All Things LGBTQ+ (7 Viewers)

[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.

 

[SystemShock]

A new, separate thread on natural/human rights would be an interesting one.

And amusing, very amusing

 

[SystemShock]

I will take a shot.

Rights do not cost others any money.

Rights should not infringe the rights of your neighbor.

 

[Taurus]

A new, separate thread on natural/human rights would be an interesting one.

Actual vs aspirational would be good, too.

 

[Paul]

Including in-utero?

I am pro choice and could care less if mothers get rid of their babies. However, abortion is not a right.

 

[MT15]

Oh, that’s an interesting statement. Bodily autonomy isn’t a right?

of course, all of these “rights” are and have been subject to constraints by what society deems as the common good and other caveats.

So I guess I’m still waiting for a list of “natural rights”.

 

[Paul]

Oh, that’s an interesting statement. Bodily autonomy isn’t a right?

of course, all of these “rights” are and have been subject to constraints by what society deems as the common good and other caveats.

So I guess I’m still waiting for a list of “natural rights”.

Any woman can have an abortion. That is freedom. However, it is not a right to demand that the state provides abortion services since that costs money and requires the participation of others.

Bill of Rights (cost no money)

 

[Farb]

Why do you consider it frightening?

In you opinion, what is the eucharist in the sacrament of communion?

 

[Farb]

There was no science in "ancient times."

lol

The ignorance is stunning.

What do you consider 'ancient times'? Is trial and error in making stone tools, putting a stick in the ground and watching the shadow and realizing it all is symmetrical to the big ball of heat and light and that comes everyday and leaves every night not 'science'?

 

[Paul]

What do you consider 'ancient times'? Is trial and error in making stone tools, putting a stick in the ground and watching the shadow and realizing it all is symmetrical to the big ball of heat and light and that comes everyday and leaves every night?

Sure, there was some science in assuming you could kill a wild animal with a stone in hand. The issue is that MAN was much more primitive and often needed some sort of supernatural belief system to explain the world. BTW, we remain a barbaric species, but not as violent as in the past.

 

[Farb]

There is no such thing as "natural rights", but still, how about you list them?

The right to life and the ability of that person to defend his life and those of his family. That is the most basic natural right. I would also consider the right to keep ones fruit of their labor. The whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thingy. Although, I am not sure if you will accept those since the philosopher that first thought of that saying has a past that I am not supposed to like?

Again, you think their are no natural rights because you think there is no creator or God. Good for you (although I feel sad for you, but I am sure you feel the same for my 'backwards and antiquated way of thinking!). I believe there is a creator and a God and he passed on those rights to those he created (in his image and all that). We can argue all you like, but I don't see that single point changing and this is the root cause of the debate.

Sure, it has the words "God" and "creator" in it. That doesn't mean it anything when the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land itself, clearly shows it is not inspired in Abrahamic dogma.

By that logic, the fact they never clearly stated they didn't use their religious beliefs to create a new form of government is proof that they did indeed allow their dogma to infiltrate their thoughts.

How else can one explain the white supremacy that is incorporated in our founding documents? I ask that with sarcasm of course.

The point is, Europeans weren't too kind on Jewish values.

Voltaire is one of the founding fathers of the Age of Reason, which truly inspired the U.S. Constitution.

I agree, but it seems you are laying a worldwide problem at the feet of the white man, but the jewish dogma is still very much a part of the conglomeration that gave rise to the West.

So again, because a philosopher of the time that most if not all enlightened men read, at the time influenced their thought process, but that philosopher also frowned upon the Roman Catholic Church and wrote as much, means that they also accepted and embraced all of his views? You know that is not how that works. I sometimes agree with you on this board 100% but we both know that I don't agree with everything you say all the time, for example this conversation we are having right now.

My stance is that it was the Age of Reason and therefore secular humanism that truly inspired the founding fathers, not their religion. It seems very obvious when you read the document.

It's not an obligation, more like a hobby.

Again, I agree with you, but to dismiss their religious inspiration is to only look at the document that created a new government and not the letters, diaries, papers and theories that the founders passed back and forth in their debates (yes, even Voltaire).

We all need hobbies and you are very good at yours, so cheers!

 

[Farb]

Sure, there was some science in assuming you could kill a wild animal with a stone in hand. The issue is that MAN was much more primitive and often needed some sort of supernatural belief system to explain the world. BTW, we remain a barbaric species, but not as violent as in the past.

So 'science' existed in 'ancient time' but since we are much more evolved now, so that didn't count? Is that not how the scientific process works? Testing hypothesis and then creating theories that can be duplicated?

barbaric species- compared to what other species?

 

[Xeno]

In you opinion, what is the eucharist in the sacrament of communion?

Do you really wanna have the transubstantiation discussion? Even the most devout Christians have a hard time defending that lol.

 

[SystemShock]

The right to life and the ability of that person to defend his life and those of his family. That is the most basic natural right. I would also consider the right to keep ones fruit of their labor. The whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thingy. Although, I am not sure if you will accept those since the philosopher that first thought of that saying has a past that I am not supposed to like?

If there was a natural right to life, there would be no miscarriages or stillborn. The further you go into the past, the higher miscarriage rate and the childbirth mortality rate, for both baby and mother.

If you defend your life, kill someone to eat them, or even just for the heck of it, there is no natural police that is going to come to arrest you.

The whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thingy is something that humans came up with, and secular humanists at that.

And I didn't say you were not supposed to like Voltaire; I pointed out the secular humanist origin of that phrase.

Again, you think their are no natural rights because you think there is no creator or God.

I think there are no natural rights because nature doesn't give rights to anyone or anything.

Good for you (although I feel sad for you, but I am sure you feel the same for my 'backwards and antiquated way of thinking!). I believe there is a creator and a God and he passed on those rights to those he created (in his image and all that). We can argue all you like, but I don't see that single point changing and this is the root cause of the debate.

Do you have an idea why Yahweh waited until 1776 to pass those rights along to people in the newly formed U.S.?

By that logic, the fact they never clearly stated they didn't use their religious beliefs to create a new form of government is proof that they did indeed allow their dogma to infiltrate their thoughts.

Again, you show me were the Abrahamic dogma is in the U.S. Constitution.

I agree, but it seems you are laying a worldwide problem at the feet of the white man, but the jewish dogma is still very much a part of the conglomeration that gave rise to the West.

I am not laying anything at the feet of anyone, I am merely stating a fact about a region of the world we are talking about.

May be a part of the conglomeration that is the West, but the rise of the West was not due to religion. It was the rejection of the churches and monarchies of Europe, secular humanism, that brought Europe out of the dark ages, a period which was brought about by said churches and monarchies, just like it happened to the cradle of civilization, which has yet to recover.

Again, I agree with you, but to dismiss their religious inspiration is to only look at the document that created a new government and not the letters, diaries, papers and theories that the founders passed back and forth in their debates (yes, even Voltaire).

We can read the all the letters we want, but the letters are not the U.S. Constitution, and the text of the U.S. Constitution definitely disproves the claim that it was inspired by the Christian god.

 

[Farb]

Do you really wanna have the transubstantiation discussion? Even the most devout Christians have a hard time defending that lol.

I asked @cuddlemonkey what she thought it was.
But since you chimed in, you are correct. I would say maybe 99% of Christians don't be believe in the transubstantiation that is why they are not practicing Catholics. You do know Catholic beliefs differ from other Christian religions, mainly for the reason you stated above?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

In you opinion, what is the eucharist in the sacrament of communion?

My opinion is irrelevant. You said that you are frightened because gay men receive communion in some churches. Why?

 

[Paul]

So 'science' existed in 'ancient time' but since we are much more evolved now, so that didn't count? Is that not how the scientific process works? Testing hypothesis and then creating theories that can be duplicated?

barbaric species- compared to what other species?

The term was no science is not to be taken literally when man appeared 200, 000 years ago. I can agree with that. However, there were many things that could not be explained with the scientific knowledge we have today.

 

[Farb]

If there was a natural right to life, there would be no miscarriages or stillborn. The further you go into the past, the higher miscarriage rate and the childbirth mortality rate, for both baby and mother.

If you defend your life, kill someone to eat them, or even just for the heck of it, there is no natural police that is going to come to arrest you.

The whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thingy is something that humans came up with, and secular humanists at that.

And I didn't say you were not supposed to like Voltaire; I pointed out the secular humanist origin of that phrase.


I think there are no natural rights because nature doesn't give rights to anyone or anything.

The only rights available to man are the rights that other men allow them to have? Rights are allowed only by the grace of other men in charge? Are these rights or privileges ordained by society? Do make a distinction between mala in se crimes and mala prohibitum crimes, because it sounds like you don't.

Do you have an idea why Yahweh waited until 1776 to pass those rights along to people in the newly formed U.S.?

I think you meant to ask "why did man wait until 1776 to put those rights and values on paper in the newly formed US?". That is the actual question.
Most of the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness style of thought came along well before 1776. Magna Carta, The Guide for the Perplexed. There have been countless examples in the west and east (maybe not the far east, no idea on that one) that show this style of thought.

May be a part of the conglomeration that is the West, but the rise of the West was not due to religion. It was the rejection of the churches and monarchies of Europe, secular humanism, that brought Europe out of the dark ages, a period which was brought about by said churches and monarchies, just like it happened to the cradle of civilization, which has yet to recover.

Academia and Hospitals as we know it today traces its life directly back to the Catholic Church. So does the theories of Big Bang and Evolution (nope, not Darwin). The common act of charity as we know it a Christian thing. Not to mention law, women rights, music and architecture but you know that.

Yes, most of the world today focuses on the corruption of man and evil men infiltrating the church and committing horrible acts. I understand that. I believe the exact same thing can be said our government. Men are men and will act like men.

The church is an enemy to the left and always has been. It would be like me singing the praises of atheists and talking about how they great they are. It won't happen, ever. Much like you admitting that Christianity and especially the Catholic Church are a net good for society. I don't see that happening either.

 

[Farb]

My opinion is irrelevant. You said that you are frightened because gay men receive communion in some churches. Why?

True. Did I say some churches or was I specifically talking about the catholic church?