Factualist
Bluelighter
You act like everyone gives a shit about this when almost 6 billion people on earth don't. If you're gonna cite fairytales as evidence you can't expect rational people to take that seriously.
Social Justice Transgender and gender identity discussion
- Thread starter Draven26
- Start date
You act like everyone gives a shit about this when almost 6 billion people on earth don't. If you're gonna cite fairytales as evidence you can't expect rational people to take that seriously.
w01fg4ng
Bluelighter
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
First of all, most people on the planet aren't Christian, and your argument only matters at all whatsoever for Christians, for everyone else it's completely irrelevant.
That said, the Jesus I know would be happy to perform marriage between two individuals who loved each other. The Jesus I know was about love and acceptance. The Catholic church was formed 300 years after Jesus's death as a way to control the exploding popularity of his religion. It co-opted Jesus's message into a disgusting and corrupt organization used to control the population. Jesus would have been appalled at what the Catholic church became. But yeah that's my opinion and also doesn't really matter but I wanted to say it since I feel strongly about that.
But the real, most important point here is that Catholicism/Christianity does not own the institution of marriage. Marriage is an institution that is legal, and not necessarily associated with a church. So the Catholic church does have the right to not marry people in their churches, as they're a private organization. However the Catholic church should have no say whatsoever in two people going to a courthouse and getting legally married. That has nothing to do with religion. There is no reason that two people who are not heteronormative should be prevented from forming the same legal union as any other couple. The government should absolutely step in and stop the discrimination against two gay people getting legally married. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same benefits as any other couple? Why shouldn't they be able to qualify for adoption (so many children need adoption, more than there are people trying to adopt), or have the same legal rights to each other in hospitals if one is hurt, and so on? This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Marriage is a societal construct that exists in all societies pretty much, it is not Christian alone.
We have a discussion earlier in this thread about this. I think the sports "issue" is a small side issue that is being used to justify discrimination against trans people. I personally don't think a male with male size and strength who identifies as a female should be able to compete against biological females, in sports. However this has virtually no bearing on the discussion because it's one tiny strawman issue. Sports are just stupid games, who fucking cares? It doesn't invalidate the entire concept of transgender which is what you guys are trying to say, basically.
1987 called. It says fuck your gender norms.
Mature!
w01fg4ng
Bluelighter
And wholesome too. Loved that show.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,736
Those two guys got each other pregnant?
swilow
Bluelight Crew
That's a scary lot of people who DO believe in fairy tales.
Jesus was born into the most non traditional family ever. The guy was both his own father and son. But yeah, nuclear family or die, right? ?
Factualist
Bluelighter
I mean if someone actually gave a shit about theology they would realize god isn't a "he", they're beyond gender, so essentially one of Jesus' parents was non-binary.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Oh man- I was responding to another guy, that mentioned Jesus (you'll see I didn't actually mention it before he did- He, Xorkoth assumed I was going to go at it from a Christian-religious perspective, so went ahead and went that way). I'm done. Have fun.
Last edited:
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Your post that I quoted made it seem like you have a problem with Christians being forced to marry gay people, if not, then okay, but it was still a point worth making as a lot of people do actually come at it from a religious angle.
Either way it was just one aspect of my reply to you.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Of course I would have a problem with people being forced to marry people they don't want to. I consider marriage to be sacred, and between a man and a woman, regardless of whether or not I subscribe to a named religious system, exactly; I do find alignment with many of them, when I seek the truth.
I don't think they should be able to qualify for adoption; I think only married couples should be able to. I don't think that two women that are "married' should be able to legally have artificial insemination done. I think the aim should be that children should be raised with both a mother and a father. I know they aren't always perfect, but they're the best option.
You replied with a lot, and a lot of emotion, such as "they're just fucking stupid games anyway", and frankly I don't care to keep responding to such attitude.
Did you say that the government should absolutely step in and stop discrimination in churches; that churches should be legally obligated to perform marriages of so-called homosexuals? You shifted to mention courthouses, but didn't directly say that churches should, however with your words it seems that wasn't out of the question. And courthouses are essentially like buildings for our state religion. We don't have freedom of religion. Not really.
I don't think they should be able to qualify for adoption; I think only married couples should be able to. I don't think that two women that are "married' should be able to legally have artificial insemination done. I think the aim should be that children should be raised with both a mother and a father. I know they aren't always perfect, but they're the best option.
You replied with a lot, and a lot of emotion, such as "they're just fucking stupid games anyway", and frankly I don't care to keep responding to such attitude.
Did you say that the government should absolutely step in and stop discrimination in churches; that churches should be legally obligated to perform marriages of so-called homosexuals? You shifted to mention courthouses, but didn't directly say that churches should, however with your words it seems that wasn't out of the question. And courthouses are essentially like buildings for our state religion. We don't have freedom of religion. Not really.
Last edited:
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,110
w01fg4ng
Bluelighter
I've been to the more liberal parts of Russia, such as Moscow, shit is NOT kosher for LGBT.
Rocket Man is rated R, so I'm not sure what russian kids are doing watching it alone anyway. Also they edited it for the adults who are watching it? That's dumb.
There's more dick shown in World's Greatest Dad FYI. I'm sure that will please many people here....
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
First of all, you're right, I do feel emotional about this, it's difficult for me to not feel angry when someone is being an asshole to an entire group of people. And not everyone disagreeing with me in this thread is being an asshole. However your comparing gay and trans people to retarded people and a number of other things you said did piss me off and I find your attitude pretty cruel. I will try to not communicate anger in this discussion, but I'm human, and that kind of thing bothers me. I apologize if I got too heated, that never helps discussion.
I think you misread me. I wasn't saying I think Christians should be forced to marry gay people or anything like that. I was saying that your earlier post made it sound like you had a problem with Christian churches/ministers marrying gay people, which made me think you were coming at this from a religious angle. I was saying that if you're not, okay that's fine, but a lot of people DO come at this from a religious angle which I think is bogus because not everyone is the same religion, so the religious views of one religion should not determine what is allowed for everyone to do in a free society. If we don't have religious freedom, we are not a free society.
Why do you feel this way? Why do you think same-sex, married couples are the best (actually you're saying they're the only) option? There are tons of same-sex couples who should not be having kids, who should not be adopting or fostering kids, who abuse their kids, who are shitty parents. Why would same-sex couples be worse? Two women in love or two men in love are fully capable of raising a well-adjusted, healthy and happy child in a loving and supportive environment, as are a man and woman in love. You state otherwise but you're only stating your opinion, what is your evidence that what you say is true, besides the way you happen to feel about it?
No I specifically said that churches should be allowed to do whatever they want. I think it would be a violation of personal freedoms for the government to require churches to perform marriages that they did not believe in. But marriage is a social contract, not a religious one, in terms of the law. It is a violation of personal freedom to prevent two people, whether they are same-sex or not, from going to a courthouse and filing for marriage, to enjoy the same benefits that anyone else who is married enjoys.
Yes, the state of marriage rights in this country proves that, and it's a shame. We should have freedom of religion in a free country. It's some thought police shit that we don't.
I think you misread me. I wasn't saying I think Christians should be forced to marry gay people or anything like that. I was saying that your earlier post made it sound like you had a problem with Christian churches/ministers marrying gay people, which made me think you were coming at this from a religious angle. I was saying that if you're not, okay that's fine, but a lot of people DO come at this from a religious angle which I think is bogus because not everyone is the same religion, so the religious views of one religion should not determine what is allowed for everyone to do in a free society. If we don't have religious freedom, we are not a free society.
Why do you feel this way? Why do you think same-sex, married couples are the best (actually you're saying they're the only) option? There are tons of same-sex couples who should not be having kids, who should not be adopting or fostering kids, who abuse their kids, who are shitty parents. Why would same-sex couples be worse? Two women in love or two men in love are fully capable of raising a well-adjusted, healthy and happy child in a loving and supportive environment, as are a man and woman in love. You state otherwise but you're only stating your opinion, what is your evidence that what you say is true, besides the way you happen to feel about it?
No I specifically said that churches should be allowed to do whatever they want. I think it would be a violation of personal freedoms for the government to require churches to perform marriages that they did not believe in. But marriage is a social contract, not a religious one, in terms of the law. It is a violation of personal freedom to prevent two people, whether they are same-sex or not, from going to a courthouse and filing for marriage, to enjoy the same benefits that anyone else who is married enjoys.
Yes, the state of marriage rights in this country proves that, and it's a shame. We should have freedom of religion in a free country. It's some thought police shit that we don't.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
so you think that couple made up of two women who are not married should be allowed to artificially inseminate? or single women?
alasdair
Factualist
Bluelighter
>I consider marriage to be sacred, and between a man and a woman
Why do you think other people have to give a shit about what you consider "sacred"?
>I don't think they should be able to qualify for adoption; I think only married couples should be able to. I don't think that two women that are "married' should be able to legally have artificial insemination done. I think the aim should be that children should be raised with both a mother and a father. I know they aren't always perfect, but they're the best option.
There is scientific study and study confirming that homosexual parents are no different in raising their kids than heterosexual ones. Would you rather kids lived in single-parent households? I thank god for the few concessions the ruling class make to us that don't support this stoneage bullshit
>a lot of emotion
loooool what do you think your religious arguments about shit that's "sacred" is? Sacred is totally meaningless to rational people, reals over feels my man
>We don't have freedom of religion, not really
You don't have freedom to subjugate other people to your personal religion you mean.
I would refer to him as he because that's what he wants but I still see a female, especially in the pre and post-partum photos.
Too bad I like dick so much otherwise I could go for the body shot on the right. I don't do vagina even if it comes attached to someone with a traditionally male physique like that.
Too bad I like dick so much otherwise I could go for the body shot on the right. I don't do vagina even if it comes attached to someone with a traditionally male physique like that.