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.

 

[coldseat]

I would argue that the little religious ceremony means far more and the little secular civil union that is just paperwork doesn't really mean anything other than for accounting and tax purposes, but to each their own.

You can argue whatever you want, it doesn't mean anything legally or otherwise.

 

[coldseat]

I want you to be clear on this. Do you think that the censorship of 'crackpot' doctors during covid was not politically/financially motivated?

They're weren't censored. I heard it all, I just found it to be stupid and ridiculous.

How did you hear about it if it was censored?

 

[bird]

Again, are we talking secular or religious? They are not the same.

The only thing that applies is secular. Remove the “ power invested in me by the state of…” from clergy. They can perform any religious ceremony that they wish or none at all and it would have zero bearing on a couple being married.

 

[bird]

https://www.allsides.com/news/2023-...-can-prescribe-ivermectin-covid-19-fda-lawyer

"A trans-identifying man came in first place at the Canadian Powerlifting Union’s 2023 Western Canadian Championship in Brandon, Manitoba this weekend.

Anne Andres, 40, out lifted his female competitors by over 200lbs to win top honours in the Female Masters Unequipped category. Had he competed in the male division, his performance would still have earned him a spot at the top of the rankings.

According to results obtained by Reduxx, Andres lifted a total of 597.5 lbs across the squat, bench press, and deadlift events. The second-place lifter, SuJan Gil, finished the competition with a combined 387.5 lbs."

Not possible for me to care less.

 

[bird]

I want you to be clear on this. Do you think that the censorship of 'crackpot' doctors during covid was not politically/financially motivated?

My PCP ended up being a crackpot anti-vaxxer. She went to work for the doctor in Ohio that claimed vaccines made people magnetic. That doctor is in the process of losing her license.

As much as you fervently want to believe that there was censorship of idiot doctors you would be disappointed. There wasn’t. As for politics? EVERYTHING is political. Politics is as noted by Lasswell the process that decides who gets what, where, when, how and why. Oh, and the actual correct phrase is political economy.

 

[Farb]

There wasn’t any censorship. None.

Oh, ok. I will have to check what the TV says when I get home.

 

[samiam5211]

Cool, how about from the university website:

https://ls.berkeley.edu/news/uc-ber...celebrating-community-culture-and-achievement

As commencement season kicks off across the U.S., UC Berkeley’s Department of African American Studies is preparing to host the annual Black Graduation ceremony on May 20, 2023, at Zellerbach Hall. Black Grad, as it is affectionately called, honors and celebrates Black-, African-, and African American-identifying students upon completion of their undergraduate, master’s, Ph.D., J.D., and professional degree programs from departments all over campus.


So, your turn. Do you still deny these are happening or are we at the MT stage of "they are happening but they need to happen and are a good thing"?

How about the stage where, they are happening, but i can't think of any good reason why we should care?

Are you worried that we are on a slippery slope towards white people being enslaved?

 

[Farb]

Thank you for acknowledging that there has been no change in the CDC's policy regarding covid and ivermectin.

You bet.

 

[Farb]

doesn any of that matter? the original question i asked was should it be legal for minors to marry? if it was debatable to you if it should be legal?
unless you are saying it should be legal if it was a religious marriage but not a gov't marriage..

Ok, so you were the one who built that marriage strawman. My bad.
No, a child shouldn't legally be allowed to marry, not a marriage or a civil union. What do you think?

 

[Farb]

I think you actually do understand it, you just hate it. When I got married, we did not have a religious ceremony of any sort. We were married at the courthouse and had a small celebration lunch after the fact. At no point has religion been a part of our marriage. For you to imply that my wife and I are not in a marriage is all manner of forked up.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[MT15]

Oh, ok. I will have to check what the TV says when I get home.

Or, you could provide some sort of proof of said censorship. Your choice, lol.

 

[Farb]

You can argue whatever you want, it doesn't mean anything legally or otherwise.

legally no, religiously, it does but what good thing you all don't care about what us backwards religious people think, right?

 

[Farb]

The only thing that applies is secular. Remove the “ power invested in me by the state of…” from clergy. They can perform any religious ceremony that they wish or none at all and it would have zero bearing on a couple being married.

Yes, I agree. To the non-religious it doesn't matter that they are not married in a religious ceremony, the civil union works as designed.

 

[MT15]

legally no, religiously, it does but what good thing you all don't care about what us backwards religious people think, right?

Well, if we actually didn’t care wouldn’t we be ignoring you completely rather than engaging? You are not the victim here.

 

[Farb]

How about the stage where, they are happening, but i can't think of any good reason why we should care?

Are you worried that we are on a slippery slope towards white people being enslaved?

I have seen a few online, and you are correct, I could careless how people want to act at a ceremony for a largely worthless yet expensive piece of paper.
One question, since you all want us, the tax payer to help subsides these with the college loan payoff/vote buying scheme, can I care then?

one last question
I have a feeling you would care very much if there was a push to have a white-only ceremony 'hosted' by a public university. Do you think you would care or still not be phased by it?

 

[Farb]

They're weren't censored. I heard it all, I just found it to be stupid and ridiculous.

How did you hear about it if it was censored?

the dark webs

 

[Farb]

Well, if we actually didn’t care wouldn’t we be ignoring you completely rather than engaging? You are not the victim here.

I have not claimed to be a victim. I can't be. I am not part of a protected class that the elites pretend to care about.

 

[bird]

Yes, I agree. To the non-religious it doesn't matter that they are not married in a religious ceremony, the civil union works as designed.

It is called a marriage license and is issued by the state. Once a couple has the license they are married. Any religious ceremony must be meaningless in the context of the state. It isn’t a matter of non-religious v religious. Religious people may have any ceremony that they wish. They may call themselves married in the eyes of God or in the eyes of the church. It must have no bearing on whether or not the state considers them married precisely because it would be a religious ceremony. The state must not infringe on the religious ceremony except in a very few instances and religion must not have any power to proclaim peoples married in the eyes of the state. Attempts to claim religious v non-religious are not simply meaningless, they are dangerous as they present a two-tier system showing preference for religion.