A serious question for the religious types about gay and trans people

[shava]

What I want to know is why religious conservatives make it their business to butt in on private matters of people who believe differently? What makes them feel it is their "right" to discriminate against the LBGT community, especially when legally they cannot discriminate, for any reason, against sex, ethnicity, disability, creed, religion, age, race, or national origin?

Where oh where did I ever learn to be turned on by pain?

Christians have the duty to denounce all sexual perversions that cause harm to others, whether that harm is physically, mentally, emotionally spiritually, and socially which the LGBTQPB causes on us all, including themselves.


LGBTQPB = Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transsexuals, Queers, Pedophiles and beastiality.

 

[shava]

I don't care, it has no affect and it does not impact me at all. You'll be hard-pressed to find a Pagan who dislikes homosexuality and most of those are stuck in Abrahamic and/or patriarchal mindsets. There are Pagan deities who bless & protect same-sex relationships such as Dionysus and Tu Er Shen.

God condemns this evil.

 

[shava]

ooo, colours....
1. why is it discrimination? how is someone discriminating?

2. is all domestic activities private matters that no one else should chime in on?

I don't know but you can learn it. some already do. either giving it or taking it. That's why sex/porn world is so diverse with hitting, choking, and b.s. of that kind.

It happens over time and it occurs by exposure.

How do you consider this a private matter when these people even have a parade to celebrate their sinful life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. why is it discrimination? how is someone discriminating?

It's discrimination when someone is legally protected in their decision to not hire me, serve me, allow me in the door, or let me rent as a tenant just because of my existence/who I am.

I don't know but you can learn it. some already do. either giving it or taking it. That's why sex/porn world is so diverse with hitting, choking, and b.s. of that kind.

Sex and porn are not closely related enough to use them such as "sex/porn," and they are popular because we are sexual animals. I also find nothing "bs" about rough, violent sex, so long as it's consensual and all involved are ok with it.

It happens over time and it occurs by exposure.

Except I wasn't exposed to it, I had no one to learn it from, I just one day (actually when I got my first piercing) that pain really turns me on and puts me into super-nympho mode, and while I had a relationship I discovered that pain turns me into the Energizer Bunny. We learn how our cultures expresses sexuality (you generally just do not find Westerners who get off on letting bugs crawl around on their junk, though it is a fetish found in some "third world" countries), but we don't choose it, we don't learn it like we would learn to play guitar, and it just happens.

Reading posts here?

It doesn't mean it makes any sense. Even though I do consider myself greatly wronged by the Church, even though many Christians treat me poorly (I'd be rich if I got a nickel for every time one of them has told me I'm going to Hell), and despite the fact I did suffer with religious trauma syndrome, you don't see me going around saying "your kind isn't welcome here" or trying to make them feel like **** or as dehumanized as possible. All I ask is they keep their **** out of politics so their dogma doesn't become law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Christians have the duty to denounce all sexual perversions that cause harm to others, whether that harm is physically, mentally, emotionally spiritually, and socially which the LGBTQPB causes on us all, including themselves.

We aren't harming anyone or ourselves.

LGBTQPB = Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transsexuals, Queers, Pedophiles and beastiality.

Pedophiles and zoophiliacs are their own groups, and are not related to the LBGT community/movement. And queer, at best your use of it is archaic and redundant.

God condemns this evil.

If you want to believe that, cool (I guess). But, for the rest of us, we don't care about your god or your interpretations of your holy book, and you have no right to expect us to live in accordance to something we don't believe in or care about.

How do you consider this a private matter when these people even have a parade to celebrate their sinful life.

People have parades for many different reasons, and not many LBGT people actually go to them. Some might go every once in awhile just to support it, but many just don't go. As for Pride parades, they serve the purpose of boldly declaring we don't care what you think. We are human, and we deserve the same basic dignity and respect as anyone else. It delights me, greatly, to know that those who think LBGT people should not be treated as human beings entitled to the same rights, equalities, and dignities are dying out. It won't completely die during my life, but it satisfactory just seeing such a monster's death throws.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Christians have the duty to denounce all sexual perversions that cause harm to others, whether that harm is physically, mentally, emotionally spiritually, and socially which the LGBTQPB causes on us all, including themselves.


LGBTQPB = Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transsexuals, Queers, Pedophiles and beastiality.

Then non-Christians have a duty to denounce those Christians who are denouncing the above. I denounce you for ignorance of fact, judging when Jesus Christ Himself told you not to (but when did Christians ever actually follow Jesus, I ask you ?)

I denounce you for imputing harm where there is none, and for doing immeasurable harm to very real, very human, very loving people for no other reason than your own personal hate, superstition, lack of empathy, and lack of anything resembling your "Christ."

And I denounce your for spelling (it's "bestiality").

As Ghandi said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” And so far, I've found you to be a classic example of what he says.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you consider this a private matter when these people even have a parade to celebrate their sinful life.

They parade not to celebrate their sinful life, but to protest their blatantly evil treatment by the likes of such as you. Hate will always be responded to with such a backlash -- so until you can learn to be like Jesus and stop hating, I guess you'll have to get used to it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

From personal opinion i think when they dress as woman or when they commit sodomy its very insultive towards the Creator.

The Creator showed us the clean natural way.

Did he? I don't remember being taught that God showed Adam & Eve the 'correct' way to dress because they covered themselves with leaves when God wasn't there. That's what the Bible says; if there's a verse in the Quran that says otherwise then I'll retract since you would probably be referring to that and not the Biblical account.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

How do you consider this a private matter when these people even have a parade to celebrate their sinful life.

They parade to celebrate the fact that people who think as you do can't use the law to harm them any more - and are punished for depriving them of human rights & dignity.

 

[randomvim]

It's discrimination when someone is legally protected in their decision to not hire me, serve me, allow me in the door, or let me rent as a tenant just because of my existence/who I am.

woe. if someone doesn't want to be around certain activities or people, they don't have to. I agree that in certain circumstances these dislikes are curbed because we can not and should not deny residence or work due to different opinions. that's sad and bad.

But that is not every situation and not every person who thinks as I do - that will say homosexuality is not for me and not keen for society or another person - will limit your access to such things.

I give benefit of doubt to every situation I may. And my thoughts are not discriminating - just my actions.

Sex and porn are not closely related enough to use them such as "sex/porn," and they are popular because we are sexual animals. I also find nothing "bs" about rough, violent sex, so long as it's consensual and all involved are ok with it.

people have consented to outlandish b.s. that has cost their lives and injured themselves or others.

I have read many articles where a person is killed because they liked being choked. a man gets killed after agreeing to having another cut him. no harm you say? okay?

consent or being okay with something does not mean it is okay.

in regards to my first post on this thread. if a person wants to mutilate or physically damage themselves - they are not mentally healthy. no way a psychology study would suggest self harm as being good. if you cut your self. you need help. if you like someone else cutting you, you still need help. it's mental disparity.

There are many people who can recognize a man hitting a woman is wrong. a woman who likes getting hit or having consent ( which doesn't mean she likes it) is still not right.

we are not sexual animals we are animals with addiction and much like drugs, you can seek gratification in the wrong places and this includes sexual pleasure. we abuse it, we get sick.

Except I wasn't exposed to it, I had no one to learn it from, I just one day (actually when I got my first piercing) that pain really turns me on and puts me into super-nympho mode, and while I had a relationship I discovered that pain turns me into the Energizer Bunny. We learn how our cultures expresses sexuality (you generally just do not find Westerners who get off on letting bugs crawl around on their junk, though it is a fetish found in some "third world" countries), but we don't choose it, we don't learn it like we would learn to play guitar, and it just happens.

you just said you discovered it. you can only discover what you can learn. over time (whether quick or not) you accept more.

humans experience narcotics in the same manner. sometimes they sink into a hole quick. other times - it takes a decade or longer.

It doesn't mean it makes any sense. Even though I do consider myself greatly wronged by the Church, even though many Christians treat me poorly (I'd be rich if I got a nickel for every time one of them has told me I'm going to Hell), and despite the fact I did suffer with religious trauma syndrome, you don't see me going around saying "your kind isn't welcome here" or trying to make them feel like **** or as dehumanized as possible. All I ask is they keep their **** out of politics so their dogma doesn't become law.

much of politics is set up the way it is because of our ancestors religious belief. which in US includes " created equal"

while some create their own bravado and incorrectly use their religion to support a greed, plenty more do not.

saying "going to hell" is not treating anyone poorly.

 

[Acim]

That is a fair point I suppose. But arguing that people harming children doesn't affect me as long as I don't know about it is also a little facetious, don't you think?

You're yet to show the minors being harmed, so I'm having to deal with that straw man which IMO is ridiculous with regards to the larger point. Literally, the same thing could be said about homosexual relations, that they are physically harming each other. And it's automatic and it's just plain bad for society. Ask someone espousing this to back it up, and like you, I'm sure they'll dodge, but then perhaps come back at some point with the words of, "arguing that homosexuals harming each other doesn't affect me is....."

Part of the point in both OP and in my inquiry relies on the idea that for all you know this could be happening all around you, and you are not letting that impact you. That to be is the blatantly obvious part of the inquiry. The other part is the idea that if you think you know, why does that really bother you. But doesn't even ask it in that way. Instead it is 'how does it affect you.' And I'm saying what I said before (which I stand by as primary point), but because you are continuing with the straw man, I'm also saying it is BS insistence of there being automatic harm that is (partially) why it is seen as bothersome/impactful. And that is also partially what I previously referenced earlier as ignorant righteousness. Wanna claim harm as inherent? I hope you got something to back that BS up with.

 

[Wirey]

And I'm saying what I said before (which I stand by as primary point), but because you are continuing with the straw man, I'm also saying it is BS insistence of there being automatic harm that is (partially) why it is seen as bothersome/impactful. And that is also partially what I previously referenced earlier as ignorant righteousness. Wanna claim harm as inherent? I hope you got something to back that BS up with.

BS? You claim children should be allowed to willingly participate in a sexual relationship with an adult and I'm spouting BS? I think you have a little logical problem there pal. Two adults screwing is one thing, a child with no basis for making a rational decision deciding to screw is another.

 

[Acim]

BS? You claim children should be allowed to willingly participate in a sexual relationship with an adult and I'm spouting BS? I think you have a little logical problem there pal. Two adults screwing is one thing, a child with no basis for making a rational decision deciding to screw is another.

So a 17 year old minor cannot make a rational decision deciding to screw? Therefore, if two males who are 17 years old wish to get freaky with each other, it would be in everyone's best interest to prevent this given the automatic harm that would occur. Or if one was 17.5 years old (a minor) and the other 18.5 years old, then no doubt that one is taking advantage of the other, and no other way to understand that but the harm coming to the younger person in the situation.

I find this stuff humorous, and does actually help address why religious righteousness can be effective in controlling the narrative. Just gotta appear like your rationale, spout enough venom regarding harm / condemnation and assume anyone that disagrees has a problem with logic.

 

[Wirey]

So a 17 year old minor cannot make a rational decision deciding to screw? Therefore, if two males who are 17 years old wish to get freaky with each other, it would be in everyone's best interest to prevent this given the automatic harm that would occur. Or if one was 17.5 years old (a minor) and the other 18.5 years old, then no doubt that one is taking advantage of the other, and no other way to understand that but the harm coming to the younger person in the situation.

I find this stuff humorous, and does actually help address why religious righteousness can be effective in controlling the narrative. Just gotta appear like your rationale, spout enough venom regarding harm / condemnation and assume anyone that disagrees has a problem with logic.

17 is pretty young for screwing, yes. And you're picking extreme examples to support the notion that adults banging children isn't a bad thing.

 

[shava]

Then non-Christians have a duty to denounce those Christians who are denouncing the above. I denounce you for ignorance of fact, judging when Jesus Christ Himself told you not to (but when did Christians ever actually follow Jesus, I ask you ?)

I denounce you for imputing harm where there is none, and for doing immeasurable harm to very real, very human, very loving people for no other reason than your own personal hate, superstition, lack of empathy, and lack of anything resembling your "Christ."

And I denounce your for spelling (it's "bestiality").

As Ghandi said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” And so far, I've found you to be a classic example of what he says.

My spelling isn't the subject, and yes, Christians are COMMANDED TO JUDGE, if you knew what the bible said. I never said I hate them, as that couldn't be farther from the truth, as I'm concerned for their soul.

 

[shava]

They parade to celebrate the fact that people who think as you do can't use the law to harm them any more - and are punished for depriving them of human rights & dignity.

What about one's eternal destiny?

 

[randomvim]

My spelling isn't the subject, and yes, Christians are COMMANDED TO JUDGE, if you knew what the bible said. I never said I hate them, as that couldn't be farther from the truth, as I'm concerned for their soul.

True. we are not supposed to judge a person's heart, their soul, their intent, etc. To say someone is doing right or wrong - indeed we must judge.

After all how do we know what is right or wrong if we don't think about it, right? too bad too many think that of you judge and say an act is wrong, you hate that person which is not true.

 

[columbus]

What about one's eternal destiny?

Why would I believe that you, or anyone similar to you, knows anything about that?
The people you reference as authorities didn't even know where babies come from. They didn't understand weather. They didn't realize that slavery is a horrible moral thing.
Why would I believe that you know any more about my eternal destiny than I do?

I don't believe that you do.
Tom

 

[Wirey]

What about one's eternal destiny?

If you think judging someone for what they are is your calling, and the Christian God actually exists, I have a pretty good idea of what your eternal destiny might be.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My spelling isn't the subject, and yes, Christians are COMMANDED TO JUDGE, if you knew what the bible said. I never said I hate them, as that couldn't be farther from the truth, as I'm concerned for their soul.

Shava, if you are concerned for their soul, then it would be best to respect and accept (a form of respect) they have different beliefs that nourish their souls. Concern, empathy, and understanding means to let people believe what they believe as they know more about themselves than you and any other person outside them and their family (best friend, whomever).

It's alright to be concern. For example, I know god does not exist. How can you save me if we both don't know that the danger exists for me to be saved from it?

How can it be a danger to me if you are only telling me "I'm in danger" but you are not god and obviously have no way of knowing what will happen after my death?

How can your beliefs and commands from your god be relevant and apply to someone who does not believe? (Not from your point of view but logically, how does it apply)?

You would need to know that other person's belief and you would also have to access how their belief is harmful to them not how your belief says it is.​

Give you an example (hope you are reading this so far):

I know my ancestral spirits exist. They have and still do help me out. I have receive blessings today and in the past few days as I keep myself in line with them. They are who I am and the heart of my faith.

They tell me that if people are not connected with their own family not just living on earth then they will not know who they are as a person. So, if you are not connected and give reverence to your ancestral spirits and not just your family on earth, regardless of how much you love god you will not know who you are as a person.

If you read this actively, I hope this kind of made you uncomfortable because that is my point.​

How can I verbally claim to you that you have no connect to your family all because you do not believe what I believe? What right do I have to say that to you? To me it's true. To me, I feel it's true for all people. I don't know anyone but myself.

Same with your god-belief.

You only know what you have in scripture, your experience, and your world-view.

Have you ever asked a person about their belief?
How their beliefs helped them nourish their souls?
How their beliefs guide them in life?
What's important to them?

If you are the only person that sees them suffer, are they really suffering or is it only your perception that they are?