Science LGBT+ and religion

[Pokegeek151]

ABSOLUETLY IRRELEVANT TO JESUS /s

in other news, how I feel when I walk into this thread late and to see no non catholic interpretations of jesub and the bible

I can't tell if you're serious.

 

[TheRockInception]

I can't tell if you're serious.

s

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

I see the whole homosexuality thing as an unnatural affair versus what is a purely religious dispute on why and how it is considered an abomination. If religious people want to keep even footing in this argument against homosexuality they may have to look to an unlikely ally which is science to prove that their sexual appetites are indeed unnatural.

Nature intended for male and female to be attracted to one another to procreate the species. What isn't natural is what runs contrary to what nature intended. I don't agree with homosexuals in their lifestyle preferences but there it is. This is under the condition that they go no further into this SJW crusade against "cis white scum" then I'll reserve no hostility towards them. However if SJWs and militants in the LGBT community continue to assault traditional sentiment then you will become a problem which will need to be dealt with swiftly and brutally.

Before some of you hammer me for bigotry keep in mind I have nothing against homosexual people themselves, just their choices in lifestyle.

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

I Imperator_tenebrae
Alright, because of your post, I gotta say something...! BU

As someone that's a part of the LGBTQ+...

I can accept this. Yeah, I whole heartedly disagree with you, but you have the right to have this opinion as I have the right to have mine and continue my lifestyle choice. Just as long as your opinions don't physically hurt me and everyone, AND you give me a chance to have a voice, that's it. So, yeah. xD Woot... I'm bad at debates and discussions like these to be honest. >O>;;;

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

I Imperator_tenebrae
Alright, because of your post, I gotta say something...! BU

As someone that's a part of the LGBTQ+...

I can accept this. Yeah, I whole heartedly disagree with you, but you have the right to have this opinion as I have the right to have mine and continue my lifestyle choice. Just as long as your opinions don't physically hurt me and everyone, AND you give me a chance to have a voice, that's it. So, yeah. xD Woot... I'm bad at debates and discussions like these to be honest. >O>;;;

If only more civil discourse like these can occur then everything will be fine.

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

I Imperator_tenebrae
That's how I feel 100% for both sides. It just sucks that (for the U.S.), we're starting to turn to a more fascist tone when it comes to free speech. Like, religion and sexuality, for instance. People turn to violence for both sides and does everything in their power to silence each others' voices while preaching their's. That's not cool. I think that would be an interesting thing to discuss further in another thread. But, I feel like that'll blow up so fast, especially with how things are in the U.S.

Honestly, I'd rather sit down and have a beer (or Shirley Temple/Roy Rogers for non-drinkers) and just shoot the breeze. Lightly discuss hot button topics like sexuality and religion, but know when it's time to "agree to disagree" and move on to something like the bastardization of mayonnaise and bananas on a pizza (clearly there should be a war against it. ... just kidding. xD).

 

[Pokegeek151]

Not only did my computer not load your whole message, I also misread it. My bad!

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

Pokegeek151
Naw, clearly you focused on the very thought of a mayo and banana pizza. BU Joking. xD

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

I Imperator_tenebrae
That's how I feel 100% for both sides. It just sucks that (for the U.S.), we're starting to turn to a more fascist tone when it comes to free speech. Like, religion and sexuality, for instance. People turn to violence for both sides and does everything in their power to silence each others' voices while preaching their's. That's not cool. I think that would be an interesting thing to discuss further in another thread. But, I feel like that'll blow up so fast, especially with how things are in the U.S.

I'm afraid the inevitable will happen and not to point fingers but the alt-left has done a good job stirring a hornet's nest. We can only hope after both sides have a go at each other there will be enough voices of reason remaining to bridge the gaps or else this will be a wedge that will befall generations.

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

I Imperator_tenebrae
Yeah... it's pretty embarrassing right now for the far left and democrats in general. I don't actually have a political stance in terms of parties and what not, but it's just hurts seeing these demonstrations and what not escalate to violence. I also know it's the same thing for some republicans the other way around with a few of my friends. They are very embarrassed at the current situation right now. I can say that the two parties can come together under one cause: how much of a circus 2017 has been so far.

Aight, I think I've kinda went off topic for this thread at least. xD I hope we can get more discussions going on the topics of religion and the LGBTQ+.

 

[thoughtless]

Just felt that I should jump in this just cause. I'm fairly solid on my own personal notion that certain ideas can certainly be harmful if spoken in a public space and by someone who actually has the power to act on that harmful idea. Which is why I really don't give fuck if someone thinks LGBT+ people are unnatural or if homosexuality is a disease. Yeah, I think its dumb and goes completely against everything science has told us up till now, but ultimately I can't change what people think if they're not willing to change. What I do care about is making sure people with those ideas don't ever have the power to enforce them (you can probably guess how I feel about Mike Pence being VP).

To use a portion of a favorite quote of mine: "If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem." ― Stokely Carmichael. I feel as it can applied to many things in modern society, despite the fact that Stokely was born 76 years ago in 1941.

I would propose another question, but I don't want to get too off topic.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

Just felt that I should jump in this just cause. I'm fairly solid on my own personal notion that certain ideas can certainly be harmful if spoken in a public space and by someone who actually has the power to act on that harmful idea. Which is why I really don't give fuck if someone thinks LGBT+ people are unnatural or if homosexuality is a disease. Yeah, I think its dumb and goes completely against everything science has told us up till now, but ultimately I can't change what people think if they're not willing to change. What I do care about is making sure people with those ideas don't ever have the power to enforce them (you can probably guess how I feel about Mike Pence being VP).

To use a portion of a favorite quote of mine: "If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem." ― Stokely Carmichael. I feel as it can applied to many things in modern society, despite the fact that Stokely was born 76 years ago in 1941.

Oh so the idea is to suppress people of an opposing view point so they'll never have representation and therefore not a voice at all? To suppress people from coming to power is to suppress their voices which is what the regressive left is trying to do and have done it well until recently. That kind of leftist fascism is the reason why I've gotten into the political shit storm in the first place because people like you who think it is their own righteous cause to stamp out the last remains of traditionalism because it goes against your way of thinking. You don't think if your side has all the power it will stop with merely just suppressing "hate speech" and thought crimes? This is very Orwellian and you're naive to think your side will treat the opposition fairly, fascism comes in many different flavors.

If that is the case then the only outcome to this war is if one side stands victorious and the other side is destroyed beyond repair. You cannot simply subdue people who want representation all because you think they're out to get you. When you attack traditional families and religion like the regressives have done over the past two decades we cannot have co-existence. This kind of mindset is the real threat to peace and you're part of the problem.

Change comes in due time, but what you want is not change. It is violent upheaval.

 

[thoughtless]

Oh so the idea is to suppress people of an opposing view point so they'll never have representation and therefore not a voice at all? To suppress people from coming to power is to suppress their voices which is what the regressive left is trying to do and have done it well until recently. That kind of leftist fascism is the reason why I've gotten into the political shit storm in the first place because people like you who think it is their own righteous cause to stamp out the last remains of traditionalism because it goes against your way of thinking. You don't think if your side has all the power it will stop with merely just suppressing "hate speech" and thought crimes? This is very Orwellian and you're naive to think your side will treat the opposition fairly, fascism comes in many different flavors.

If that is the case then the only outcome to this war is if one side stands victorious and the other side is destroyed beyond repair. You cannot simply subdue people who want representation all because you think they're out to get you. When you attack traditional families and religion like the regressives have done over the past two decades we cannot have co-existence. This kind of mindset is the real threat to peace and you're part of the problem.

Change comes in due time, but what you want is not change. It is violent upheaval.

Bruh...you literally took what I said..and applied it in the most violent way possible.

If what I wanted was people not being given the power to enforce ideas that have been proven to be harmful, like the fact that Mike Pence thinks conversion therapy is okay, then...wouldn't I just vote for the people I wanted instead of him? Wouldn't I just vote for representatives who would be able to block his policies?? Like...literally everyone else??? Which is the basic idea.....of democracy????? The whole point of the system America has right now it to look at different parties and go "Hey uhh, I don't like your ideas. But I like this guy's ideas, soooo I'ma vote for him."

I mean, going by what you just said I guess the idea of voting for a group that has different opinions than a different group is "suppressing people of an opposing view point so they'll never have representation and therefore not a voice at all". But hey, your words not mine.

You need to take several chill pills and have a cold one cause that's some serious exaggeration of the basic ideas I was trying to get across. You literally took everything I said and pushed it as far as possible to extremism, and I'm honestly surprised you could reach that far.

Half of the shit you said isn't even logically possible in the state that America is in right now, and your whole spiel is under the assumption that the left could do all of that on their own (hint, hint, they can't).

 

[TheRockInception]

Can I ask a question?
What the actual hell does Q in LGBTQ mean? What the hell does + mean?! I thought you can only be Gay or a bisexual or trans.

 

[thoughtless]

Can I ask a question?
What the actual hell does Q in LGBTQ mean? What the hell does + mean?! I thought you can only be Gay or a bisexual or trans.

The Q is for Queer which is basically for people who feel uncomfortable with/don't want to use labels, the + is for everything else that isn't included in the general, common acronym like asexual people.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

Bruh...you literally took what I said..and applied it in the most violent way possible.

If what I wanted was people not being given the power to enforce ideas that have been proven to be harmful, like the fact that Mike Pence thinks conversion therapy is okay, then...wouldn't I just vote for the people I wanted? Like...literally everyone else? Which is the basic idea.....of democracy?????

When you said:

What I do care about is making sure people with those ideas don't ever have the power to enforce them

I took exactly what you meant. There is no exaggeration if it is your purpose to make sure people (like me or people who voted for Mike Pence) with opposing ideas don't ever have the power to enforce them. Which I took it literally that you did not want me or anyone else like that for that matter to have no representation? Sorry, it does not work that way unless you want an overthrow which is exactly what I meant from the last post.

BTW we're not a democracy, we're a Republic. Representation is how it works, not mob rule.

Also the law you're so worked up about Mike Pence is behind is just another form of affirmative action. If we have equal rights then why are certain social groups given special rights and privileges over everyone else? This special treatment BS is only driving a wedge not making things better. If that sounds too egalitarian for you then I'm sorry.

 

[TheRockInception]

The Q is for Queer which is basically for people who feel uncomfortable/don't want to use labels, the + is for everything else that isn't included in the general, common acronym like asexual people.

Old literature I've read referred to actual gays as queers. And I do believe everyone is born with a line or a hole, and in rare cases both..?

 

[thoughtless]

When you said: I took exactly what you meant. There is no exaggeration if it is your purpose to make sure people (like me or people who voted for Mike Pence) with opposing ideas don't ever have the power to enforce them. Which I took it literally that you did not want me or anyone else like that for that matter to have no representation? Sorry, it does not work that way unless you want an overthrow which is exactly what I meant from the last post.

BTW we're not a democracy, we're a Republic. Representation is how it works, not mob rule.

Also the law you're so worked up about Mike Pence is behind is just another form of affirmative action. If we have equal rights then why are certain social groups given special rights and privileges over everyone else? This special treatment BS is only driving a wedge not making things better. If that sounds too egalitarian for you then I'm sorry.

Yeah, that sentence was about Mike Pence doesn't ever have the power to enforce his idea of conservation therapy because it's fucking proven that it doesn't work. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer. Also, while America is a technically a Republic, have you ever heard of the term representative democracy, because it is the exact principal that the USA enforces.

The idea of Affirmative Action is not one of equality, but of equity. Equity is giving everyone what they need in order to succeed in life, while equality is simply treating everyone the same.
Here is a very simple picture comparing the two.

Old literature I've read referred to actual gays as queers. And I do believe everyone is born with a line or a hole, and in rare cases both..?

Queer has been used for quite a while to describe someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender, it's basically an umbrella term now. Asexuality isn't a gender or a sex, it's a sexuality and it's someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction, which is different from celibacy.

 

[TheRockInception]

Yeah, that sentence was about Mike Pence doesn't ever have the power to enforce his idea of conservation therapy because it's fucking proven that it doesn't work. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer. Also, while America is a technically a Republic, have you ever heard of the term representative democracy, because it is the exact principal that the USA enforces.

The idea of Affirmative Action is not one of equality, but of equity. Equity is giving everyone what they need in order to succeed in life, while equality is simply treating everyone the same.
Here is a very simple picture comparing the two.

Queer has been used for quite a while to describe someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender, it's basically an umbrella term now. Asexuality isn't a gender or a sex, it's someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction, which is different from celibacy.

As a multiethnical (AKA white), straight, Lutheran male, I'm highly confused by this new information about sexual orientation.

 

[thoughtless]

As a multiethnical (AKA white), straight, Lutheran male, I'm highly confused by this new information about sexual orientation.

That's understandable, although there are documentations of asexuality that go pretty far back, it has only lately been scientifically researched and there is a whole lot of discourse about in the LGBT+ community. I don't expect people to know what it is. It's much less complicated than it seems.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

pretty much, yes, that is the answer. It´s more like, once you choose something in eternity, it´s like if you always made that choice. Everything in eternity is everlasting.

There is no right answer there. Both are logically flawed. :\
Your statement about the concept of time in Heaven is also questionable.
Is that in the Bible anywhere, or is this something an apologist just came up with?

Why not just have that on Earth? Because Earth is the preparation. Humans are not ready to make free will choices when they are born, and if someone was created as an adult, they would basically be programmed. So, there needs to be a life that comes before that ultimate choice.

"Because Earth is the preparation" is not logically sound either. Just think that idea through a bit more.
Why does it have to be the preparation at all? God set this all up. He could have done it right the first time.
He should have been able to. He can see all, do all, know all. There's no way to excuse it without committing to a fallacy.

.... I don't usually get deep these discussions. I just wanna drop something off as a means of civil discussion about homosexuality (LGBT+ in general) and the Bible. Not putting my opinion and what not out there (since I did the survey ages ago; I just wanted to help with Pokegeek151 's paper). BUT... since everyone loves interpreting the bible, why not debate/interpret the Book of Samuel and the figures David and Jonathan? It'd be interesting to see what y'all say. That's it. xD That's all I wanted to say with things kinda... well... turning into this:

More like "a hate-filled pit of anger and disagreement." Just an opinion of what I read over and interpreted from the text. *ba dum diiiiiiiiiiish*

Let's all get together and grab a whole lot of foxes and set their tails on fire then let them run loose to cause chaos.

Yeah, that's a story in the Bible. _{I mean there was probably no other way that the issue could be dealt with, right? P:}

I see the whole homosexuality thing as an unnatural affair versus what is a purely religious dispute on why and how it is considered an abomination. If religious people want to keep even footing in this argument against homosexuality they may have to look to an unlikely ally which is science to prove that their sexual appetites are indeed unnatural.

Nature intended for male and female to be attracted to one another to procreate the species. What isn't natural is what runs contrary to what nature intended. I don't agree with homosexuals in their lifestyle preferences but there it is. This is under the condition that they go no further into this SJW crusade against "cis white scum" then I'll reserve no hostility towards them. However if SJWs and militants in the LGBT community continue to assault traditional sentiment then you will become a problem which will need to be dealt with swiftly and brutally.

Before some of you hammer me for bigotry keep in mind I have nothing against homosexual people themselves, just their choices in lifestyle.

I agree with you on the idea that the only way religious people can even keep footing in the argument is the "it goes against nature" retort.
But even there, if you just look at nature for a bit you'll find that there are plenty of instances of homosexuality there as well.
Plus, there is no inherent goodness or badness to nature. It's a rough spot to argue from if you're someone who is primarily debating morals.

Just felt that I should jump in this just cause. I'm fairly solid on my own personal notion that certain ideas can certainly be harmful if spoken in a public space and by someone who actually has the power to act on that harmful idea. Which is why I really don't give fuck if someone thinks LGBT+ people are unnatural or if homosexuality is a disease. Yeah, I think its dumb and goes completely against everything science has told us up till now, but ultimately I can't change what people think if they're not willing to change. What I do care about is making sure people with those ideas don't ever have the power to enforce them (you can probably guess how I feel about Mike Pence being VP).

To use a portion of a favorite quote of mine: "If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem." ― Stokely Carmichael. I feel as it can applied to many things in modern society, despite the fact that Stokely was born 76 years ago in 1941.

I would propose another question, but I don't want to get too off topic.

Certain ideas can certainly be harmful, but I can't think of any instance in which free speech should be restricted.
I'd like for someone to try to argue me out of this, but my position is that the best and only way to deal with issues of free speech being used in horrible ways:
(such as fake news, hoaxes, slander, facts vs fiction)
Is to fight back with free speech ourselves. People need to actively question things and not be afraid to scrutinize or criticize.

Sorry for the long post~

 

[Idea]

There is no right answer there. Both are logically flawed. :\
Your statement about the concept of time in Heaven is also questionable.
Is that in the Bible anywhere, or is this something an apologist just came up with?

False dilema, right there. "Apologist" and "it´s in the bible" are not the only two options. It´s the official position of the Catholic Church.

"Because Earth is the preparation" is not logically sound either. Just think that idea through a bit more.
Why does it have to be the preparation at all? God set this all up. He could have done it right the first time.
He should have been able to. He can see all, do all, know all. There's no way to excuse it without committing to a fallacy.

Oh really then? Where´s the fallacy?

 

[Lycanthrosis]

False dilema, right there. "Apologist" and "it´s in the bible" are not the only two options. It´s the official position of the Catholic Church.

I think "apologist" covers "the official position of the Catholic Church" too: anything that they say that is not something that you can just read in the Bible.
I also don't think that there are any other sources that would work in this conversation.

Oh really then? Where´s the fallacy?

I can't tell you what fallacy you're going to use until you do. Lol
Do you have a response to my statement, or?

 

[Idea]

I think "apologist" covers "the official position of the Catholic Church" too: anything that they say that is not something that you can just read in the Bible.
I also don't think that there are any other sources that would work in this conversation.

So, I must apologize. I just looked up the term "aplogetics" and turns out it´s meaning it´s completely different from what the word suggests. Sorry.

Though, "any other source that would work in this converation", by which you mean....?

I can't tell you what fallacy you're going to use until you do. Lol
Do you have a response to my statement, or?

You quoted ME and said I had a fallacy in my statement. But you didn´t say what it was nor why.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

So, I must apologize. I just looked up the term "aplogetics" and turns out it´s meaning it´s completely different from what the word suggests. Sorry.

Though, "any other source that would work in this converation", by which you mean....?

No problem. I thought the same before I knew what the word actually meant.
I mean, what other sources should be used when discussing a religion that came out of a book?
Christianity would not exist without the Bible. The Bible is the sole source of Christianity's entire being.
Within the Bible it is said not to add or take anything away from the Bible, because it is supposedly the actual word of God.
If we can just go by "this guy who I think is holy says this" then I could do that with anything, right?
At least if we go off of the book as the final word on the matter, then it's unchanging. (These days at least)

You quoted ME and said I had a fallacy in my statement. But you didn´t say what it was nor why.

No, no, no. I wasn't pointing out any particular fallacy that you had made in that statement. (Although there is clearly one there, which we could discuss if you'd like)
I was saying that I don't believe there is any argument that can be provided that doesn't fall prey to a fallacy.