would be a good time to mention that anyone who declines to be witnessed to should, for the most part, be left alone.

that's good. i wasn't sure if that was a thing or not, considering things like trump's recent attempt to restrict the movement of muslim refugees, where anyone part of the religious minority facing persecution was given priority (i.e., in a host of muslim-majority countries, non-muslims). i wasn't sure how far things like that extended. i'm glad to hear that christian organizations don't reflect this, according to you. and i do hope those that decline to hear would be left alone, just as you say. but i don't think that whether or not they can teach their religion where they could should be reason to stop such charitable acts. if that's the condition, then that's something really gross to me. (also pretty sure something similar happened with like the salvation army where they only help out other christians/non-lgbt people? i never read into it that much esp since idk if that's still going on or not.)

Oh ok. So, like, if I flipped that round, you wouldn't like it if there were a bunch of Muslims in the government, right?
I'm certainly glad to hear that. It's just that many on the left, which I believe you are, don't seem to mind the push for Shariah Law taking place in our nation. Which, coincidentally, wants gays dead and women treated as half of a man. And I think, that for the second time today, we can agree that that is not good.

yeah, no, religious values have NO place in government. i don't care if it's christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist, etc. we're a country that's supposed to tolerate all religious populations, and to have one group bring their specific rules and regulations to a population of other groups that don't believe the same thing is not productive for a collective society. i'm only going to bitch about christians because they're the only group with enough power to throw their weight around in u.s. policy and this is something they do so fucking often. but if in the impossible hypothetical that some jewish guys infiltrated the government and started trying to impose jewish values on the country to no one's benefit other than that it reflects their beliefs, then i'd be bitching about that too.

this is my first time hearing about such a movement, even with all my exposure to left-leaning media (oftentimes, i find, even leaning too hard to the left). no, i'm not an advocate for such a thing.

 

[Hall Kervean]

depends on where you go. "how i turned straight again" is great for baiting. also if you have the right target audience, you can get a lot of support for that kind of stuff. you have no idea how many times i've tried to browse some article, youtube video, or facebook comments to find at least guy say something like "anyway when are we going to kill all the gays." a lot about how they're going to burn in hell, attention seeking millennials, mentally ill, etc. yeah you could get a cross reaction from the lgbt community, but dont think that there arent people out there who would love to hear that and people knowing there's an audience that's into that kind of shit. to draw a parallel, i've seen a lot of videos pop up in my suggested videos on youtube for people who detransition. while it is something the lgbt community tends to avoid discussing, it does happen. however, people that take that as some sort of "proof" to invalidate the overwhelming majority of trans people who don't detransition and have significantly improved in all areas of happiness, mental health, etc. since transitioning and really don't regret it.



his dad is a minister or some other type of person with a position in church. he's baptist, at least now, if that helps at all.



oh alright, thanks for the clarification.



so if it isn't fundamentally one, then how was america founded by christianity, as you say?



that doesn't sound too far off from the verbal harassment that lgbt, or any deviant from gender roles (esp male), are subject to at the very least. christians are liable to preaching that about how sinful the gay agenda is and get called a hater and a bigot (probably while keeping in mind the tolerance other christians have of lgbt), then lgbt people can be called the f word among other things for just showing affection to their partner in public. the difference is christians reaching out to the public sphere for interactions, while lgbt people can be verbally abused while keeping to themselves. im against name-calling of all forms because it shuts down conversation and just makes people angry/pushes them further to a more extreme level of their beliefs, but i think it's easy to see why people would do that.



when people speak in de-facto absolutes, i.e. you ARE going to hell, you NEED to repent in order to get into the kingdom of heaving, etc. i think that moves beyond giving just mild advising for what they should do to telling them what they should/need to do.



i've never heard of children being discouraged from bringing a bible to class, but then again, i live in the bible bet where my band had a student council with a specific person appointed to directing prayer before each football game. as far as im concerned, all the prayer that's been removed is directed by the school. i cant picture a kid doing some quick jesus praying getting yanked by the arm and thrown in the principal's office. if that is the case, then that's infringing on religious rights, but i have a feeling that isn't what you're talking about.




okay but praying for muslims has a lot of different requirements? like a clean space and im pretty damn sure no one's supposed to walk in front of them while they're in prayer? and when you have to get on your knees to pray im pretty damn sure no one wants to lay on the ground only to get trampled on in the hallway/get in everyone's way in a classroom. unlike what used to exist for christians in the public school system, this is voluntary on the students' part and isn't lead by the school over some speakers or smth. all they're doing is creating a space which ALLOWS students to pray as they see fit. in contrast, i was raised that all i have to do to jesus pray is clap my hands together (closed eyes is optional but preferred because it might look weird) and where i am spatially literally makes no difference. i've prayed once or twice in my childhood while i was taking a shit. im sure if jesus praying was half as extra as muslim praying is, then christians would also be provided a space to allow them to pray.



im sure, to be honest. but if moderates/the right wants to accommodate for situations like that, then they should be more clear that they want abortion legalized with regulations as opposed to just outlawing it altogether. i would also advise that an unexpected childbirth isn't simply a matter of the mother's laziness/inconvenience. it's about contributing to a debatable overpopulation in humans, not having the enormous sums of money it requires to financially support a child (let alone if you want to see them through college) because the mother hadn't been saving up for something like this and now whoops you have maybe like eight months to try to get that kind of $ to accommodate, or if the mother acknowledges that she would not be able to provide the financial support necessary for the kid to lead a happy & healthy life, then it's off to the adoption center, where either the kid is going to be trapped in some foster care system and lead to growing up in an unstable environment, or they DO get adopted and live a happy life with their adoptive family, but then whoever that family would have adopted if that child had not been there is no longer being adopted. im not going to try to convince you that abortion should be free-for-all, no matter what my views are on it, but i implore you to keep these things in mind next time you think of an unplanned pregnancy as a simple "inconvenience."



but even if you take every single word of the bible literally, not every christian does that. why else would there be different sects of christianity, where one bans contraceptives, alcohol, and eating meat that isn't fish on x day(s) of the week, then another sect takes a laissez faire in all of these things? my dad has told me that his interpretation of the bible is that it is filled to the brim with metaphors not to be taken literally, and i assure you that he isn't the only christian in my family or on this earth that thinks the same way.



wait what law are you talking about omg. the old testament?



i appreciate their efforts to look into different scholars and take direct quotes from the religious texts. however, even if the website is non-partisan, there is a clear agenda of "exposing" islamic faith. i'd be willing to bet that the site wasn't created by one person/a group of people that just pick up islamic texts and went "holy shit this is problematic i need to make a website about this," but rather they went into reading the texts already with the association of muslim = extremist terrorist groups and searched through the text and other scholarly articles to confirm this existing bias. as well informed as this is to go directly to the source, i think much of their argument relies on literal interpretations, which i reiterate again, i would assume to be most modern muslims. it doesn't make much sense to me otherwise that women continue to devote themselves to the islamic faith in countries like america, where a feminist movement is very prominent, except that muslims are moving/have moved beyond literal interpretations of the text.

non-partisan is a step above a christian website trying to talk about a different religious faith, but i want to hear what actual muslims have to say about the islamic faith. there's no real moderation of opinion without an insider's look into the culture and religion. if you're acknowledging the existence of moderate muslims the same way that i am (in that not every muslim follows the text literally), then i'm not sure what point you're trying to make with these quotes.

i could also find some non-theist website that points out every passage of the bible that's degrading towards women and people of color. i know those websites exist. i don't think you would like that very much, and i wouldn't enjoy throwing that in your face very much because my understanding of the context of said quotes is very limited and a site like that wouldn't be very sympathetic towards modern christian values and interpretations.



an extremist that was born and raised in our country. isis had no hand in the pulse shooting. things dont HAVE to be government-mandated to be a persisting problem. this is the culture that we live in and it needs to be changed for the safety of lgbt people. the religious beliefs of the person behind the shooting does no invalidate this point.



if it sounded like i implied that he was involved with the camps, that is not what i meant. what i meant is that he's building relationships with a country that's sustaining that practice. as far as i've read, putin isn't exactly ruffled by the existence of these camps. no, i don't think that trump wants the genocide of gays, but i also don't buy into him having any strong feelings of protection for the community. just because he says he's pro-gay doesn't mean that he is. at best, i would consider him gay-tolerant. he already repealed the eo that obama put into place that protected a lot of trans rights and claimed that it was a state issue. this allowed bullshit bathroom laws to be passed in north carolina (thankfully to be later repealed) and for texas to push for a similar thing with sb6. while i understand the republican party emphasizes state government over federal power, it's stuff like this that makes him lose his credibility as a self-proclaimed "pro-lgbt."



maybe if this were still the 1950s or smth where baby boomers hopped out of high school with their shiny new diploma and landed a well-paying job that could easily cover rent for an apartment while having plenty leftover to buy a house afterwards, but that isn't really the case anymore. (note: not that simple for people of color to get a decent job back then. im talking about the generational difference of the affordability of housing that applies to even us white folks.) modern day, we're putting more emphasis on getting a bachelor and master's degree (which isn't even guaranteed to get you a job and takes a fuckton of money/debt to get you through the next four-six years of dependence on your parents) or getting a good job via networking, which i find isn't a common thing for high schoolers to consider. i think this goes beyond hurt feelings and a little extra stress. this is ripping out the security of a middle-class life right out from under them without reliable direction of where to go next. this goes from a little hard work to get your degree to a fuckton of work of learning financial responsibility completely on your own, and it really is no wonder that lgbt homes are a thing.



yes, i have no doubt that both the left and right are guilty of staging things for the sake of trying to make a point.



yes, i've personally heard that point of view before. and see, if we're going to talk about choice v. something that you can't help, i perceive denouncing lgbt individuals/attempting to actively convert them in some way/give up their "lifestyle" as a choice. if it hurts you guys, then i can't help but see it as a problem that you started and then victimizing yourselves for the consequences that you should have already expected.



and by the "choice," i'm assuming that you're referred to the "choice" to ban gay marriage or not? that's literally being upset that your state doesn't get to decide on whether individuals can decide for themselves, like?? unless EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that state was heterosexual and voted to outlaw gay marriage... like... i'm sorry but that's so fucking hypocritical.



i don't place all of the blame for anti-lgbt movements on christians. i know there's a lot of atheists out there humping the idea of biological fitness and view homosexuality as ineffective for the survival of our species (conveniently forgetting the use in population control and the existence of artificial insemination). one of my friends' dad is a hardcore atheist, but he's disgustingly racist and homophobic. again, he can't be the only one out there like that. there's gross people in every group.

i often find that people use things like religious beliefs as a means of justifying their hatred. what immediately comes to mind is the narrative of the life of frederick douglass. in it, frederick douglass discussed how christian slaveholders were often much more cruel than non-christian slaveholders, because the christian slaveholders were convinced that god was on their side and condoned them lording over other men. note: i am NOT saying that every religious person thinks this way and i am NOT saying that lgbt discrimination is on the same level of oppression that pocs have faced in the past and continue to face in modern-day life. all i'm saying is that there are people who abuse religion and nitpick religious texts in search on confirmation for their discrimination and absolve themselves of moral responsibility for their cruel actions. i would even venture to guess it's mentalities like this that are responsible for cults and groups like isis.



i haven't forgotten that for a single moment in this conversation. i'm asking you to even for one moment to entertain the [perceived] hypothetical that the bible isn't right/your interpretation of the bible isn't right, or at the very least acknowledge that there's a large population of people who firmly believe the christian bible to not be true. i don't think that following that train of thought makes you any less of a christian, and i'm certainly not trying to abandon your religion. i'm literally just asking you to empathize and think outside of the assumption that christianity is the only possible truth in this world.



that's good. i wasn't sure if that was a thing or not, considering things like trump's recent attempt to restrict the movement of muslim refugees, where anyone part of the religious minority facing persecution was given priority (i.e., in a host of muslim-majority countries, non-muslims). i wasn't sure how far things like that extended. i'm glad to hear that christian organizations don't reflect this, according to you. and i do hope those that decline to hear would be left alone, just as you say. but i don't think that whether or not they can teach their religion where they could should be reason to stop such charitable acts. if that's the condition, then that's something really gross to me. (also pretty sure something similar happened with like the salvation army where they only help out other christians/non-lgbt people? i never read into it that much esp since idk if that's still going on or not.)



yeah, no, religious values have NO place in government. i don't care if it's christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist, etc. we're a country that's supposed to tolerate all religious populations, and to have one group bring their specific rules and regulations to a population of other groups that don't believe the same thing is not productive for a collective society. i'm only going to bitch about christians because they're the only group with enough power to throw their weight around in u.s. policy and this is something they do so fucking often. but if in the impossible hypothetical that some jewish guys infiltrated the government and started trying to impose jewish values on the country to no one's benefit other than that it reflects their beliefs, then i'd be bitching about that too.

this is my first time hearing about such a movement, even with all my exposure to left-leaning media (oftentimes, i find, even leaning too hard to the left). no, i'm not an advocate for such a thing.

But since there are people, that makes it possible, which is the main point. If it wasn't voluntary, it wouldn't be possible in the least. But people have done it. So it is possible. And there is evidence that it is, in fact, a choice.
Again... I have never heard that, and I have been through the Bible a few times, on my own and with my church.
I think I may be confusing my own definition of fundamentalist. Fundamentalist to me is England, 1600's. Literally 1 denomination, and if you don't confirm, you perish. We were not that, and never that. We were still a Christian nation, i.e. most of our laws had Christian founding.
I see what you mean. I'm just saying that the problem exists, and yours does too.
Do you realize how tempted I am to Google random Shakespearean insults right now? No ill intent behind them, but all the same.
You ARE going to hell at present because that is how the system God put in place works, and in order to avert that from occurring, you NEED to become saved, lest you perish eternally. Better? Just informing you how the system works, is all.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-bringing-bible-to-school-files-suit/ Here ye go.
No no no no no that is a double standard and you know it. They used tax dollars to build an area in a public school for prayer. Christians cannot have a voluntary prayer at the beginning of the day because church and state. Muslims can have a prayer area built in all public schools with U.S. tax dollars because church and state. I realize there are different requirements, and maybe they should be accommodated, but building things just for them is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Maybe. I propose to yooooou: Adoption! Fix the system, and that's a better option than the murder of what is or would have been a human life.
I didn't call it an inconvenience. But you know something surprising?
Sex outside of marriage is fornication, a sin in the Bible. If the Bible was... followed... then we wouldn't have as many unplanned pregnancies or single mothers (married couples are less likely to leave each other). Just gonna put that out there.
Either way, this is off topic.
They probably should. It does have metaphors along with literal meanings, but the literal meanings are still there. For instance, Moses really did hit a rock. The metaphor God was creating was that one used to have to sacrifice animals to be washed clean of sin, but now all they have to do is pray (speak to the rock) and it would be washed away. But Moses hit the rock in anger and defiance, so he screwed it up.
See, that's why I get to be a non-Denominational.
YES NEVER FOLLOW LAWS! VIVE LE REVALUCION!
Ye Old Testament Laws.
Yup. I can see your point, and raise you to the fact Mohammed, interpreted literally or metaphorically, married a 6 or 7 year old child.
Here, I'll ask you this: Is there any verse in the koran that actually negates the verses saying to kill homosexuals, nobelievers, etc. like there is in the Bible? i.e. "You are not under the Law" in the Bible. If there is none, then I push that Islam is dangerous since, interpreted literally, it can lead to severe sexism, homophobia, racism, and death.
ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. The shooter was a member of ISIS's "caliphate in America," according to ISIS itself. It is clear to me that this isn't some great rise of homophobia and hate crime in our nation. This is an isolated act of terrorism carried out by an organization trying to topple America. I thought I had mentioned this. There is no reason to assume that this has any meaning.
Whut, u mean the one where people can't just declare that they're trans and go into a woman's bathroom? It is literally dangerous for that law to be passed. If it were, any man could claim to be trans and enter a woman's bathroom. The way it is right now is literally dangerous, once again. That's why it wasn't passed.
I'll go ahead and say sure, whatever, because I'm not at that stage in life. I'm still in high school.
As a conservative, I have no doubt that conservatives are at fault as well. As a conservative, liberals are at fault as well.
Never said it wasn't a choice. It's a hard choice to make on our end, too. And I don't see too many people victimizing themselves about it.
Yes.
How so? Majority rules.
Glad 2 hear it. Not that there are disgusting people, but that you aren't a Christian-hater.
I view population control as trash, since the Lord is coming back. Since there isn't any real need for population control, any method of controlling the population is usually immoral.
Lul and those slave owner were wrong, since the KJV translated the words as slaves instead of indentured servants. In practice, indentured servitude was what they went through.
Hmm. Mk done. That was boring. I didn't get my Death Note.
HA! No no no! You misunderstand the purpose! Although this is off topic, let me clarify this. Trump's travel ban is not anti-muslim. Turkey and Indonesia were never on the list, even though they were muslim.
Iran is anti-American, and has said, and there is proof of this, that they want to destroy America. Iraq is occupied by ISIS, and is a failed state. Libya is a failed state. Somalia is a pirate-infested failed state. Sudan is a failing state engulfed in war. Syria has numerous rebel groups, is occupied by ISIS, and is a failed state. Yemen is a failed state, though enroute to recovery (yay Yemen!) These are either anti-American or are failed and dangerous states.
Never heard of any of this. But either way, I would assume that being a Christian organization is such an important factor that, if asked to stop being Christian, they would rather disband than reform.
Bee-leeve me, this isn't just for our benefit. If it were, wouldn't we be pushing movements to remove the "separation of church and state?" Whiiich to my knowledge we haven't?
Oh look! YAY! Third time's the charm! We agree!
Ehh. We're kinda rehashing points over and over again. Wanna quit and go have lunch or somethin'?

 

[MuffintinTony]

trans and bi bb

 

[Pine]

Ehh. We're kinda rehashing points over and over again. Wanna quit and go have lunch or somethin'?

i do fear that we've both derailed from the topic of the thread quite a bit. i'd be happy to continue discussing this over pm if you'd like, but otherwise it may be best that we abandon the subject altogether

i'll only say these last few things to clear up some miscommunications that i think we may have had in the past couple of posts:
- that was wrong of them to suspend him if all he did was bring a bible to school and i hope the lawsuit rules in his favor, because that's fucking ridiculous. but again, i think if christianity required a space for prayer like the islamic faith does, then i feel like that would be provided. otherwise, it would be blatant discrimination, but christianity requires no such thing as far as i've heard. i don't think that it violates separation of church and state so much as it's trying to accommodate for all groups. it is a bit of a sticky situation though, and i could also sympathize with the perspective that it isn't the government's job to accommodate for any religious group (though that would be very sad, i think, since a lot of people are stuck going to public schools)
- after this discussion, i'm actually very interested in familiarizing myself the islamic faith. if my friend is willing to teach me just for the sake of teaching me, then hopefully i can come back to address your points with a fresh perspective. in the mean time, i cannot speak on the behalf of muslims and their religious texts
- the bills i brought up were written to outlaw people from using bathrooms that don't match their gender marker on their driver's license. there were no laws about who goes in what restroom until obama made that eo (?) which was an attempt to protect trans rights to go to the bathroom of their identified gender. trump repealed this and made it a decision to be made on the state level. north carolina and texas both pushed for the aforementioned bills based on the platform of "keeping men out of women's restrooms." both of these bills failed in their own different ways, probably because there was zero consideration for trans people and their safety and some people want to figure out another way to solve the issue of women's safety. conversely to the bathroom bills which are only a recent phenomenon, sexual harassment/rape has been illegal for a long time now
- majority rules but minority rights. that's why the senate exists and much of our government system requires 2/3 vote rather than >1/2.
- re: how it was anti-muslim. yes, this was only applied to countries from some list made during the obama administration of what countries are seen as a threat (though i have seen people talking about trump having businesses in all the countries he skirted having this apply to, but i'm not about to dip into conspiracy theories, just wanted to let you know people have addressed this point), however: sec. 5 (d) limited the number of refugees accepted this fiscal year to 50k and sec. 5 (b) granted priority to religious minorities (if the persecution was religious) in countries WELL KNOWN to have a muslim-majority. THIS is what i'm talking about when i'm saying religious discrimination. i don't know how many refugees we receive each year, but if there's more than 50k, guess who's going to be stuck there? muslims. even disregarding that, the whole priority thing is bullshit

 

[Hall Kervean]

i do fear that we've both derailed from the topic of the thread quite a bit. i'd be happy to continue discussing this over pm if you'd like, but otherwise it may be best that we abandon the subject altogether

i'll only say these last few things to clear up some miscommunications that i think we may have had in the past couple of posts:
- that was wrong of them to suspend him if all he did was bring a bible to school and i hope the lawsuit rules in his favor, because that's fucking ridiculous. but again, i think if christianity required a space for prayer like the islamic faith does, then i feel like that would be provided. otherwise, it would be blatant discrimination, but christianity requires no such thing as far as i've heard. i don't think that it violates separation of church and state so much as it's trying to accommodate for all groups. it is a bit of a sticky situation though, and i could also sympathize with the perspective that it isn't the government's job to accommodate for any religious group (though that would be very sad, i think, since a lot of people are stuck going to public schools)
- after this discussion, i'm actually very interested in familiarizing myself the islamic faith. if my friend is willing to teach me just for the sake of teaching me, then hopefully i can come back to address your points with a fresh perspective. in the mean time, i cannot speak on the behalf of muslims and their religious texts
- the bills i brought up were written to outlaw people from using bathrooms that don't match their gender marker on their driver's license. there were no laws about who goes in what restroom until obama made that eo (?) which was an attempt to protect trans rights to go to the bathroom of their identified gender. trump repealed this and made it a decision to be made on the state level. north carolina and texas both pushed for the aforementioned bills based on the platform of "keeping men out of women's restrooms." both of these bills failed in their own different ways, probably because there was zero consideration for trans people and their safety and some people want to figure out another way to solve the issue of women's safety. conversely to the bathroom bills which are only a recent phenomenon, sexual harassment/rape has been illegal for a long time now
- majority rules but minority rights. that's why the senate exists and much of our government system requires 2/3 vote rather than >1/2.
- re: how it was anti-muslim. yes, this was only applied to countries from some list made during the obama administration of what countries are seen as a threat (though i have seen people talking about trump having businesses in all the countries he skirted having this apply to, but i'm not about to dip into conspiracy theories, just wanted to let you know people have addressed this point), however: sec. 5 (d) limited the number of refugees accepted this fiscal year to 50k and sec. 5 (b) granted priority to religious minorities (if the persecution was religious) in countries WELL KNOWN to have a muslim-majority. THIS is what i'm talking about when i'm saying religious discrimination. i don't know how many refugees we receive each year, but if there's more than 50k, guess who's going to be stuck there? muslims. even disregarding that, the whole priority thing is bullshit

And my point is that if Christianity required a special space to pray, I wouldn't ask for us to have special accommodation.
Sounds good m8. Maybe share the website with them.
And my point is that we should not give any sort of opportunity for it to happen. In addition, bathrooms are made to accomodate one's body, not one's identity. I would say that someone's feelings about having to go into a restroom that may be the wrong gender (don't agree with this but eh) should be far below the priority scale in relation to potential sexual harassment/assault/rape. And just because it's illegal doesn't mean it won't happen.
Yes, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If there are two homosexual people who want to marry in a state and 999,998 heterosexual people who do not want them to, then no matter what system you try and put in place, those two are not getting married. That was my point. Also because you confused me with it by kind of acting like the opinion of the majority doesn't matter unless everyone is heterosexual. If there is one person who is not, then their opinion is invalidated.
Given the fact that, despite what you may think, muslims are safer in a Middle Eastern nation than a member of literally any other religion, I would say he would be justified to extract the people in the most danger first. Needs of the many outweigh the few, but when the few's needs are greater than the many's and there can only be a few given what they want, the few do have the priority.
Dash all I had to say.
Ima go ahead and like all your posts real quicko tho.

 

[spookie]

100% aro, 100% ace, 100% not attracted to your face.

in other words, i simply can't comprehend sexual attraction and the entire idea of it truly repulses me... not to mention that the concept of being 'turned on' is so alien i can't even begin to wrap my head around it, let alone understand how such a thing would happen or feel. attraction in general seems bizarre and needlessly complex, to be quite honest.

but that's just me... if it's your thing, great. if you don't judge me for hating it, i won't judge you for wanting it ^^

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

100% aro, 100% ace, 100% not attracted to your face.

in other words, i simply can't comprehend sexual attraction and the entire idea of it truly repulses me... not to mention that the concept of being 'turned on' is so alien i can't even begin to wrap my head around it, let alone understand how such a thing would happen or feel. attraction in general seems bizarre and needlessly complex, to be quite honest.

but that's just me... if it's your thing, great. if you don't judge me for hating it, i won't judge you for wanting it ^^

That's okay. I didn't feel sexual attraction until an age that most girls have already had at least one partner and still get grossed out by the idea of doing anything sexual with people that I have not gotten to know for a significant amount of time. Maybe you'll meet someone you like eventually, or maybe this is just who you are and you are meant to be happy single. God bless.

 

[Voissed]

I'm a cis woman and I could say I'm bisexual, but while I feel attraction to men I only want relationships with women, so I don't think I'm really that. I usually identify simply as queer.

 

[Scripted Away]

-deleted-

 

[Necessity4Fun]

100% aro, 100% ace, 100% not attracted to your face.

in other words, i simply can't comprehend sexual attraction and the entire idea of it truly repulses me... not to mention that the concept of being 'turned on' is so alien i can't even begin to wrap my head around it, let alone understand how such a thing would happen or feel. attraction in general seems bizarre and needlessly complex, to be quite honest.

but that's just me... if it's your thing, great. if you don't judge me for hating it, i won't judge you for wanting it ^^

I'm like this too! Even talking about sex makes me feel uncomfortable and disgusted.

I did have someone I loved back in Middle School, but I was such a naive, protected person, that I thought only good of the world back then. Well, it didn't work out and I believe that shattered my world view as well... So now I just don't feel anything of the sort.
It wasn't even a serious break up or a bad one, but it still affected me this much. I guess, I was just that emotionally invested and took it as a betrayal.

I used to think I was broken and beyond repair, but I learned to live with it and accept it. Now, it doesn't really bother me anymore >w<

 

[Wyosch]

Okay this is rather short since my Wi-Fi is fucked up and may crash any second..
But any advise on how to come out as trans male?
Any experiences with transitioning (especially t therapy and breast removal?)
I know my fam would be supportive, but I really really loathe explaining myself face to face (10 years of bullying beat that out of me) and yeah...

Bestie - I want you to know that no matter what I love and support you and I am happy that you know who you are and want to come out.
I'd love to help you with everything you'll go through!

 

[Scripted Away]

Bestie - I want you to know that no matter what I love and support you and I am happy that you know who you are and want to come out.
I'd love to help you with everything you'll go through!

You're the best sis i could ever hope for, sweetie :*
I would hug you right now if there wasn't an ocean between us

 

[Lu-Lu]

Openly bi-sexual and adamant bathrooms are for relieving yourself in private and not dictated by gender

 

[Wyosch]

You're the best sis i could ever hope for, sweetie :*
I would hug you right now if there wasn't an ocean between us

I would always want to hug you, bro :* I love you, no matter what! And you know I'll always BROtect you

 

[Huxalot]

Hello I am gay and questioning non-binary what's up

 

[Wyosch]

So now that I saw my best friend openly talk about who they are, I think I could too.

I have reasons to believe I'm either bi or pansexual.
I've dated two boys before, and that only lasted for maximum three months. Broke up with my first one because he was an asshole, and with my second because we were too different and he was boring
- and because I was (am) developing feelings for my best friend (another than the one mentioned above xD).
She's a girl.
I'm a girl.

I have no idea if my feelings are just like friendly feelings because we're so alike and she's the first real life best friend I've had who really understands and accepts me...
or if they are real because she's just such an amazing and beautiful and funny and... ok I'm trailing off the subject.

Strange thing is:
was at the mall a couple of days ago, and checked out both girls and boys.
Though I know I'm still too young to think this far ahead (I'm 16), it still makes me wonder:
I can imagine myself in a relationship with a girl/woman, but I want kids - of my own.
I don't know, I just really want to be pregnant (NOT NOW - when I'm married and old enough xD) and idk... urgh.

Everything is kinda confusing and I'm just here all alone having no idea what to do...

anyone got some advice or similar experience(s)?

 

[Project Naiad]

So now that I saw my best friend openly talk about who they are, I think I could too.

I have reasons to believe I'm either bi or pansexual.
I've dated two boys before, and that only lasted for maximum three months. Broke up with my first one because he was an asshole, and with my second because we were too different and he was boring
- and because I was (am) developing feelings for my best friend (another than the one mentioned above xD).
She's a girl.
I'm a girl.

I have no idea if my feelings are just like friendly feelings because we're so alike and she's the first real life best friend I've had who really understands and accepts me...
or if they are real because she's just such an amazing and beautiful and funny and... ok I'm trailing off the subject.

Strange thing is:
was at the mall a couple of days ago, and checked out both girls and boys.
Though I know I'm still too young to think this far ahead (I'm 16), it still makes me wonder:
I can imagine myself in a relationship with a girl/woman, but I want kids - of my own.
I don't know, I just really want to be pregnant (NOT NOW - when I'm married and old enough xD) and idk... urgh.

Everything is kinda confusing and I'm just here all alone having no idea what to do...

anyone got some advice or similar experience(s)?

When I was about your age I had a couple crushes on girls, and in particular one on my female best friend (I'm male and gay btw). At the time I thought it was romantical attraction. But now I think that it was simply because she was a very special person to me and one I felt deeply connected to.
All I all it's a really confusing age (at least it was for me), but later on things got a little bit clearer, maybe they will for you as well!