The Gay Thread

Quote: kenarman

Mission your unbridled hate for Christians reminds me of TP and his often hateful posts about anything he doesn't agree with. You lump all Christians into one basket but they are a far from a homogeneous group. Many Christians and their churches have very progressive views. Christian churches startied allowing openly gay ministers in 1972 and possibly earlier.

My post literally said that there are some churches with progressive views. I even went into brief specifics as to what different denominations are doing.

A good idea, when critiquing posts, is to read them.

Quote: Mission146

My post literally said that there are some churches with progressive views. I even went into brief specifics as to what different denominations are doing.

A good idea, when critiquing posts, is to read them.

Quote Mission:

"Your religion has failed. Drink it in, buddy. Savor it. Total collapse of Christianity within a century. Goodbye and good riddance."

That doesn't seem like a very tolerant attitude and acknowledging some Christians might be progressive.

Quote: kenarman

Quote Mission:

"Your religion has failed. Drink it in, buddy. Savor it. Total collapse of Christianity within a century. Goodbye and good riddance."

That doesn't seem like a very tolerant attitude and acknowledging some Christians might be progressive.

Oh, THAT post. So what? I don't care. I obviously understand there are differences between denominations and even individuals within a denomination.

I'm not going to be one of these people who say stuff like, "Well, gay people did have equal rights thirty years ago; they could get married if they wanted to," and make all sorts of nonsensical claims of being tolerant and simply wanting to be left alone.

No. I often say things that are intolerant of religion. I am, in fact, intolerant of religion in a great many ways. I don't care what they do in their churches and homes, but if they bring it to the public sphere, then I am an attack dog.

I'm not going to apologize or try to walk it back. Why would I?

Anyway, as I clarified in a later post, I meant that it is collapse in the sense that the religion will no longer exert any meaningful social or political control or influence in this country, as it should be. I doubt the cult will ever fully die, or if it does, it will be Millennia from now.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: Gandler

Quote: AZDuffman

"Never given them anything?" What is to "give." The standard is set, if they do not like it they do not have to be a member. What else should be "given?" Allow murder so members of the mafia are not offended?

We are at a crossroads in the USA. The homophile movement is intent on turning society into Sodom and Gomorrah. Not everyone will be down with this. They so far seem to have sexually confused about a third of the post-millennial generation. But these things swing. Eventually we will get a generation that gets disgusted with the kind of society currently being transformed.



Unlikely after 2000 years. I do not get all the hate on Christians. Christianity is the basis for modern, enlightened society. What is going to happen is religion is going to more and more decentralize. The Catholic Church ignoring the gay priests abusing youth has turned many people on them. But at the same time the USA is taking on lots and lots of Central Americans, who are almost all Catholic. Thus the jury is still out there. Meanwhile, religious people are gravitating to various Protestant offshoot churches. Some smaller with a sense of community. Others are "megachurches" which have charismatic speakers and chock full of social networking, which is kind of what churches were way back.



If gays would ignore people who are not down with their choices then things would not be as they are now, either. Religion basically has ignored gays. Homosexuality is promoted as wrong, but nobody was forcing gays to show up at church. As TV being "straight characters the majority of the time" well, duh. 98% of the population is straight, why would TV not be the same? And it was playing to the market. I see a show with gay storylines I basically tune it out as I do not want to watch. I am not alone there.

Emphasis mine.

it is hard to ignore people who use laws to prosecute you and disrupt your life. America has great gay rights now, but this was a result of decades of fighting. And, the Church opposed changes every step of the way (and Mormons also lobby hard against it, in some ways they are more devious because they do some sneaky financial stuff to oppose gay rights). It was only recently that gay marriage was made legal (2015). And it was only more recently that gay discrimination was banned (2020). And it was relatively recently (2011) that gays were banned from the military. These are not ancient wrongs, these are all very recent events, where true equality has only very recently been acquired. Like it has been literally less than a decade from true equality.

And, this is just America, there are some countries where being gay is still a crime (just being gay not even acting upon it), some with the death penalty.

In every country these laws are propped up by religion. In America that religion happens to be Christianity largely (and Mormonism in the background). Islamic countries have the same crazies trying to use the government for social values.

No gay person wants to ban churches or influence them. All progressives want is religion stopping it's influence on the government. America was founded as a secular country with a wall between church and state, it has actually degraded since on this aspect (most areas there have been improvement since founding.)

For the one hundredth time, America was a secular GOVERNMENT. It was always a Christian majority country. As to your other claims, military service is not a right, and there was always many disqualifications from it. Since gays have been allowed, recruitment has fallen. Gays were always allowed to marry, but they demanded the definition of marriage be changed for their lifestyle choices.

I have not seen "religion" being what made the laws despite your bigoted statements about it. The laws were and are about people who have a belief in how things should be. Religion has very little to do with it.

I'll tell you what, though. We can ask religion to "stop its influence" when gays agree to quit using their influence. Agree? Sounds like a fascist state if we were to do that, but I suspect you would prefer that.

Secular government is what matters. The point is a secular government is to prevent the persecution of minority religions (or those of no religion.)

Recruitment did not fall after DADT was repealed (those years following it were actually some of the best.) Recruiting has been bad the last two years, when every organization is struggling with recruitment. The idea that allowing gays into the military effects recruitment is absurd (and not one I have ever heard before). DADT was repealed in 2011. 2011 and 2012 were great years for recruiting in both numbers and quality of recruits.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL32965.pdf

The marriage argument is also silly. Yes gay people had the right to marry opposite gender people. This is not what they wanted. The definition of marriage means nothing (and has constantly changed in human history). Two men marrying each other effects you in no way whatsoever. There is no logical argument against gay marriage. The only argument is a religious one (which does not hold merit).

We don't have to ask, the current law prohibits churches from being politically active for candidates (another great thing President Johnson did). However, this law needs to extend to bar them from advocating for policies. Gays are not an organized religion or a tax-exempt organization so I do not understand the comparison. But, if there was some church that only preached gay stuff I would be fine with this applying to them obviously. When you receive tax free money the government has a right to heavily restrict your conduct (which is very reasonable.)

There is no argument that religion has had a positive result on political evolution. It has only slowed progress, and this has been the case as far back as you can look. Whenever people base their modern life around a fictional book written thousands of years ago it leads to issues with them functioning in modern society. This should be intuitive.

But, yes religion has everything to do with it. You can make secular arguments about some social issues (such as abortion), there are secular arguments to be made about how it could be harmful (I do not agree). You can even make secular arguments about certain trans issues (sports and underage sex change surgeries), I may or may not agree, but if they are secular arguments in good faith I can respect that. But, there is not a single secular argument against gay marriage, it is 100% religious. Not even in the most obtuse worldview can gay marriage be twisted to say it harms or effects your life in any way. If anything, homophobic should love it, because gay men once married are less likely to sleep around so it actually lowers the rate of gay sex (just like marriage always lowers the rates of sex.)

Quote: Gandler

The marriage argument is also silly. Yes gay people had the right to marry opposite gender people. This is not what they wanted. The definition of marriage means nothing (and has constantly changed in human history).

No, it hasn't, not until gays demanded it. A marriage was always "husband and wife." Two guys cannot be that.

Quote:

We don't have to ask, the current law prohibits churches from being politically active for candidates (another great thing President Johnson did). However, this law needs to extend to bar them from advocating for policies. Gays are not an organized religion or a tax-exempt organization so I do not understand the comparison. But, if there was some church that only preached gay stuff I would be fine with this applying to them obviously. When you receive tax free money the government has a right to heavily restrict your conduct (which is very reasonable.)

Churches do not really advocate for policies. They can and should be allowed to point out to their members what aligns with their teachings. But they are not really political for the most part. As long as they are not donating to pols they should be allowed their free speech, same as the gay groups that are tax free are allowed.

Quote:

But, yes religion has everything to do with it. You can make secular arguments about some social issues (such as abortion), there are secular arguments to be made about how it could be harmful (I do not agree). You can even make secular arguments about certain trans issues (sports and underage sex change surgeries), I may or may not agree, but if they are secular arguments in good faith I can respect that. But, there is not a single secular argument against gay marriage, it is 100% religious. Not even in the most obtuse worldview can gay marriage be twisted to say it harms or effects your life in any way. If anything, homophobic should love it, because gay men once married are less likely to sleep around so it actually lowers the rate of gay sex (just like marriage always lowers the rates of sex.)

Sure there is, I showed it above. I have made the argument here without once mentioning religion. It is anti-nature for one. And sorry, married gay men are not less likely to sleep around. Where do you get that idea?

AZ——. a decade or so ago when I first started posting here I agreed with you. A marriage has been and should be the union of a man and a woman. But over time I came to the simple conclusion that allowing gay couples to marry, as opposed to the ‘civil union’ that I was in favor of, just allows those people to be happier, at NO COST to my happiness. I’ve been to one gay wedding, and will likely be at two more in the next couple of years. I will be happy for all 6 of these friends/relatives, because their marriages will make them happier. It’s that simple to me.

Quote: SOOPOO

AZ——. a decade or so ago when I first started posting here I agreed with you. A marriage has been and should be the union of a man and a woman. But over time I came to the simple conclusion that allowing gay couples to marry, as opposed to the ‘civil union’ that I was in favor of, just allows those people to be happier, at NO COST to my happiness. I’ve been to one gay wedding, and will likely be at two more in the next couple of years. I will be happy for all 6 of these friends/relatives, because their marriages will make them happier. It’s that simple to me.

Generally speaking, bigots do not want people they don’t like to be happy, even if their happiness has no effect on the bigot’s life whatsoever. It’s as simple as that.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it hasn't, not until gays demanded it. A marriage was always "husband and wife." Two guys cannot be that.



Churches do not really advocate for policies. They can and should be allowed to point out to their members what aligns with their teachings. But they are not really political for the most part. As long as they are not donating to pols they should be allowed their free speech, same as the gay groups that are tax free are allowed.



Sure there is, I showed it above. I have made the argument here without once mentioning religion. It is anti-nature for one. And sorry, married gay men are not less likely to sleep around. Where do you get that idea?

To answer your last point first, married people (gay or straight) are less likely to have sex with more than one partner. This is simple well-established. Open relationships (including open marriages) are on the rise (both straight and gay), but married people are still far less likely to sleep around.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220725-the-rising-curiosity-behind-open-relationships#:~:text=These%20accounts%20as%20well%20as,even%20be%20playing%20a%20part.

Probably most of what humans do is "anti-nature", I am honestly not even sure what this means. If you take nature to mean simply evolution (which you probably do not accept), and that all activities are meant to lead towards reproduction, sure gay sex can't lead to reproduction (which is not a bad thing, we don't need more babies), but most activities that we enjoy do not lead towards reproduction (even many straight relations do not lead towards reproduction.)

And, yes marriage has changed drastically over the last 3k years. Do you support a man having multiple wives (as most mainstream religious texts allow)?

Churches advocate massively for policy positions, especially on social issues. Churches probably spend more money on abortion, and gay issues than any charity advocating the position. On abortion alone the figure most years is over 300 million. They have massive budgets for policies that most people frankly do not care about.

It is hard for exact numbers, because unlike most (tax-exempt) organizations Churches do not have to publicly release their spending. This is a massive issue. I can guarantee that even an obscure Church spends more than we can fathom on lobbying, but we will never know (except for the few times we get insider leaks). For example the Mormon Church has over 100 Billion in assets (and a system of obtaining regular revenue), and this is an obscure church based on population, and they are one of the most anti-gay Churches in America (they were the ones who pressured BSA to ban gays by threatening to cut funding.) So it is very easy for a Church that even most Christians would not identify with to have undue political and social power.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/trump-us-christian-spending-global-revealed/


At the end of the day gay people just want equal rights, and until a couple years ago they did not have them (and now there are efforts to undue that progress.)

Quote: Gandler

Churches advocate massively for policy positions, especially on social issues. Churches probably spend more money on abortion, and gay issues than any charity advocating the position. On abortion alone the figure most years is over 300 million. They have massive budgets for policies that most people frankly do not care about.

Good for them! What is the problem there? But I doubt they spend much on these issues. I think it is more your imagination than anything. Pro-abortion groups spend to get their view out, they are tax-exempt. Why are you such a bigot about churches getting their message out? "Choose Life" is a better message than the "Tear your unborn baby to shreds" of the other side.

Quote:

It is hard for exact numbers, because unlike most (tax-exempt) organizations Churches do not have to publicly release their spending. This is a massive issue. I can guarantee that even an obscure Church spends more than we can fathom on lobbying, but we will never know (except for the few times we get insider leaks).

You can guarantee it? How? Obscure churches do not have big budgets.

Quote:

For example the Mormon Church has over 100 Billion in assets (and a system of obtaining regular revenue), and this is an obscure church based on population, and they are one of the most anti-gay Churches in America (they were the ones who pressured BSA to ban gays by threatening to cut funding.) So it is very easy for a Church that even most Christians would not identify with to have undue political and social power.

LDS an "obscure" church? They are huge! And again, you are fine with gays having outsize power but not a church? But a bigot would say this so I see you saying it.

Quote:

At the end of the day gay people just want equal rights, and until a couple years ago they did not have them (and now there are efforts to undue that progress.)

Nope, they want special rights. They wanted marriage redefined for them. They want to be able to force people to take their business and I am not talking public accommodations like a restaurant. I am talking their suing web developers to force them. They want to force their employers to allow them to dress like freaks of how they "identify" vs. acceptable business attire. People who want to be equal do not have hedonistic "pride parades" and such.

You see it for what they claim they want. I see it for their actions.

Quote: SOOPOO

AZ——. a decade or so ago when I first started posting here I agreed with you. A marriage has been and should be the union of a man and a woman. But over time I came to the simple conclusion that allowing gay couples to marry, as opposed to the ‘civil union’ that I was in favor of, just allows those people to be happier, at NO COST to my happiness. I’ve been to one gay wedding, and will likely be at two more in the next couple of years. I will be happy for all 6 of these friends/relatives, because their marriages will make them happier. It’s that simple to me.

That is your position and good for you. I think on a different plane. It is not about "no cost to my happiness." It is about promoting the lifestyle is not a good thing for society. The post-millennial generation is now very sexual preference confused. They are starting to think that if they are not madly in love with someone of the opposite sex at the moment then they must be gay. We have parents staring to think that they can transition their child to get the sex they want. A high homosexuality rate is not a sign of a healthy society. It is dystopian.

But it is probably too late to save American society. We are currently in collapse. But even if I cannot change it does not mean I will support it. My position is marriage is one man and one woman. I will say the same on my deathbed.

Peace.