All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Yes, religion is a choice. No one is this country is forced to celebrate a religion, are they? I have not seen press gangs forcing the masses to attend mass.

Are people forced to be gay?

 

[Optimus Prime]

If you own a business in this country, you are the beneficiary of the services that society provides, the massive logistical systems, which you cannot provide yourself - roads, rail, ports, on the larges scale and water, power, sewer, on the local scale for example.

Society provides those for the cost of your taxes, but otherwise free*.

Obama got roasted for making this very point

Remember “you didn’t build that”?

 

[SamAndreas]

Ok, what exactly was your question?

I didn't ask a question Farb. I made a statement.

I said, "Irreversible and experimental medical procedures," with drugs, is good way to describe religious brain washing."

You're not actually expected to respond. But if you do respond try to show why what I said is wrong.

Or agree with it, that would be OK as well.

 

[Optimus Prime]

"I hate the idea that gay people can get married before the law so much that I'm going to cry about it."

The backlash to the Republican member of Congress who broke down in tears in her opposition to the same-sex marriage bill has included a familiar face – her nephew, who has called the lawmaker a “homophobe”.

On Thursday, Vicky Hartzler, a Republican representative from Missouri, shed tears as she urged colleagues in the US House of Representatives to vote against the Respect for Marriage Act, which forces states without marriage equality laws to recognize LGBTQ+ marriages from other states.

Hartzler’s high-profile objection to the bill, which passed the House following assent from the Senate and is now set for Joe Biden’s signature, prompted her own nephew to speak out against her in a TikTok video that has been seen more than 200,000 times.

In the video, Andrew Hartzler said his aunt was crying “because gay people like me can get married”. He added: “So despite coming out to my aunt this past February I guess she’s still just as much as a homophobe.”

Vicky Hartzler said the legislation was “misguided and dangerous” as it would threaten religious institutions opposed to marriage equality. The tenor of the bill was “submit to our ideology or be silenced”, the congresswoman claimed in her House speech.

Her nephew pointed out that religious schools still receive federal funding even if they discriminate against LGBTQ students. The 23-year-old has said he was reported for “homosexual activity” when attending Oral Roberts University, an evangelical private college in Oklahoma, and is part of a federal class-action lawsuit against the US Department of Education for funding such institutions…….

Nephew calls Republican who tearfully opposed gay marriage bill a homophobe

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler voted against bill protecting same-sex marriage but Andrew Hartzler, who is gay, was unimpressed

www.theguardian.com

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, religion is a choice. No one is this country is forced to celebrate a religion, are they? I have not seen press gangs forcing the masses to attend mass.

Well, if you are talking about adults, not anymore; although there are people who do want to impose Christianity on others.

And then there are children. Children are taken to a church and told to believe in a certain dogma and not given any other choice. In that, they are forced into religion.

 

[superchuck500]

The backlash to the Republican member of Congress who broke down in tears in her opposition to the same-sex marriage bill has included a familiar face – her nephew, who has called the lawmaker a “homophobe”.

On Thursday, Vicky Hartzler, a Republican representative from Missouri, shed tears as she urged colleagues in the US House of Representatives to vote against the Respect for Marriage Act, which forces states without marriage equality laws to recognize LGBTQ+ marriages from other states.

Hartzler’s high-profile objection to the bill, which passed the House following assent from the Senate and is now set for Joe Biden’s signature, prompted her own nephew to speak out against her in a TikTok video that has been seen more than 200,000 times.

In the video, Andrew Hartzler said his aunt was crying “because gay people like me can get married”. He added: “So despite coming out to my aunt this past February I guess she’s still just as much as a homophobe.”

Vicky Hartzler said the legislation was “misguided and dangerous” as it would threaten religious institutions opposed to marriage equality. The tenor of the bill was “submit to our ideology or be silenced”, the congresswoman claimed in her House speech.

Her nephew pointed out that religious schools still receive federal funding even if they discriminate against LGBTQ students. The 23-year-old has said he was reported for “homosexual activity” when attending Oral Roberts University, an evangelical private college in Oklahoma, and is part of a federal class-action lawsuit against the US Department of Education for funding such institutions…….

Nephew calls Republican who tearfully opposed gay marriage bill a homophobe

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler voted against bill protecting same-sex marriage but Andrew Hartzler, who is gay, was unimpressed

www.theguardian.com

That’s some forked up thinking - she actually is presenting herself as a victim.

Her: Only we get to be married because God said so - you can’t, you don’t pass the criteria.

Everyone else: That’s fine for you and your God, go for it - but the law doesn’t let you impose that religious requirement on what marriage means before the law.

Her: *crying* They’re making us believe that the law doesn’t let marriage be what our God says it is!

Everyone else: No, it can still mean that for you - please feel free to believe that .

Her: But also I get to say what it means for everyone because it’s what I say God said!

Some Religious People: Actually we don’t think God said that.

Her: I’m being forced into this! You’re forcing me!! Religious freedom must prevail!

 

[SystemShock]

I didn't ask a question Farb. I made a statement.

I said, "Irreversible and experimental medical procedures," with drugs, is good way to describe religious brain washing."

You're not actually expected to respond. But if you do respond try to show why what I said is wrong.

Or agree with it, that would be OK as well.

I'll respond. First, I'll replace brain washing with indoctrination.

Religious indoctrination is neither irreversible, nor experimental, and does not require drugs.

It's not irreversible: I was indoctrinated through my early teens. I am an atheist now. There are thousands, if not millions of people who were indoctrinated as kids in different religions and no longer believe in the dogmas in which they were indoctrinated.

It is not experimental: religious indoctrination is a tried and true process, that's been going on since early humans looked around their environments and saw gods.

It doesn't need drugs: it requires either a willingness to believe or introduction to the dogma at a very early age.

 

[SystemShock]

Some Religious People: Actually we don’t think God said that.

... and while we are in one of my favorite subjects ...

When the Bible mentions "man/husband" and "woman/wife", it is well understood the reference is to males and females of the species, respectively. The Bible also clearly states that homosexuality is an aberration punished by death, so man-man woman-woman marriage would definitely be against the rules.

 

[superchuck500]

... and while we are in one of my favorite subjects ...

When the Bible mentions "man/husband" and "woman/wife", it is well understood the reference is to males and females of the species, respectively. The Bible also clearly states that homosexuality is an aberration punished by death, so man-man woman-woman marriage would definitely be against the rules.

Oh well I guess that settles it then.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A very good question that people should be forced to answer, starting with @Farb
================

……Most of the arguments over the case focus on what granting a religious exemption from an anti-discrimination law would imply.

Allowing Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer, to decline the business of same-sex couples, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, would mark “the first time in the court’s history” that it permitted a commercial business open to the public to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”

Sotomayor and the other liberal justices are right that there is no obvious limiting principle for when religious convictions should allow exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

If this exemption applies to same-sex couples, why not, for example, to interracial couples? Or to couples from different religions? Or for couples who opt for civil rather than religious marriages? Why not to other forms of discrimination that have nothing to do with marriage?


But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?


That question is neither naive nor rhetorical. Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view.

Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.


But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages.

We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer.

Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/11/gay-marriage-conservative-christians-lgbtq-plea/

 

[superchuck500]

A very good question that people should be forced to answer
================

……Most of the arguments over the case focus on what granting a religious exemption from an anti-discrimination law would imply.

Allowing Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer, to decline the business of same-sex couples, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, would mark “the first time in the court’s history” that it permitted a commercial business open to the public to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”

Sotomayor and the other liberal justices are right that there is no obvious limiting principle for when religious convictions should allow exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

If this exemption applies to same-sex couples, why not, for example, to interracial couples? Or to couples from different religions? Or for couples who opt for civil rather than religious marriages? Why not to other forms of discrimination that have nothing to do with marriage?


But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?


That question is neither naive nor rhetorical. Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view.

Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.


But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages.

We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer.

Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/11/gay-marriage-conservative-christians-lgbtq-plea/

Why does divorce (which is well-defined as sinful in the Bible) not get the same treatment from supposed devout Christians whose faith compels them to discriminate against homosexuals? It's a good question. Many in Georgia also voted for a guy who made women get multiple abortions.

Even if one is willing to assume (which I am) that at least for some of these people who claim to be motivated by faith to discriminate, that they actually believe it and it isn't some cop out for what is simply a rejection formulated by years of cultural behavior in their lives, it certainly begs the question of why this one sin gets the activism it gets from them.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Why does divorce (which is well-defined as sinful in the Bible) not get the same treatment from supposed devout Christians whose faith compels them to discriminate against homosexuals? It's a good question. Many in Georgia also voted for a guy who made women get multiple abortions.

Even if one is willing to assume (which I am) that at least for some of these people who claim to be motivated by faith to discriminate, that they actually believe it and it isn't some cop out for what is simply a rejection formulated by years of cultural behavior in their lives, it certainly begs the question of why this one sin gets the activism it gets from them.

Curious how people would answer this

 

[coldseat]

Why does divorce (which is well-defined as sinful in the Bible) not get the same treatment from supposed devout Christians whose faith compels them to discriminate against homosexuals? It's a good question. Many in Georgia also voted for a guy who made women get multiple abortions.

Even if one is willing to assume (which I am) that at least for some of these people who claim to be motivated by faith to discriminate, that they actually believe it and it isn't some cop out for what is simply a rejection formulated by years of cultural behavior in their lives, it certainly begs the question of why this one sin gets the activism it gets from them.

It's a good question, but the answer is also pretty obvious. It's because conservative Christians see homosexuality and abortion as the twin sins that are at the core of our collective moral depravity and that are doming our country. If only they could get society to turn against these two sins, we would be saved as a country and everything would fall into the correct moral order because will will be following God's will. That's why they fight so hard to segregate, discriminate against and ostracize these two sins above all others. Don't ever let them tell you that all sins are equal, they don't truly believe that.

 

[SystemShock]

A very good question that people should be forced to answer, starting with @Farb
================

……Most of the arguments over the case focus on what granting a religious exemption from an anti-discrimination law would imply.

Allowing Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer, to decline the business of same-sex couples, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, would mark “the first time in the court’s history” that it permitted a commercial business open to the public to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”

Sotomayor and the other liberal justices are right that there is no obvious limiting principle for when religious convictions should allow exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

If this exemption applies to same-sex couples, why not, for example, to interracial couples? Or to couples from different religions? Or for couples who opt for civil rather than religious marriages? Why not to other forms of discrimination that have nothing to do with marriage?


But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?


That question is neither naive nor rhetorical. Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view.

Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.


But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages.

We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer.

Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/11/gay-marriage-conservative-christians-lgbtq-plea/

I think it's a function of behavior that the overwhelming majority wouldn't engage in (like homosexuality) vis a vis behavior that the overwhelming majority could possibly engage in (remarriage). The former they can easily condemn (and religions need something to condemn/save you from), whereas the latter is "he who's free of sin...".

Besides, you can always ask for forgiveness for something you did and profess you won't do again (until you do it again ), but not for what/who you are, as it is the case with being gay; even if you don't engage in the sex act, remember that Abrahamic religions have sin covered in all of their phases: thought, word, deed, failure to act, so even if you just look at those tight jeans and think to yourself "mmm-mmm-mmm", you are still gay, and therefore an aberration in the eyes of God.

As for what the Bible says, it has to be taken into consideration that the Bible is continuously being re-interpreted to adapt to secular/humanist societies/laws, so truths become fables, laws become guidelines, commands become "what they really meant..."; even the translation of the original texts changes. Of course, this is done in a manner that's overall beneficial to the churches, so they become more lax when it comes to behaviors that could be present within the overwhelming majority of the church goers, but retain their sternness against behaviors that the overwhelming majority of church goers is not likely to engage in.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Exactly. It is why so many (allegedly) devoutly religious people have "imperfect follower of Christ" on their Twitter bios. It's the ultimately get out of jail free card to act as un-Christlike as possible in furtherance of one's own twisted political views that usually have little to nothing to do with Christ's teachings.

In other words: it's all a sham.

 

[Saintamaniac]

In the previous baker case, didn't he win based in part on the phrase "sincerely held religious beliefs"? I've questioned all along that how can religious beliefs be considered sincerely held when there are a myriad of other sins that are just as serious but are pretty much ignored by the same people who claim to be so sincere in their religious beliefs. It's like professing your sincerely held belief in being pro-life while simultaneously praying for a convict to get the death penalty.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Exactly. It is why so many (allegedly) devoutly religious people have "imperfect follower of Christ" on their Twitter bios. It's the ultimately get out of jail free card to act as un-Christlike as possible in furtherance of one's own twisted political views that usually have little to nothing to do with Christ's teachings.

In other words: it's all a sham.

Sounds a lot like a certain poster on this board...

 

[cuddlemonkey]

In the previous baker case, didn't he win based in part on the phrase "sincerely held religious beliefs"? I've questioned all along that how can religious beliefs be considered sincerely held when there are a myriad of other sins that are just as serious but are pretty much ignored by the same people who claim to be so sincere in their religious beliefs. It's like professing your sincerely held belief in being pro-life while simultaneously praying for a convict to get the death penalty.

For some reason this reminds me of a Simpsons quote, courtesy of Reverend Lovejoy, when Marge says that divorce is a sin in the bible:

"Marge, have you actually read this thing? Technically, we aren't allowed to go to the bathroom."