LGBTQ+ Is BS or no?

[radiant trout]

I just find it strange that you try to use that as an argument to try and dismiss something

and in general they are all against LGBTQ.
This is not true either. Many religious people believe the most important part of their religion is to treat others with dignity and respect. Many religious people, although themselves not wanting to be part of the LGBT community, don't have any problems with it whatsoever. And why would they? Its not like the bible or other religious texts specifically call for anti-lgbt measures. Those are only things that were interpreted long after the religious texts were written.

Its all only made up in th eminds of the religous people that they can't accept Lgbt

nothing in their actual religion that prevents it

People that don't accept lgbt, that has nothing to do with their religion, it has to do with their conservatism. Although those are closely related, they are definately not the same.

and simply have school meant for the teachings of core subjects
But what makes e.g. english a core subject but sexual education and biology not?

[wintry zodiac]

My identity is a man, that isnt made up because im biologically a man. Their identity is a cat, thats made up

[radiant trout]

No, your physical body is something that is present in the real world and therefore not made up. The way that you think about yourself however, that is all only present inside of your mind and no where else.

The fact that your self-representation coincides with your physical appearance doesn't change the fact that your self-representation still only exists in your own mind

[wintry zodiac]

Could be, but its not guaranteed. In your perspective god doesnt exist I assume therefore you might percieve it to be made up but really it very much could exist, now what someone thinks they are very much is made up like if they identify as a cat

[radiant trout]

It doesnt have to do anything with wether god actually exists or not

I don't think you are understanding what im saying

[wintry zodiac]

This is not true either. Many religious people believe the most important part of their religion is to treat others with dignity and respect. Many religious people, although themselves not wanting to be part of the LGBT community, don't have any problems with it whatsoever. And why would they? Its not like the bible or other religious texts specifically call for anti-lgbt measures. Those are only things that were interpreted long after the religious texts were written.
I dont know where you got the idea that I dont treat others with dignity and respect even if they are part of LGBTQ, however respect isnt apart of playing along with someones gender identity.

[radiant trout]

im not talking about things ''being made up'' although my personal belief on religion is exactly that, it has nothing to do with what im trying to argue here

[radiant trout]

I dont know where you got the idea that I dont treat others with dignity and respect
From all the disrespecting thinigs you have said in this conversation it is pretty clear to me that you don't treat people you dont agree with, with dignity or respect.

The point was that diginty and respect are part of religion. And if you are honestly religious, you should follow the morals and accept people for who they are because that's what religion teaches.

[wintry zodiac]

You have disrespected me by saying my opinions are false and calling my opinions stupid and everything in general. Maybe I am mistaking you for someone but I simply stated my opinion on LGBTQ and what I disagree on what should be happening, I dont think thats necessarily disrespect. Although calling it BS may have indeed been disrespectful but Ive provided reasons on why I think so

[radiant trout]

I have never said your opinion is false, nor did i say your opinion is stupid. If I did, I would kindly ask you to show me where I did

[radiant trout]

I have been very clear on what I belief to be disrespectful behaviour from your side. One indeed is calling it BS. Another is calling it ''fake''. Another is claiming that LGBT people should not be able to openly out themselves in public, restricting their personal freedom. Another is saying it is morally wrong.

And the list goes on and on

[wintry zodiac]

Again I did mention that I might be mistaking you for someone else

Right here

[radiant trout]

Okay you are correct that was disrespectufl

it was true however

Like, you will understand once you grow up

[wintry zodiac]

One indeed is calling it BS. Another is calling it ''fake''. Another is claiming that LGBT people should not be able to openly out themselves in public, restricting their personal freedom. Another is saying it is morally wrong.
Yes calling it BS is disrespectful, calling it fake isnt because I was simply stating my opinion and what I disagree with. I am in general against ANY public affection not just LGBT but if the law allows it I could care less, and again I said the things they teach are morally contradicting the things I believe in and teach in and forcing this upon us is not right

[wintry zodiac]

Again you are disrespectful, and its not

[radiant trout]

It has to do with your inability to critically asess your argument and whether it actually supports your stance or whether its just blankly shouting anytthing you want

[radiant trout]

Okay let me be very clear here, because this will be the last time i explain this.

Saying "LGBT is fake" is extremely disrespectful and is NOT conveying an opinion.

Saying "I believe LGBT to be fake" is not disrespectful and is conveying your opinion

The biggest problem you have as far is i have observed so far, is your inability to properly out your opinon. You state anything as if it were a fact, where they arent/

[wintry zodiac]

1. Atleast I dont get offended easily
2. I atleast have the ability to claim where I was wrong
3. I clearly seperate logical statements and factual statements and whether something is simply an opinion and based on perspective, its not just "blankly" shouting anything I want

[radiant trout]

1. Sure, although I don't see how that matters
2. I disagree
3. I completely and utterly disagree

You state all your opinoins as if they were facts

and once you get called out you claim them to be ''just logical conclusion''

where you don't even bother to show the logic

thats not how you normally exchange ideas

you are only interested in sending your own opinon, not in actually having a discussion

or at least

Thats what follows from the way you convey your opinion

[wintry zodiac]

Having the ability to not get offended based on opinions is important when going through a debate or discussion on a topic like this. I clearly stated where I may have been wrong before, maybe you werent there for it. I dont care if you disagree I show whether something is logical factual or an opinion/bsaed on perspective

[wintry zodiac]

So do you

[radiant trout]

So clearly you cannot read

[wintry zodiac]

I atleast try to seperate my opinions from facts

[radiant trout]

Please read this again until you actually understand what it says

[radiant trout]

No thats the point, you present your opinions as if they were facts

[wintry zodiac]

Im responding to each individual statement before I read the next few

[radiant trout]

You aer not saying "I believe that", you are saying "This is true"

you don't say "I believe LGBT to be bs", you say "LGBT IS BS"

and there is a VERY LARGE difference between the two

[wintry zodiac]

You present your opinions as if they are facts meanwhile I still try and seperate my opinions from facts like whether god is real or something like that

[radiant trout]

Because when you say "LGBT is bs" than its not an opinion but a factual statement

[wintry zodiac]

search up how many times I said believe

[radiant trout]

I have explained this to you many times

[wintry zodiac]

I stated multiple times that LGBT being BS is simply an opinion

[radiant trout]

well than you do an extremely poor job actually conveying that

[radiant trout]

BUT THE POINT IS THAT SAYING THAT LGBT IS BS, IS THAT THAT STATEMENT OBJECTIVELY IS NOT AN OPINOIN

Do you understand the difference betwen:

"I believe something is true" vs "Something is true"

[wintry zodiac]

Nope, you have extremely poor reading skills or understanding skills to see what I am saying

[radiant trout]

Kekw

sure man

[wintry zodiac]

I agree saying "LGBT is BS" is a statement that may appear to be represented as factual but I have provided context and said multiple times that its an opinion

[wintry zodiac]

Yes and I have clearly used both terms

[radiant trout]

But objectively that statement is not an opinion

thats my whole point

You present your opinions as if they were facts

The context is irrelevant

If I say:

"All religious people are Nazis"

than that is not my opinion, that is a factual statement

if I say:

"I believe that all religious people are nazis"

Then that is an opinion

And the differenec is REALLY important

[wintry zodiac]

Saying "LGBT is fake" is extremely disrespectful and is NOT conveying an opinion.

Saying "I believe LGBT to be fake" is not disrespectful and is conveying your opinion
I have provided context afterwards saying that its simply a perspective. Although I may sometimes not use believe but rather afterwards say that its simply a perspective or opinion

The biggest problem you have as far is i have observed so far, is your inability to properly out your opinon. You state anything as if it were a fact, where they arent/
I have clearly multiple times stated this and I will keep saying this that Ive clearly drew the line between what is factual and what is an opinion or perspective, whether its right there or afterwards. However you do not have the ability to do this and thats pretty hypocritical

[radiant trout]

The context is irrelevant. The problem lies within the claims themselves.

[wintry zodiac]

Yes it isnt without context that I provided afterwards

[radiant trout]

How can this be so hard for you

i dont understand

[wintry zodiac]

How can you say its irrelevant when its given right after? Its like saying "All LGBTQ people are mentally disabled, this is an opinion/perspective (or saying it a little later)" then only taking out the "All LGBTQ people are mentally disabled"

[radiant trout]

Because as i mentioned, the problem lies in the claim itself

If you claim something to be a factual statement, then you have to give proof of that statement being true

If you merely present it as an opinion, there is no burden of proof

It does matter a lot

[wintry zodiac]

I never claimed it to be factual and I can see why it can be observed to be as, but I have clearly stated that its simply an opinion and/or perspective so i dont know why you are even complaining

I dont have to give proof for something that is an opinion or perspective

For example the definition of gender'

[radiant trout]

If you state it as something factual than yes you do

If you say "lgbt is bs" you have to proof why that is

If you say "i belief that lgbt is bs" than its an opinion and you don't have to

It is about how you represent your statements

The context following is irrelevant

[wintry zodiac]

Ive clearly stated its an opinion though, never meant to be observed as factual and Ive provided many other things as opinions and perspectives that back this opinion up.

[radiant trout]

If it is not meant as a factual statement, then why do you state it as a factual statement instead of presenting it as an opinion?

[wintry zodiac]

Also even before I said "LGBTQ is bs" I said "LGBTQ+ is BS or no?" meaning Im inclined to learn more which I am and I have however this question clearly means that me saying LGBTQ is BS is simply an opinion waiting to be disproven if possible

[radiant trout]

Except for the fact that the statement "LGBT is bs" does not convey any sort of information that it is meant as an opinion

Words mateer

It does matter HOW you describe what you are trying to say

Why do you think that not everyone is a professional writer?

Its becasue not everyone is capable of properly writing down their ideas

Neither am I

Especially since we are typing and not real life speaking, it matters even more to be correct in your use of language

So why not word an opinion as an opinoin instead of a factual statement that you later claim to be an opinion

[wintry zodiac]

But I added in that it is an opinion afterwards

And I have clearly stated that it can be percieved as offensive and a factual statement and I dont blame you but I clearly seperated it afterwards so I dont see the problems

[radiant trout]

the problem is that you are not improving your discourse. I mean if it was a one-off thing, I would have let it go. But it keeps on reoccuring where you state your opinion as if it were a fact, and then after someone calls you out you quickly add ''but its just an opinion''

but thats no proper way of having a discussion

Sorry i was disrespectful there, i said you weren't trying and I don't know that. I can only observe that I cannot see a difference.

[wintry zodiac]

Give me some examples, it’s not just me it’s you and many others here

I try my best to separate them and I don’t blame you if you see me come off as offensive however clearly most of everything here that is said is simply an opinion or perspective

I gotta go for now

[radiant trout]

me too, im on work

I'll try to respond later

[ebon perch]

That gives the government pretty much free reign to restrict every single right we have, at some point individuals freedoms matter more than the collective "security" as with limited freedom, you could argue there are no true freedoms left for the people, just an illusion of whatever the government decides to allow at that moment in time.

Yes, the point of teahcing them is to prepare them, hence the governemnt can give it to them once they turn 18, parents/guardians earlier at their discretion. If they're doing it earlier, they're breaking the law. The analogy of the bandsaw would be, you finally get accepted into a job and they give you on the job training for your first few days to ensure you can properly handle the machinery safely.

[clever quest]

That always has to be the case. There's no point in having a government if it can't restrict individual freedoms in order to protect the whole. It's absolutely essential for them to be able to do that, and unavoidable. And it's not a bad thing for individuals to have to compromise for the good of the collective.

[ebon perch]

Children are not the governments property either then by that standard, thus the governemnt can't decide. Children are the responsibility of their parents, the parents made teh decision to have a child (or at least gambled a risk for it) so it is their responsibility to take care of and ensure that child receives what they need. If the parents aren't the ones raising there kids, why do they have to look after them and provide for them rather than the government?

Reading and writing are fundemental to communicate with people, before they're legal adults. It isn't equivalent to learning about reproduction and the consequences of such.

[radiant trout]

No not neccesarily but I understand your concerns. But in my view that is kinda the point of having a government. If not for restricting freedoms, then you may as well abolish all government and live in a full anarchy, because any government policy will restrict the freedom of at least some people.

But I believe I read somewhere else you identify as libertarian, so I guess we will never ever be able to come to agree to what we believe the role of a government should be.

We can keep arguing back and forth but we just don't see eye to eye on this topic.

[radiant trout]

Yes, the point of teahcing them is to prepare them
Yes so you teach them BEFORE they actually start doing it.

The analogy of the bandsaw would be, you finally get accepted into a job and they give you on the job training for your first few days to ensure you can properly handle the machinery safely.
No because following that analogy it would mean that it would not be possible to have properly safe sexual experiences the day you turn 18 (legal in your words) since you have had no education. That's why I said you need to learn it BEFORE you pass the legal age, as after it is useless.

[radiant trout]

Children are not the governments property either then by that standard
They are not. But they are the responsibility of the society as a whole, which is represented by the government.

Children are the responsibility of their parents
To some degree sure, but that does not mean that they are the final responsible people for every decision surrounding or affecting their child.

their responsibility to take care of and ensure that child receives what they need.
In my view it is the responsibility of society to do that, not solely that of the parents. And again, society is represented by the government, therefore it is just as much the responsibility of the government as it is of parents. I know we will never agree on this, I am just tyring to let you understand my point of view.

If the parents aren't the ones raising there kids, why do they have to look after them and provide for them rather than the government?
But they are not tho? Kids are raised through many different people in their lives, not just their parents. If children go to daycare, they are raised there too. If children go to school, they are raised there too. If children are left in the care of grandparents while parents are working for example, they are raising the kids too. I don't subscribe to the notion that a child is only raised by their parents. I think that is quite a naive way to look at the situation.

[wintry zodiac]

In car rn before I gotta do something, I am wondering if @ebon perch is with you or with me in this topic in terms of common beliefs

Don’t think I’ve talked to him so far lol

[radiant trout]

Okay but from my perspective learning about biology is also fundamental to understand the world, therefore it must be taught in school. I agree it is a big gray area and everyone has a different opinion on this matter, I just find the boundary you set for reading and writing for example quite arbitrary. I could argue that learning about how to protect yourself in vulnerable situations is also required in order to properly communicate with other people.

But i guess the fundamental difference we have is that I believe that raising children is a common responsibility for all of society whereas it seems you mostly belief it to be only the responsibility of the parents.

[clever quest]

Schools don't need to teach two sides of ethics and morality. They only need to teach the ethics and morality of the society in which they operate. And they do need to teach that, even if only passively, because that's the system in which they operate. Which in our case means teaching that people should respect each other regardless of any differences in lifestyles or views. Maybe your society has different principles, in which case the schools in your society should teach something different. But if your schools start teaching ideas for which there is no evidential support, I think you will run into problems.

None of the personal experiences and historical evidence supports the existence of religions because there are simpler alternative explanations for all of it, including the existence of the universe. The only reason to choose a religion over the other possible reasons is because you trust the words of a few humans.

We don't need to teach anyone that LGBTQ+ or different gender identities could just be a choice, because there's absolutely no evidence that it is and plenty of evidence that it is not. There is as much evidence for LGBTQ+ and different gender identities being a normal part of life as there is of cisgender and heterosexual identities. We can only teach in schools things that have evidential support.

I think we agreed before that we need to teach kids about things that exist in the world, so not teaching them about religions and LGBTQ+ would contradict that idea. Kids need to be taught about the world we live in.

[wintry zodiac]

The society they operate in is 60% if not more religious, they don’t need to teach that being gay is fine they can simply teach that all kinds of people exist and nothing more, there’s no need to teach any more than that. In general you are teaching morals and ethics which contradict 60% of the country and this number may grow in the future with the current trend. They can teach common sense and common universally acknowledged morals and ethics like killing other people is fine but it shouldn’t touch the subject of LGBTQ is my point and my point of view

Im not saying that they shouldn’t teach about the existence of all kinds of people but that they shouldn’t teach being gay is fine because many hold different morals and ethics on this topic

Just that they exist

I was recently being taught about lgbtq when I was in Canada about a year ago

From what I remember they taught that being trans or gay or identifying as agender is perfectly fine while not acknowledging the existence of religion and their belief system that it may not be ok

I mean everyone knows religious people exist but they taught nothing about it and that it could contradict LGBTQ beliefs

This also resulted in many religious people abandoning their religion or somehow now adding “gay churches”

If you know anything about Abhrahamic religions it’s that they are totally against that

[radiant trout]

The society they operate in is 60% if not more religious
So suppose a society is less than 50% religious (for example where I live) then your view would be that it would be good to teach this stuff? Since majority of the people are not religious?

In general you are teaching morals and ethics which contradict 60% of the country
People being gay is not contradictory to religion per se. I was raised christian and in my old church (and attached belief system), we did not believe anything to be ''wrong'' with people bing gay. It all depends on how the scriptures are interpreted. Some branches interpret it as being gay is wrong, some branches interpret it differently.

[clever quest]

Not every religious person thinks LGBTQ+ are a problem. In my experience, most are fine with it. There are gay Christian priests, afterall. It is only a particularly sub-category of religious people who have a problem with it, and I don't think they are in the majority, or even close to it.

[radiant trout]

I think the core idea behind this is that to the overall society it is more beneficial that everyone has the right to exist and to be themselves and express themselves, and that is more important than imposing your religious values on others.

No one is forcing you to become part of the lgbt community

they are just doing their own thing

If you don't want to have anything to do with it, you are free not to interact with them.

However, you are not free to discriminate them based on your religious values

[clever quest]

I mean, I see this as an objectively good thing, because I support LGBTQ+ people and I am against religion. I think all religions should disband entirely. But if people don't agree with a religion's ideas, they definitely shouldn't stay in that religion.

[radiant trout]

I was born and raised in a christian community that mostly focusses on the ''good'' of religion; e.g. treat other people with respect, love eachother, etc

[clever quest]

Well exactly. The most common message in Christianity is to treat others with respect and offer them compassion.

[radiant trout]

Where I live we get taught both. We get taught about all the major world religions. We get taught about other forms of personal expression.

[radiant trout]

This is factually incorrect

Or at least

Let me rephrase

What the scriptures teach you is heavily based off of interpretation of the scriptures

Not all branches of a religion interpret the same texts in the same way

Most branches of christianity have no problem with gay people at all for example, or at least where i live

Its only a very small radical minority that holds those beliefs

there is no such thing as ''christianity'' or ''islam'' being a single religion

It is a group of many different religions are very similar holding many of the same core beliefs.

But on some, they disagree

heck ther are at least 6 ''official'' branches of christianity, all having their own subdevisions, all believing in slightly different things. The only thing they all agree on is that the God of the Bible created the universe and everything inside of it.

But to most of them, they say ''Gay people are still created by god so we should accept them, because if we were not supposed to accept them, god would not have created them'' or something along those lines

[wintry zodiac]

Thats your opinion, but " But if people don't agree with a religion's ideas, they definitely shouldn't stay in that religion" is wrong

[clever quest]

Why is that wrong? What possible reason would people have to stay in a religion that they disagreed with?

[wintry zodiac]

So suppose a society is less than 50% religious (for example where I live) then your view would be that it would be good to teach this stuff? Since majority of the people are not religious?
I simply mentioned the % that is religious, that doesnt undermine that if you do end up teaching that stuff then you are going to still teach the opposite of what a good chunk of the population doesnt agree with hence why in general you shouldnt teach it because a lot of people dont agree with it. If you have 95% of the people not religious for example then sure you can teach it

[wintry zodiac]

No i misintrepreted what you meant by that, I thought you meant if a person disagreed with another religion in general

[radiant trout]

But following this logic, it is the exact same the other way around no? If less than 95% of people are religious, we shouldnt teach their values as it is not a large majority of people?

[near ember]

There are many gay jews. This is a fact. One of the most famous religious journalists in Israel is gay.

[wintry zodiac]

People being gay is not contradictory to religion per se. I was raised christian and in my old church (and attached belief system), we did not believe anything to be ''wrong'' with people bing gay. It all depends on how the scriptures are interpreted. Some branches interpret it as being gay is wrong, some branches interpret it differently.
Its not necessarily about you believing, its rather about you not being taught that its not okay to be gay. For example you most likely havent been taught about Leviticus 18:22 Verse: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Which explicitly prohibits male homosexual acts, labeling them as an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 Verse: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." As well. I ithnk its that you werent taught about this in general because maybe it would be seen as homophobic or something. Being gay is contradictory to Abrahamic religions, just got to add that in because this may not be relevant for other religions that I have no knowledge on yet

[radiant trout]

I actually have been taught about that. But in my (old) branch of chrstianity, this is not interpreted in the same way as you interpret this. That is my whole point. Not every religious branch has the exact same beliefs.

[wintry zodiac]

Possibly but they dont do it for some reason Im not sure, however where I lived these schools are labeled as christian schools for example but not public so idk really

[clever quest]

Most Christian people I know, which includes some priests, believe that the central principle of compassion and respect for others overrides any individual examples in the Bible. Quite a lot of Christians don't believe the Bible is true in a literal sense.

and I know some Jews who feel the same about the Torah.

[radiant trout]

Also the contemporary context of the text needs to be taken into account in my opinion

[wintry zodiac]

In orthodox judaism being gay is prohibited in general, heres some verses:
Leviticus 18:22 Text: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13 Text: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

These are part of the Torah and if they are gay then technically they are not Jewish and if they are then they are comitting a huge sin.

However Conservative Judaism evolved and now shows acceptance of LGBTQ+ for some reason im not 100% sure why and how this works though

[wintry zodiac]

I see, that is new and its interesting. How do you intrepret these verses then?

[near ember]

As Cury said, different people choose to ignore some parts of scripture or interpret them differently. There are jews who oppose lgbt

however there are also many queer jews

[clever quest]

Religions tend to evolve and change with the times, otherwise they become irrelevant and forgotten.

[wintry zodiac]

Then they contradict their own Bible and refusing to believe their Bible is the truth in a literal sense is kind of saying that you believe in a god but you are not christian

[wintry zodiac]

Which is why I added in Conservative Judaism and why im not sure how it works

[near ember]

If you're not sure how it works, why are you making these claims?

[clever quest]

Being Christian only means you follow the teachings of Christ. The Bible is only one tool for doing that, it is not the only one nor a definitive one.

I mean, there are many different Bibles for starters.

[wintry zodiac]

Not in every topic, while yes they may evolve in some things you cannot simply ignore that these texts for a majority of people literally mean that being gay is forbidden and i dont really know how you can evolve from that into accepting gay people. Not evolving however doesnt mean they become irrelevant and/or forgotten because Islam Christianity and Judaism still exist and majority havent really evolved

[clever quest]

Both Christianity and Judaism have evolved a lot, and have drastically changed their beliefs over time. I can't speak for Islam, but I imagine the same is true there also.

But Islam is a lot younger of course, and so hasn't needed to change as much yet.

[wintry zodiac]

I said im not sure how Conservative Judaism works, however a majority are technically still Orthodox and view these verses as being gay is forbidden. I wasnt necessarily referring to Conservative part

[near ember]

huh

what are you even saying

[radiant trout]

I think two aspects are really important here

1. Take into account the context in which the scriptures are written
2. Take into account possible translational errors / changes that come over time.

Now when this verse was written, there was no such concept as ''homosexuality'' in society, as the concept of homosexuality came much much later. When this verse was written, it was quite common for older man to have sex with younger man or boys, which continued all the way into roman culture. The verse you described is interpreted, not only by me, but by historians and theologists across the world, as it being meant to say that no (dominant) man should have sex with another (domininant) man. This makes sense as, although homosexuality as we know it today was completely normal back then, it was only normal for a dominant man to have a dominant role in the sexual relation. If you as the dominant man took on the role of subject in sex, than you were seen as an outcast. Generally this had to do with the social relation between the two. For example, in a master/slave situation, the dominant man was obviously the master and it was totally okay for him to have sex with his slave, however it was not okay for the slave to have sex with the master

We know this because there are many ancient greek and roman scriptures that talk about this.

[wintry zodiac]

However the Bible is still the main tool and is the teachings of Christianity in general, while not entirely just Christs teachings there are some other important figures that you would typically learn from

[radiant trout]

And this sense of homosexuality has been like this for at least 2000 years throughout various societies across the middle east, northern africa and southern europe

[wintry zodiac]

Islam has similar or the same concepts on most things

[clever quest]

At this point, only a tiny handful of people would argue that everything the Bible approves of is acceptable, because it includes things like slavery and the death penalty for working on a Saturday.

[wintry zodiac]

Before you mentioned it I didnt even know conservative parts of a religions existed and was referring to the orthodox parts of a religion typically which I believe to be a majority (not sure however). Because I labeled those who are gay and jewish as direct deniers of their book and religion

[radiant trout]

But currently we are in a different society with different views, so saying the same thing in a different situation can alter its interpretation. Hence I firmly believe that the way that leviticus is interpreted by some nowadays is nowhere near the original meaning of the scripture

So specifically condemning homosexual relations is not something they would have done back when the scripture was written, as back then it was a normal part of society

[near ember]

A lot of jews are not orthodox

[wintry zodiac]

I see so this entirely depends on your perspective of this verse

[radiant trout]

It entirely depends on whether you are willing to look at the scriptures through the lense of the time and society in which it was written. Or whether you just apply things written then to the current situation

[wintry zodiac]

I was talking about Abrahamic religions in general which includes Islam and christianity and both have huge parts of them being some way or another orthodox

[near ember]

Judaism is one of the 3 abrahamic religions

So it falls within the category

[wintry zodiac]

But has like 1% if not less of the total followers of the Abrahamic religions, so yes it does fall within the category but doesnt really account for that much in Abrahamic religions in total as a percent

Interesting image I found on google

BRB

[radiant trout]

@wintry zodiac But do you understand now that not everyone interprets the scriptures in the same way and therefore can disagree on topics like homosexuality? It is not a given that abrahamic religions are by definition against homosexuality. It all depends on how the scriptures are interpreted.

[wintry zodiac]

Yes, however a majority of people within Abrahamic teachings are against homosexuality and majority still interpret these texts to be against homosexuality

[radiant trout]

Do you remember what we were talking about earlier. About making factual statements and/or opinions and the difference?

So here you make two statements:

1. ''A mjority of people within Abrahamic teachings are against homosexuality"

2. "The majority inteprets the texts to be against homosexuality"

You state these two points as being a fact. If you believe they are facts, I would kindly ask you to support these supposed facts with some form of evidence.

If they are just your opinion, I would kindly ask you to rephrase them to actually be stated as an opinion rather than a fact

[wintry zodiac]

1 and 2 are pretty much the same, now Sunni and Shia predominations of Islam (about 1.8 Billion followers of the total 4.2 billion) are against Homosexuality and typically condemn these acts. Many examples are Islamic Countries who have laws forbidding public affection and some way or another Homosexuality. Catholic Church Officially, the Catholic Church does not accept homosexual acts, viewing them as contrary to natural law, but calls for respect and compassion towards individuals with homosexual tendencies (approximately 1.2-1.4 billion followers). Orthodox Christianity Generally holds traditional views opposing homosexuality and same-sex marriage (230 million approximately). Protestant denominations views vary widely. For instance, Evangelical groups typically oppose homosexuality, while denominations like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church are more accepting and perform same-sex marriages​ (0.8-1.2 billion followers). In totaly approximately 3.2-3.4B+ are technically confirmed to be against homosexuality (assuming that they are true to their predomination) of the 4.2 Billion total. Now the extra 1 billion~ Protestant groups vary widely and Judaism isnt as relevevant with total followers of 14 million, however I think about half oppose homosexuality.

[clever quest]

OK, but let's look at the reality as well as the theory.

While Catholicism might officially regard homosexuality as a sin, in practice it's largely accepted. There are many LGBTQ+ Catholics, and surveys in various countries have found that most Catholics there don't regard homosexuality as sinful. Same-sex couples have even been approved by the Pope. It's a slow process, but the reality is that Catholicism is on the path to fully accepting the LGBTQ+ community. So it's nowhere near true to say that all Catholics are against LGBTQ+ stuff, and probably not even the majority worldwide.

Same with Protestants, to an even greater extent. You don't even need to conduct surveys of members when the Churches themselves allow LGBTQ+ priests. Although there are some smaller groups that oppose LGBTQ+, the reality here is that Protestantism mostly accepts LGBTQ+.

Orthodox Christians tend to be more strongly against accepting LGBTQ+, but it's not universal even in that denomination. At least half of the Orthodox Christians in Greece, for example, believe homosexuality should be accepted by society, even if the percentage is a lot lower in some other Orthodox countries.

So in reality, I would say most of Christianity is acceptive of homosexuality, and getting more so as time passes.

[wintry zodiac]

Not all catholics however a majority still are against homosexuality, the Pope however did not necessarily accept same-sex marriage into church. He has said "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable because of it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.". Pope Francis’s support for civil unions is seen as a way to ensure legal protections for same-sex couples without altering the Church’s teaching on the sacrament of marriage. This distinction is important to understand the nuanced position he holds​. And as catholism is present in Western europe, currently atleast with the current trend Catholism will largely lose its believers in general and start accepting LGBTQ people despite the text that the Bible holds and the Predomination they are in, however this doesnt mean that they are on the same page as LGBTQ, while they can recognize that they have rights and should have rights that doesnt mean that they believe its right and isnt a sin.

Protestants I agree though are on the greater extent of accepting LGBTQ however I did not include them. And there are still many Protestant groups who are against it.

Orthodox christians mostly are in fact against Homosexuality and it makes sense because most of them are in Eastern europe or in the middle east which have a lot of Homophobia and possibly have laws against it. While Greece in theory could have half of their orthodox christians accepting LGBTQ, they are still somewhat part of western europe and only account for a small percent of the total Orthodox population.

Most of christianity is in fact not even western europe or north america, actually theres a large precense of christianity in south america, africa and asia with lots of them in fact not accepting homosexuality as a whole. With only about 40% or something in western europe + us/canada all combined.

Also important to note that it isnt even just Abrahamic religions, the morals of not accepting LGBTQ beliefs is also present in MANY non-religious people and cultures as well.

[clever quest]

Where are you getting the idea that most Catholics are against homosexuality? The only surveys I've seen say that the majority think homosexuality isn't a sin. For example this one:
https://www.prri.org/press-release/catholics-more-supportive-of-gay-and-lesbian-rights-than-general-public-other-christians/

The consensus seems to be that the Catholic leadership is out of step with it's membership on this issue, which means it's only a matter of time before the leadership will be forced to change its views.

But in any case, we're talking about our societies specifically, and it seems very clear from the surveys that the vast majority of US and Western European society view homosexuality as being fine. Acceptance is somewhere around 75% in the US, and 86% in the UK.

[wintry zodiac]

Catholic Christianity is against homosexuality

Like its considered a Sin

[clever quest]

Maybe the leadership is officially against homosexuality, but certainly the majority of Catholics in countries like the US and UK aren't against homosexuality.

[wintry zodiac]

Majority may or may not be an exaggeration, and is the reason why I am against LGBTQ, it influences Sinful acts in those who are apart of that religion. Also some of the people may be in fear of social consenquences to be fair

[clever quest]

You think people responding to an anonymous survey fear the social consequences of opposing LGBTQ+?

That doesn't seem like a realistic claim.

[wintry zodiac]

How should I know it is anonymous

[clever quest]

I understand the religious argument against LGBTQ+, but the reality is that the vast majority of our society supports LGBTQ+.

[clever quest]

You could follow the link and find out.

But research surveys are anonymised as standard.

[wintry zodiac]

Could not find it being anonymous however if you could show me where it is then sure

[clever quest]

Do you see identifying details of the individuals who took part?

[wintry zodiac]

No however why would they post it anyway?

[clever quest]

All PRRI studies include bilingual (English and Spanish) interviewing. PRRI provides public access to the raw data files of surveys after an embargo period of one year.

[wintry zodiac]

Do they provide data on the indidviduals who took part?

[clever quest]

No, of course not.

But you can check that yourself if you want to.

Anonymising survey results is a standard procedure for research, to avoid exactly the problem you describe.

[wintry zodiac]

However you stated as if its a fact that it is anonymous

Unless you can prove it to me

My statement was based on the assumption that the survey may not be anonymous

[clever quest]

? It is anonymous.

I sent you the link to the survey results which show it's anonymous.

You can look at the raw data yourself for even more proof if you really want to.

[clever quest]

I understand. But the survey is anonymous, so your objection doesn't stand.

[wintry zodiac]

It doesnt mention anonymous

However my point still stands about it being heavily influenced by LGBTQ hence why I am against it

brb for now

[clever quest]

Again, do you see people's identifying details? If not, then it's anonymous.
Research surveys generally don't mention anonymity any more because nobody would ever think to carry out a survey that wasn't anonymised.

[clever quest]

I don't understand your point. You're saying that people's views being in favour of LGBTQ+ is something influenced by LGBTQ+? Yes, of course it is. How could someone's opinion of something not be influenced by that thing?

[wintry zodiac]

Im against it because it draws people away from religion and/or culture and possibly makes them commit sins

[terse zodiac]

Since u spent hours upon hours discussing this can u rephrase ur question better o.o

[terse zodiac]

R u saying straight ppl don’t have sex

Idk wut that means bcuz u can be gay and heavily invested in ur culture/religion

[wintry zodiac]

What? How is that relevant

How am I saying that

[terse zodiac]

U said ur against “it” bcuz it makes ppl sin

[wintry zodiac]

It depends on the culture and/or religion

[wintry zodiac]

How does straight people having sex a sin (obviously it depends on a few things)

[terse zodiac]

O.o

How have u discussed this so much but don’t know

[wintry zodiac]

Dont know what, elaborate

[terse zodiac]

[wintry zodiac]

This is the most annoyed Ive actually felt throughout this entire conversation for some reason 😂, I dont wanna immediately for no reason disrespect you but I kind of have no other choice but to call you stupid and/or ignorant

[deft vapor]

he's a rage bait

[terse zodiac]

Me too. Ur very heavily integrated w this discussion but can’t understand why some would consider sex a sin.

[terse zodiac]

I like ur doggo

[wintry zodiac]

Nope

Funny how everyone considers me a rage bait

Simply because I stated controversal opinions

[wintry zodiac]

There are many reasons why sex can be considered a sin, however context and reasoning is needed for each, and this isnt even relevant. I know why some consider sex a sin and it kind of depends on the perspective and what religion you are a part of, you cant simply say "R u saying straight ppl don't have sex" without any clear indication of me mentioning it and for no reason at all. However if you think I dont know why some people would consider sex a sin then you are wrong, Some reasons can be (for straight couples) Sex before marriage in some religions, Prostitution type of Sex, Sex without consent (rape) and other religious reasons however these are the main ones

Im simply confused on why you are even mentioning it and how little conversational skills you have to be at the very least understandable

[terse zodiac]

No u still missed the reason but this isn’t even relevant to the question anymore lmao

[wintry zodiac]

Could you atleast elaborate what you are talking about lol im so confused rn

It seems that you are all over the place or dont know how to phrase questions properly

[ebon perch]

But in my view that is kinda the point of having a government
Yea, the government restricts some of your freedoms, the ones that involve disrupting other peoples freedoms. The point of my beliefs is to limit that as much as possible.
I believe I read somewhere else you identify as libertarian...We can keep arguing back and forth but we just don't see eye to eye on this topic.
Yea thats what a lot of these conversations ultimately boil down too, peoples foundational worldview which the vast majority of people aren't really open to changing as a lot of it is just subjective to their own preferences and cultural upbringings.

Yes so you teach them BEFORE they actually start doing it.
Yeah, they should try to learn what they're doing before they do it. Just a quick question though to make sure I understand your perspective on the situation is, if someone doesn't have the proper information on a choice they make, or even if they do and they make a bad decision, whose fault is that, just curious?

[ebon perch]

I know we will never agree on this, I am just tyring to let you understand my point of view.
I know, that's what I like best about these kinds of conversations. You just get to see other people's opinions and why they believe that they believe. It's always good to understand and hear new viewpoints in my opinion.
I think that is quite a naive way to look at the situation.
Just to clarify, when I said raised by their parents (or guardians), I mean the people who are mostly raising them. Everyone is raised by their society, but say a kid goes hungry, we don't blame society and the government, we blame their guardians/parents.

[ebon perch]

I think for the most part we agree.

[ebon perch]

Question, how would these verses be interpreted to allow homosexuality according to the bible, as it doesn't mention the word homosexuality, but rather the concept of what homosexuality is - Romans 1:24-28 (With particular focus on verses 26-27

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

[wintry zodiac]

I came across a video where it talks about trans woman winning Miss Maryland USA 😂. Then I found a comment that says.
"Dear Trans Community:
Don’t tell me I have to accept you for who you are when you couldn’t even accept yourself for who you were."
Which is pretty true I think, Biological men are starting to dominate women in women's sports and now beauty pageants so thats interesting.

[wintry zodiac]

I think in my perspective anyone who is homosexual but also a Christian is a direct denier of Christianity which is because of these verses, its very unlikely that the way Trans/Homo Friendly perceived this verse is the actual meaning of these verses

[ebon perch]

Yea I agree on that, and I find the argument of you can be of a particular religion while denying and ignoring parts you don't like of your religion's holy text as a little more than just misguided. I mean, no one would take me seriously if I said I'm a straight homosexual, because they're incompatible. If I leave out the part of it being my same sex, then yea I could be.

[radiant trout]

I don't interpret this as homosexuality being bad, I interpret this as cheating being bad. To me the ''lust of their own hearts, [..] dishonor their own bodies" is about having sexual relations outside of your married partner. It nowhere states that it is specifically targets same sex relations. Its merely an observation that some men have sex with other man outside of their marriage, which Paul believes to be wrong. Not because it is homosexual sex, but because they are essentially cheating. Remember that for many people back then, it was quite normal for men (dominant man) to have sex with ''boys'' (e.g. eunuchs).

But yeah, who knows what Paul meant when he originally wrote this. All I know is that no where in the bible it is specifically mentioned that homosexuality is wrong. It is all interpretation of statements that could have several meanings depending on how the texts are analysed.

[radiant trout]

Just to clarify, when I said raised by their parents (or guardians), I mean the people who are mostly raising them. Everyone is raised by their society, but say a kid goes hungry, we don't blame society and the government, we blame their guardians/parents.
Ehm.. well that's just difference in culture then. Many people here would view thas as shortcommings of society rather than of the individual parents. "How could we let this happen?".

I mean it depends on the situation ofcourse, if there is gross neglect, then yes we blame parents/guardians. But many people here adhere to the idea that raising children is a shared responsibility. Although I must admit that say the past 20 years, society here has become much more individualistic and more towards what you are describing. So maybe in the future, it'll be similar here.

[radiant trout]

Do you believe that the religious texts are subject to interpretation and that some people can understand it differently from eachother?

Or do you believe that it has only one specific ''true'' interpretation and all others are wrong

idk if that question makes sense tho

[radiant trout]

@wintry zodiac The big difference between you and Dan is that Dan manages to engage respectfully in a discussion and tries to properly articulate his views using arguments. Even if I disagree on many points with him, I have only very rarely felt offended by him. It is not just about what your beliefs are, it is also about how you convey them to others.

[wintry zodiac]

I think I still bring up good points on many things despite conveying them potentially a little harsher

[gentle ingot]

U cannot convey an outlook harsher on these people than I can

👍

[wintry zodiac]

Sure

But

even then, I dont think I was even that rude

[radiant trout]

Oh its not just about being rude

[wintry zodiac]

I think its more about yall being a little sensetive

[radiant trout]

Its about making claims without proper argumentation for example

presenting your opinion as a factual statement etc

its mostly about the method of communicating

I am not offended by what you believe

I am offended by how you convey that belief

[wintry zodiac]

Thats really the only thing

Plus I have atleast either added in context afterwards, said believe or think before the statement, or once it has been noticed I say that it is still an opinion

However I do think I brung up good points that I still think have gone unanswered or parts where you didnt accept where you were wrong, maybe i have mistaken you for someone else but I think you didnt acknoledge that there being more or simply 2 genders is based on opinion/perspective and isnt factual that there is more than 2 genders

[radiant trout]

We went over this already

In your own definition of gender no

In your definition of ''mental'' yes

[wintry zodiac]

Huh

[radiant trout]

In your own definition of gender, there are only two

but we disagree on the definition

Its a semantic discussion

nothing to do with your views or opinion

[wintry zodiac]

Elaborate what you mean

[wintry zodiac]

isnt the definition of gender based on view

[radiant trout]

Whether de definition of a word is based on your personal interpretation of that thing? No not really

Generally there is either a dictionairy definition or a scientific one

I mean you can say i dont subscribe to that definition, but I don't see what the point is of doing that

Because again, they you'll just create a semantic discussion that leads to nowhere

[wintry zodiac]

However either you or someone else did not admit that it was based on the intrepretation of the definition of "gender", therefore making the statement there is more than 2 genders neither right or wrong because of your intrepretation of gender.

[deft vapor]

Now justify your interp

[wintry zodiac]

"Justify" isnt necessarily the right word to use for this I think, its not like an opinion for my interpretation and many others on the definition of gender and their perspective has to be justified. Unless you are talking about justifying with the concept of there being 2 genders. Which is because of the idea that gender is binary and fixed and based off of the persons sex, Chromosomes (XX) (XY), these chromosomal difference has been used as a basis for classifying individuals into two genders. Historically, gender has been closely tied to reproductive anatomy. Males are generally characterized by the presence of male reproductive organs, and females by female reproductive organs. Most cultures have historically operated on a binary understanding of gender, where individuals are categorized as either male or female based on their physical characteristics at birth. This binary view has been deeply embedded in social structures, laws, and institutions. The binary classification aligns with the majority experience, where most people identify with the gender corresponding to their biological sex. It simplifies legal, administrative, and social processes by providing clear categories. The binary perspective reflects traditional and religious beliefs that have shaped societal norms for centuries.

[clever quest]

People have always differentiated between genders based on the knowledge they have had. The reason our view on gender has changed is that we've learned more about it. This is what happens when you study stuff; you learn. Now that we know there is a lot more going on than just the external shape of genitalia, and that what is happening inside doesn't necessarily reflect that, we have stopped basing our view of gender on that.
The reality is that there's no good reason to stick with a view after you discover it to be wrong, even if it's one that you've had for a long time. This is the problem religion always has, because religions have always based their stances on the best information at the time of their creation, and then inevitably they are proved wrong later down the line when human understanding improves. If you can't learn and adapt, then you end up being useless.

[wintry zodiac]

Oh thats right, you are the person who claims their opinion to be factual 😂

[clever quest]

I base my opinions on facts. That's how it's supposed to work, not the other way round.

[wintry zodiac]

There being more than 2 genders isnt a fact, it technically may be in your perspective on the concept of gender but it isnt overall

[radiant trout]

Why is it not a fact?

[clever quest]

It's what the evidence tells us.

[wintry zodiac]

Why is it a fact?

[radiant trout]

I asked you the question

Now please answer it

Why isn't it a fact

You made a claim stating it is not a fact

[wintry zodiac]

And I countered your question with a question, why am I always the one answering?

[radiant trout]

If you make such a claim, you have to justify that calim

[clever quest]

We've already answered that. Because it's what the evidence tells us.

[wintry zodiac]

What evidence?

[radiant trout]

Because i did not make the claim

If you state a claim, the burden of proof is on you

[wintry zodiac]

What kind of claim?

[radiant trout]

You claim that more than 2 genders existing is not a fact

thats your claim

So I am asking, why is that a fact

Its not that hard

Im not asking difficult questions here

[wintry zodiac]

Because the concept of gender is based on the individuals perspective on gender all in all, simple as that.

[radiant trout]

Religion is based on the individual perspective, yet we probably all agree religion exists

SO thats not really an argument to say that it does not exist

[wintry zodiac]

Not necessarily

Thats different

[radiant trout]

Well yes

The topic is differnt, the way of arguing is not, thats what this is about

[wintry zodiac]

Religion is based on the individual perspective, but the existence of religion isnt

[radiant trout]

Why is it different?

[wintry zodiac]

right here ^

[radiant trout]

Yes and the existence of gender is also not based on individual perspective

the gender people associate with is

but the idea that gender exists is independent of anyones actual position on their preferred gender

So i ask you again, why isn't it a fact?

[wintry zodiac]

The existence of gender is true, however the perspective of the concept of gender is different, it varies among people on the amount of genders there are and not about the existence of gender all in all

[wintry zodiac]

Already answered

[radiant trout]

Same holds for religion, so what makes it differnt?

[radiant trout]

You did not answer the question at all

[wintry zodiac]

The concept of religion existing is not based on perspective because we know it exists (the existence of religion but not their ideas), Same goes for gender, gender exists but the perspective on gender is different (whether theres 2 or more)

[wintry zodiac]

I did

[radiant trout]

So then how can it be a fact that only 2 genders exist?

[wintry zodiac]

How about first you answer how can it be a fact that more than 2 genders exist

I never claimed 2 genders being a fact

[near ember]

Stop deflecting

[radiant trout]

Oh sorry my bad

You claimed that more than 2 genders is not a fact

[wintry zodiac]

I clearly stated this as a perspective of gender that many share

[wintry zodiac]

Yes

And I said why

Now you answer why more than 2 genders is a fact

[radiant trout]

Because i can physically observe someone that does not identify as either male or female

[clever quest]

The same kind evidence that supports the existence of the two genders you're talking about. Physical, genetic and behavioural. We observe more than two genders in all those different ways, and there's no evidence that those differences can be attributed to anything except genuine gender differences.

[radiant trout]

therefore ther must be at least more than 2 genders

If you put male, female and non-binary people in an MRI machine and show them pictures and ask them questions, than the brain waves are all distinct from eachother

Meaning that at least more than 2 genders exists as a PHYSICAL fact

Their brain literally shows us that

Its not rocket science

Its just what the data shows

[wintry zodiac]

Which is why this is based on the persception of the concept of gender, you acknowledge that if someone identify as neither male or female then they are something else. However I and many others dont because our definition of gender is different and anyone who identifies as neither male or female we think is confused, mental or something else

[radiant trout]

Whats next, you gonna deny the existence of atoms because you cannot see them with your own eyes?

[radiant trout]

I think you are mental, yet I don't deny your existence

Why can't you accept that your definition of gender is a definition you made up yourself

[wintry zodiac]

I exist, the people exist, however we dont recognize the existence of what they identify as. You can label me as mental because I dont believe theres more than 2 genders, thats fine

[radiant trout]

If you take any biology 101 textbook and look for sex and gender, they will all claim with loads of evidence, that in fact sex and gender are distinct entities, where sex is based off of external and internal physical attributes, and gender is based social and cultural norms.

Literally anyone who actually studies these topics will agree on that

[wintry zodiac]

The definition is not made up by me, or anyone living currently, but mostly everyone who lived before us. I think that your definition of gender is "made up" because it has only became so huge recently and necessarily wasnt recognized by many

[radiant trout]

Yet here you are, someone who doesn't know jack shit about the subject, never paid any actual time into it, thinking you know it all better?

[radiant trout]

But since you deny the definition that all scholars pretty much agree on, that means you did make it up

Because if I look at any credible source for the definition of gender, they will always include more than only 2

Yet you deny that

Meaning you made it up yourself

[wintry zodiac]

All scholars is a huge exaggeration

[radiant trout]

You think so?

Why do you believe that?

[wintry zodiac]

Yes

[radiant trout]

name me a single credible scientist that has studied and works in this field that disagrees

then i'll subtract my statement immediately

[wintry zodiac]

Because all scholars arent just in the US, theres many scholars in different countries and its highly likely that these scholars do not share the same belief as your's do

[radiant trout]

It is highly likely they just don't study the topic yes

[wintry zodiac]

Woah looks like someones a little offended, how come I dont know jack shit about the subject? Is it because I disagree?

[radiant trout]

its because you're 14

you can't know anything about any subject when you're that young

[wintry zodiac]

Maybe thats where you live, however its pretty common around the whole world that they base gender off of sex I believe

[radiant trout]

People spend longer on subjects like this to understand, than you have even been present on this earth

Im not saying its bad you're 14

What is bad is that you seem to think you know it all

whereas in reality you know nothing

Now thats not to offend you

[wintry zodiac]

Thats a huge assumption isnt it, I mean I havent even mentioned my age I only stated that I am still in school 😂, also what does age have anything to do with knowledge on subject when I can probably find many who know more than you

[radiant trout]

The harsh reality is that young people are always over confident on topics they barely know anything about

[radiant trout]

I asked you earlier and you said so yourself

[wintry zodiac]

Basing someones knowledge on a subject off of someones age is interesting

[wintry zodiac]

Nope

Never said I was 14

Which indeed Im not

[radiant trout]

I asked whether you were ''14 or somthing'' and you agreed

so you lied

or it was a miscommunication

either way

[wintry zodiac]

Either it was a miscommunication or I answered because of the "or somthing" which may or may not be accurate

[radiant trout]

SImple math shows us that you have not been alive long enough to actually be able to have a proper grasp of understanding on this topic

Neither do I to be compeltely honest

I never spent enough time on this topic

But thats why i trust the people that do

Instead of making up my own definitions

[wintry zodiac]

Considering Ive had quite a decent conversation with nearly everyone in this discussion, I think otherwise

[radiant trout]

Which only shows how naive you really are

You think we are experts on a topic like this?

[wintry zodiac]

While Im not as educated as someone whos studied 20 years on this subject, that doesnt mean I cant be educated enough on this subject to have a reasonably good conversation

[radiant trout]

Having a discussion like this doesnt mean anything

[radiant trout]

There is a difference between having a good conversation, and believing that you know the facts and truths about a topic

[deft vapor]

you have to justify your interpretations

[wintry zodiac]

No but considering you and many others here are members or supporters of LGBTQ, it would only make sense that you know atleast a decent bit about this, of course I didnt think you were "experts"

[radiant trout]

I have studied chemistry for over 10 years and i still don't know anything about the topic if i compare myself to my peers who have studied it for 40 or 50 years

Its extremely naive to think you know better than experts

[wintry zodiac]

and believing that you know the facts and truths about a topic
I clearly seperate facts and opinions/perspectives and clearly state that the concept of whether theres more than 2 genders is based on the view on the concept of gender

[wintry zodiac]

Justify could also be misleading because its as if its wrong to believe that, more like explain or another word would be better

[wintry zodiac]

Never thought I did

Its pretty naive to assume everything about me

[radiant trout]

So then why are you so adamant about disagreeing with pretty much all experts/

[wintry zodiac]

here it is @radiant trout

Never said I was 14

before this date no one ever said anything about the number 14

[radiant trout]

Oh my bad then

[wintry zodiac]

So i think you got it wrong here

[radiant trout]

Yeah

Agreed

but truthfully whether you are 14 or 18 or 24 doesn't really change what i said

[wintry zodiac]

Why do you think a majority of experts believe there is more than 2 genders

[wintry zodiac]

Yes however I am still educated enough to have a decent conversation, obviously not on the expert level but good enough to have a debate I think (with others who arent experts I assume)

[radiant trout]

Because I partly studied biology and this is something that is taught in like one of the first subjects

the good ol gender vs sex debate

[radiant trout]

i respectfully disagree

[wintry zodiac]

To be fair you do live in America, where everything is switching over to the view that there is more than 2 genders and that gender is a spectrum of things

[radiant trout]

I dont live in america

[wintry zodiac]

My bad, that was an assumption, you do live in netherlands or was that someone else?

[radiant trout]

never set foot in my life there either

[radiant trout]

yes that was me

[wintry zodiac]

Netherlands is lgbtq friendly as well isnt it?

[radiant trout]

Sure

On paper sure

In practice I get intimidated and physically attacked by people on the streets

[clever quest]

TBH, I think we reached the end of this conversation already. It doesn't feel like there is anything left to discuss. Your view is based only on your religion. There is no more evidence than that, and there's no evidence we can investigate with regards to the religion's reasons either because it all comes down to what some guys said their god told them. Anything more is going to start going into whether religions are valid, which is a completely different discussion I think.

[wintry zodiac]

Not sure how long I studied in Kazakhstan for example but they havent really taught me anything about the LGBTQ, infact I didnt even know they existed up until I was like in grade 4 or 5 in canada 😂

[radiant trout]

I learned it in university

[wintry zodiac]

Because of what?

[radiant trout]

Does it matter?

Do you really want me to speak about it to people i don't know?

[wintry zodiac]

My view is based on gender being binary and fixed, based off of sex and not entirely close to religion

[radiant trout]

About traumatizing experiences I have had with people not accepting me?

[wintry zodiac]

No, it was a question of curiosity

[radiant trout]

I am in some way part of the lgbt community, lets keep it there 😉

[wintry zodiac]

However, does it happend to be you are trans/gay?

[radiant trout]

not really want to go into detail

Because i dont think its relevant to the discussion

[clever quest]

At this point the only support for gender being binary and fixed is religion. Nobody who has looked at the facts agrees.

[radiant trout]

Well its not based off science because scientific studies disagree with your stance

So then if its not based of science nor religion, than what do you base it on?

[clever quest]

Anyway, I think I'm done here. I've spent a long time disproving Christianity, and don't feel like going straight into disproving Islam.

[wintry zodiac]

Nope, the view of gender being binary and fixed isnt totally supported by religion, those 2 views are divided and you can believe that genders are based off of sex without being in a religion, its a matter of opinion and how traditional you are. There being more than 2 genders is again, not a fact

[wintry zodiac]

As someone who is muslim, I can safely say you cant disprove Islam and if you do then I will gladly revert. However im 100% sure it cant be disproven

But you dont feel like going there yet so yeah

[clever quest]

Without wishing to be rude, what you wrote there doesn't make sense and it's very difficult to decipher what you meant by it.

[radiant trout]

Do you agree that violence is a proper measure against LGBT people based off your religion?

[wintry zodiac]

Nope

[radiant trout]

And also another question, if you are muslim, why do you claim that religion does not influence your stance?

To me that sounds contradictive

[wintry zodiac]

My bad, to put it simply, I believe Islam cant be disproven and if you do then I will abandon Islam, however you dont feel like going there yet do you?

[wintry zodiac]

It does, but not entirely

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Fh2mvUweiV4 I just stumbled upon this, ironic

[clever quest]

I was referring to the previous message. Not the one about you believing Islam to be true (which I would fully expect you to say), but the one about gender being binary.

[wintry zodiac]

Reply to the message please?

[clever quest]

I did.

[wintry zodiac]

Oh

shit

1 sec

[clever quest]

This one.

[wintry zodiac]

Ye

[radiant trout]

what is ironic about it?

[wintry zodiac]

To put it simply, the view of gender being binary/fixed isnt entirely based off of religion and someone can believe that gender is binary/fixed without being religious. Its based on your intrepretation of gender and doesnt have to be entirely influenced by Religion. There being more than 2 genders is not a fact.

[wintry zodiac]

We are having a discussion on LGBTQ, and I get a short related to LGBTQ

[clever quest]

Basically, you can't make the claim that there are only two genders without offering up some kind of evidence, that goes beyond "Well, a bunch of people think they are". We have actual evidence from scientists who have studied it, that says there is no appreciable difference between the evidential support for two genders you approve of and the evidential support for all the others. If you agree there is evidence for those two, then there is also evidence for more.

Unless you can provide actual evidence, there's nothing more to discuss.

[wintry zodiac]

Your evidence is people identifying as something else than a Man or a Woman is that right?

And their brain activity of them thinking that they are something else than a Man or a Woman?

[clever quest]

No. Our evidence includes genetic, physical and emotional evidence.

There are people who do not fit into the two genetic categories of XX and XY, there are people who do not fit into the two categories of visible reproductive organs, and there are people who do not fit into the two categories of sexual attraction to either heterosexual men or heterosexual women.

There is no measurement of gender by which humans divide neatly into two categories.

[wintry zodiac]

Emotional/physical being brain activity of people thinking they are "Agender", and what do genes have to do with it, elaborate on genes?

[wintry zodiac]

Oh this

[clever quest]

That, among other things, yes.

[wintry zodiac]

I think Ive answered what solutions were brought up to genetic anomalies

[clever quest]

Pick any indicator of gender, and it doesn't divide into two categories.

[clever quest]

Your answer was to force people who didn't fit into those two categories to pretend to fit into them.

I.e. just try and ignore the fact they didn't fit into those two categories.

[wintry zodiac]

1. Choose to identify as 1 of them (Intersex infants are typically assigned a gender at birth based on the most apparent physical characteristics. This assignment often dictates the subsequent medical interventions and the social and legal identity of the individual.) ( Parents and caregivers might be advised to raise the child strictly in the assigned gender, reinforcing traditional gender roles and discouraging behaviors or interests associated with the other gender.)
2. Surgeries to aim the pubic area at 1 of the sex organs
3. Hormonal Treatments
   While there is lack of consent to this, its not like there is consent of any individual to have to be any sex and/or gender (in traditional views atleast) and you being a human or an animal. However you can also change it up a bit to let the individuals (when they grow up) choose what gender they want to be aimed at in their surgeries. To be fair, these intersex individuals exist but their sexual organs are not meant to be this way (meaning that typically speaking most of everyone is either a male or female). They are rare cases and have treatments available.

They physically dont fit into either male or female but can be aimed at one and have surgeries and hormonal treaments

[clever quest]

...all of which can be summarised as "Just change them to make them fit into the categories we want, instead of the categories they want".

Which is trying to impose your personal view on the rest of the world.

For purely religious reasons.

[wintry zodiac]

I added in the part at the end which is "However you can also change it up a bit to let the individuals (when they grow up) choose what gender they want to be aimed at in their surgeries." Which does give them pretty much all the freedom except the freedom of expressing themselves as Agender or anything like that

[wintry zodiac]

Doesnt have to be

[clever quest]

They have the freedom to choose between the options you'll allow them. That's not freedom.

[clever quest]

But it is.

[wintry zodiac]

You do too to be fair

[clever quest]

No I don't. Don't be silly.

[wintry zodiac]

Except the options of genders/sex that physically speaking dont exist, while intersex people exist that doesnt actually mean any of the other genders exist because these genders dont have set sexual reproductive organs for them or anything do they>

[clever quest]

You don't have to identify as a different gender than the one you prefer to be.

[wintry zodiac]

No, it can be based off of cultural views or personal opinion

[wintry zodiac]

Trying to impose the opinion that being gay is ok onto everyone even those who may be apart of that religion doesnt count?

[clever quest]

Both of which are based on religious views when they go against LGBTQ+.

[clever quest]

You can have whatever opinion you want. Nobody's forcing you to share our opinion on it. Our actions don't affect you.

[wintry zodiac]

Cultural views dont have to be based off of religious views, and if someone is neither religious or cultural and they have this view then is their opinion considered to be also based off of religious views too? This doesnt make sense does it?

[clever quest]

In theory they don't have to be based on religions to oppose LGBTQ+. But in practice, they all are.

Because there isn't any other reason to oppose LGBTQ+

[wintry zodiac]

So teaching in schools to everyone that being gay is ok and is fine (including trans ideologies) and etc doesnt impose the personal views? Because if this doesnt then mine doesnt either

[clever quest]

And yes, plenty of people who claim their views are not based on religions actually do base their views on religions. Religions have a very subtle influence sometimes.

[wintry zodiac]

In practive "all" is an exaggeration despite a majority being based off of religious views, however cultural views dont have to be based off of religions either

[clever quest]

You're free to go live somewhere else.

[wintry zodiac]

Maybe they simply believe that there is 2 genders and think its weird to be gay?

[wintry zodiac]

Or you are a free to go live somewhere else instead, we can have our fun time enjoying simplicity

[clever quest]

If they do believe that, then their beliefs are not based on reality, but on religions. There is no part of reality that suggests there are 2 genders or that it's weird to be gay.

[clever quest]

We're the majority, and the people who agree with you are gradually agreeing more and more with us. I'm sorry, but you're losing this battle.

[wintry zodiac]

There is no parts of reality that suggests there are more than 2 genders, and parts of reality do suggest that being gay is not really how its supposed to be. Because a male is not biologically speaking supposed to have sex with another male because their organs are not meant for that so like..

[clever quest]

The key phrase there is "supposed to be". There is no "supposed to be" without religion.

[wintry zodiac]

Not sure about the majority, and what kind of battle are we really losing? The reason the people who agree with me gradually are starting to agree with you is because you impose your personal views upon us hence why im totally against LGBTQ at the moment

[clever quest]

Explain to me, please, the purpose of the male nipple.

[wintry zodiac]

Im confused, explain what you mean by this statement

[wintry zodiac]

There is none, its simply made during the early embryonic development where nipples are made before the sex is determined

[clever quest]

You are arguing that there is a law or rule in place that governs the "official" way things should be. That's what the word "should" or the phrase "supposed to" means.

[clever quest]

So you agree that not everything that exists does so for a biological reproductive purpose.

Men are not supposed to have sex with other men? Says who?

[wintry zodiac]

The statement I made previous had nothing to do with religion, biologically speaking a male is not supposed to be having sex with another male because their organs are not meant for it so I dont know why there is no "supposed to be" without religion that makes no sense. Not necessarily arguing there is a law or rule

[wintry zodiac]

biological organs

[clever quest]

On what basis is anyone "supposed to" do anything?

[clever quest]

No they don't. Men can have sex just fine with each other.

[wintry zodiac]

A penis is made for biological reproductive purpose isnt it? It can give pleasure but it is literally made for reproducing with a female partner

[clever quest]

Says WHO?

Who is to say what the correct purpose is?

[wintry zodiac]

What other explanation could there be?

[clever quest]

Only a religion tries to make that claim.

[wintry zodiac]

Nope

[clever quest]

There doesn't have to be an explanation. See the male nipple.

Some things just happen without a clear purpose.

[wintry zodiac]

I dont even view this from a religious perspective, It makes no sense for a penis to exist otherwise because theres other effiecent ways to have pleasure

Its the same thing as saying "Says WHO?" for why what we are doing right now is typing

[wintry zodiac]

So a Penis is made without a clear purpose?

[clever quest]

No it's not.

[wintry zodiac]

Yes it is

[clever quest]

I didn't say that.

I said the male nipple doesn't have a clear purpose.

[wintry zodiac]

Then what are you trying to say, whats the point of bringing up a male nipple then?

[wintry zodiac]

Better response, says ME 😂

[clever quest]

The point is to try and help you understand that just because something doesn't have an obvious reproductive purpose, doesn't mean it's not natural.

You're literally arguing against nature.

[wintry zodiac]

A little confused here, Elaborate what you mean

[clever quest]

You're saying nature is wrong. You're saying things that nature produces are not the way you want them to be, and you're claiming that you are a greater authority on what is right for nature than nature itself.

You view one of nature's uses for a penis as acceptable, but not some of the others. Your only reason for differentiating between the uses is a religious one, because that one fits your religious view of what is right and proper.

[wintry zodiac]

How am I saying nature is wrong

Nature's intended purpose of a penis is to have sexual reproduction, the penis is made to be inserted into a Vagina and ejaculate (this sounds so fucking weird holy shit 😂), has nothing to do with religion

[clever quest]

How do you know what nature's intended purpose is?

Your answer is solely based on religious views.

[wintry zodiac]

Assuming a Penis perfectly fits into a Vagine and releases sperm which contact the egg and make a baby pretty much, unless this isnt the intended purpose then i dont really know what is

It doesnt have anything to do with religious views, this is based on what I can see happening

[clever quest]

Quite right. You don't know what the intended purpose is. Because there is no intended purpose. There is no intent.

Nature is just what is.

There's no intelligence planning it out, no design that any fictional supernatural being is trying to make reality fit into.

...unless you think there is a religion.

You can't make any claims about an intended purpose without bringing religion into it.

and you can't claim there is a wrong way to do anything without referring to some higher purpose.

[wintry zodiac]

So a penis ejaculating sperm so an egg can later become a child and pretty much fits each other and theres 2 sexes isnt the intended purpose of the penis?

You are saying thats just a coincidence 😂?

[clever quest]

Those aren't the only two options.

If you sit down on some sand and make an imprint of your ass, is that the intended purpose of your ass?

I mean, the imprint perfectly matches your ass. So by your logic, that's the clear purpose of your ass.

It's just cause and effect. We don't need to posit the existence of a purpose behind it.

[wintry zodiac]

No but you are trying to say that a penis being made for reproductive purposes for a female vagine/egg and whatever is just a coincidence and isnt the intended purpose, the imprint shit is different because thats the person adjusting the environment and not necessarily the nature'

[clever quest]

I'm not so much saying that it isn't the intended purpose, as saying that the whole idea of there being any intended purpose is nonsense without religion.

[wintry zodiac]

Meanwhile the "ass" has many different purposes that we can distinct from just coincidences

[wintry zodiac]

No, you said "there is not intent"

[clever quest]

...without bringing religion into it.

So obviously yes, for me, since I don't bring religion into it, there is no intent involved.

[wintry zodiac]

So the penis and vagina and all this is purely coincidence and not natures way of trying to keep humanity alive?

Anyway I gotta get to sleep now im gonna respond later

[clever quest]

The shapes of the various reproductive organs are the way they are simply because the shapes that were less effective died out. It's all random chance, and what remains after a while are the things that beat the other formations to the resources needed to reproduce.

Nature doesn't try to do things. It just does things, lots of things, and some of it sticks around if it's better at sticking around.

Sometimes some people like to play games and anthropomorphise nature, but that's just people having fun. Nature isn't trying to keep humanity alive. We're not even trying to keep humanity alive. We're just living. If it continues, great for us. If not, then we die. There's no purpose, it's just things existing.

It's not a coincidence, because it happened lots of other ways as well. We're just seeing the versions that happen to last longer.

[ebon perch]

is about having sexual relations outside of your married partner.
What about this verse though? "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"

[ebon perch]

Ehm.. well that's just difference in culture then.
Yea I guess if you can get your society as a whole to want to work together for the betterment of the next generation then that could work, here we just don't have that mentality in a lot of people. Almost everyone here is individualistic (except small towns, but even then there is the occasional person)

[ebon perch]

Or do you believe that it has only one specific ''true'' interpretation and all others are wrong
Well yes, people CAN interpert a passage to have many meanings, but if I'm writting a letter to you telling you how I believe you should conduct yourself, unless I don't like trying to properly help you, I will have 1 "true" intention of what I'm saying.

I mean, some interpretations I think are within the realm of possible meanings, while others seem to be just so far outside of it, that it doesn't make sense how it was even interpreted that way.

[terse zodiac]

this isnt philosophical its just rude af 💀

[deft vapor]

Right?

This discussion shouldn’t be in philosophy it should be in “bigoted uneducated perspectives”

[ebon perch]

Yea, I'm sure Stalin and Hitler would agree with you

It seems like Cury and General Bains are the only ones here who understand how to actually have an actual conversation with people (At least from the people I've talked to recently)

[ebon perch]

Can something that is rude not also be philosophical?

I mean to be fair, "rude" is a subjective term.

[terse zodiac]

https://tenor.com/view/patrick-stupid-drooling-patrick-star-spongebob-gif-12221001666588210206

[ebon perch]

About what I expected, had hopes the new person in the philosophy channel actually cared about philosophy

Or at least not being hyopcritical

But then again, the only person who shares their similar beliefs who isn't hypocritical is Cury.

[rigid pumice]

No one can fully disprove any religion.

Take Mormonism for example. Probably the most ludicrous of any Christian denomination. It was started by a convicted fraud and has one of the most convoluted origin stories ever. But can I actually 100% prove that Joseph Smith did not receive special messages from an angel that led him to golden plates that told of Jesus' second coming in America...no.

What we can do is show that there is no evidence that angels exist. No evidence of the golden plates. No other evidence Jesus ever came to America. Evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud. And in general no good evidence of anything supernatural. So it's a pretty safe conclusion that Mormonism has an extremely low probability of being even somewhat accurate.

The same exercise can be done for every religion, including Islam.

And as long as you are intellectually honest, and don't come at any evaluation with the assumption that your chosen religion is true before looking at the evidence, you are unlikely to find the level of support required for justified belief.

[rigid pumice]

Right, because religion is personal and not to be pushed on others by the state. Whereas treating people with dignity and respect regardless of their sexual orientation is a reasonable message in a public school.

Imagine we just allowed kids to harass their gay classmates because it's a religious belief of theirs? That would be a race to the bottom for sure. If I was at a school that allowed that it would suddenly become my deeply held religious conviction that I must beat the shit out of anyone with religious beliefs that enable such behavior. And so and so forth until everyone is at war.

And to be clear I'm not condoning violence just pointing out that if you allow people to use personal religious beliefs as a method of enabling discriminating in a public setting then it will not end well.

[wintry zodiac]

Lol, simply because you dont agree with us huh?

[wintry zodiac]

So its random that the penis is meant for reproduction and isnt its actual intended purpose? 😂

Nature I meant as like nature that tries to keep every single animal alive because it kind of plays against every and for everyone at the same time

[clever quest]

I was paraphrasing really, with my comment about disproving religions. Of course we can't prove there isn't a supernatural being who has no effect on anything. But what we can do is remove the idea that there is evidential support for religion, disproving their supposedly reasoned arguments.

[wintry zodiac]

Disprove maybe not, but finding Contradictions often works as "Disproving" a religion. Also you cannot show evidence for anything in Islam, for example you cant show evidence that Muhammad pbuh did not recieve messages from the angels. You can try and say that he was psychotic or something but he didnt show any other symptoms of being psychotic either, however this is off topic so a new philosophy discussion would be needed. The best part is that even if you tried disproving Islam I wouldnt even be offended unlike people like @deft vapor who simply label me as uneducated bigot simply because I dont agree theres more than 2 genders

[clever quest]

That question is still assuming that there is an intended purpose, that anything is "meant for" anything. So the question itself doesn't make sense.

[wintry zodiac]

The question is assuming that you still think everything is by chance and that the male reproductive organs being perfectly matched to the female reproductive organs isnt "meant to be" or "supposed to be" but just a coincidence that somehow those 2 work together

[clever quest]

Although it might feel like nature is operating on this lines, the reality it that things are just following a few simple patterns. There's no coordination, we just only see the bits that make it look like there is.

[rigid pumice]

The uses of reproductive organs has nothing to do with whether being LGBTQ is wrong.

Do you get equally upset when an elderly couple or infertile couple has sex, because there is no reproductive potential?

[clever quest]

I already explained this. It's not a coincidence that something that depends on the other thing would fit it well.

If you wrap a present in wrapping paper, it's not a coincidence that the wrapping paper takes the shape of the present.

[wintry zodiac]

Theres lots of coordination in human biology, such as the NSC, ESC, CRC, MSC, DEC and other coordination systems, this also includes the Reproductive System. Coordination between hormones, the nervous system, and reproductive organs ensures successful reproduction and development. If this isnt coordination in biological nature then idk what is

[clever quest]

The point is that all the versions with different combinations didn't work as well, so they didn't stick around. We're looking at the end of a marathon and only seeing the person who won it, and not the millions of others who couldn't finish the course.

[wintry zodiac]

That is different from the point I was making, a Male penis is either designed (by nature/biology) to be meant for a Female for either reproductive and possibly pleasure purposes, if it was somehow meant for a male to have pleasure in some way or another then I would perfectly agree that being gay is fine and meant to be but really it isnt how biology designed itself

[wintry zodiac]

Exactly, and the best combination that we are looking at right now is that the male reproductive organs are not meant for another male reproductive organs

[clever quest]

"Oh look, we only see stuff that works really well" "Yes, because you're only looking at the results where stuff works really well. You're ignoring all the stuff that didn't work well"

[clever quest]

Your message simply doesn't make sense.

I can't do anything with a comment like that.

[wintry zodiac]

It does

[rigid pumice]

To your point, sex organs can be aroused/pleasured by many stimuli both external and within the mind. If the only way for a penis to be activated was by way of vaginal nerves and vice versa what you are saying would be more accurate, but that is not the case.

[wintry zodiac]

It can be aroused by many things but its meant to be activated by a vagina

[clever quest]

No it doesn't. "The best combination of reproductive organ shapes is that the male reproductive organs are not meant for another male reproductive organ." That's not a valid sentence.

[wintry zodiac]

Why not

[clever quest]

Because it doesn't make sense.

You're using words incorrectly.

[wintry zodiac]

To put it simply, the best scenario that biology has achieved is the male organ being meant for the female organs and not for another males organs

[clever quest]

Ok, and for the record that message still misuses the word "scenario".

But I think now I can work out what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that the best theory in biology is that the male reproductive organ is meant for the female reproductive organ.

Best according to who? By what measurement is that the best theory? What does "meant for" even mean in that theory?

[wintry zodiac]

As far as I am concerned, According to no one (assuming religion is unrelated), no one but biology used I think its called natural selection. I am only playing along with your theory of "The point is that all the versions with different combinations didn't work as well, so they didn't stick around. We're looking at the end of a marathon and only seeing the person who won it, and not the millions of others who couldn't finish the course." Which is natural selection. "Meant for" means that according to biology and the way that we as humans have survived so far is by Males being with Females and not Males with Males, males and males cannot reproduce and biology isnt designed for a male to be with a male sexually (designed isnt the best word to describe this).

[rigid pumice]

Again, that's not a reason to say something is wrong. Not being able to reproduce via a thing doesn't make it wrong.

If your point is that males and females reproduce together I don't think you will find much resistance on that.

But trying to use that fact as a reason that everyone should be forced to do that does not follow.

Some people are asexual and find no enjoyment in any sex, should we force them into relationships they don't want in order to reproduce.

Maybe you could make that argument if we were down to a few hundred humans after cataclysmic events and we needed to repopulate society. Otherwise I'm not a fan of any type of forced reproduction.

[wintry zodiac]

I didnt necessarily said it was wrong (I assume you're talking about morals)

I said it wasnt meant to be

Biologically speaking

[wintry zodiac]

If your point is that males and females reproduce together I don't think you will find much resistance on that.
My point being that males and males having sex is technically not whats supposed to be happening here, biologically speaking however Arklar tried to prove me otherwise

[rigid pumice]

Your whole premise is that LGBTQ is BS. Which I assume means you think it is for some reason wrong for people to be/do.

If this is an argument for that position then it's not very supportive of it.

[wintry zodiac]

But trying to use that fact as a reason that everyone should be forced to do that does not follow.
What do you mean by forced? No one is forcing you to have sex with anyone, its simply me trying to prove a point that male having sex with another male is not meant to be

[rigid pumice]

Who cares what biologically should be? I shouldn't be able to see more than 5 feet in front of me based on the natural progression of my eyesight. But as humans we constantly find ways to defy nature in order to lead more fulfilling lives.

[wintry zodiac]

Some people are asexual and find no enjoyment in any sex, should we force them into relationships they don't want in order to reproduce.
Nope if they dont want to have sex or be in a relation ship thats up to them, I dont think I gave indication that we should force them

[wintry zodiac]

My opinion on LGBTQ entirely is that its BS, doesnt have to be morally wrong but the main problem I have with many is that they are hypocrites trying to enforce beliefs while doing it themselves. I could honestly care less who you are having sex with my point was that males are not meant for males, I also could care less what you identify as and I want to keep it simple. I care whether your teaching your morals and ethics to my children or to me when I dont want them/myself to learn that because of various of beliefs.

[wintry zodiac]

You should be able to see quite a bit, not just 5 feet infront of you, otherwise you may have a genetic anomaly or some kind of issue like that where you have bad eyesight. Humans adapted pretty good eyesight and nature didnt necessarily intend for you to have bad eyesight

[rigid pumice]

If your beliefs are so weak that you can't learn new information without having them shaken then they likely didn't have a strong foundation to begin with.

[wintry zodiac]

What do you mean I cant learn new information?

[rigid pumice]

The point is that I have bad eyesight. Many people do. Before glasses were invented I would be considered blind and nonfunctional in society. To intervene with artificial support is to go against God/nature as they deemed I should not have fully functional eyes. And I say I will happily go against them in favor of being able to see properly.

[wintry zodiac]

Nope, having artificial support to help your eyesight does not go against God or nature in my view and in the view of Abrahamic religion

[rigid pumice]

You just said and have said you don't want you or your children being taught that LGBTQ people exist or that those behaviors exists because then they might do them simply based on learning it exists.

[wintry zodiac]

My children would be taught about me that LGBTQ people exist, however my opinion on them would differ compared to yours. My opinion is that you shouldnt be like them at all and that they are bad people (obviously to prevent them from becoming an LGBTQ member). The ability to differ opinion on a group of people isnt me being weak to learning new information

[rigid pumice]

If you are afraid that hearing an opposing viewpoint would make them question your viewpoint, then clearly the basis of your viewpoint is not strong or you'd have no concern of them being swayed.

[wintry zodiac]

You keep lying that I wont teach my kids that LGBTQ people exist 😂

[rigid pumice]

But you would only want them learning your perspective right?

That is the hallmark of a weak opinion

[wintry zodiac]

Its not about being afraid to hear an opposing viewpoint, its that normalising it will influence my kids to potentially become a member. The problem is you cannot teach your religious beliefs and overlap them with LGBTQ views without contradicting each other, I can teach them myself that these people exist and that they think its ok but I will teach them otherwise that its not ok

[rigid pumice]

I'm an atheist, but I encourage my son to explore any and all religions as he pleases and come to his own opinion on the subject, and answer any questions he has along the way.

[wintry zodiac]

LGBTQ is trying to ignore religious/cultural beliefs and impose their belief that its ok to be gay or trans which is the problem

They ignore the fact that in some viewpoints its not ok to be gay or trans

[rigid pumice]

It's not a problem because it is okay. We don't need to take your religious beliefs into account when making rules for all of society.

If in your little world you decide its not okay I'm sorry for you and the people around you but go ahead. No one is forcing you to do otherwise.

Do you think that society should not have given rights to women because by many religious cultures they are the property of their fathers/husbands? Actually you probably do come to think of it.

[wintry zodiac]

It's not a problem because it is okay. We don't need to take your religious beliefs into account when making rules for all of society.
Exactly we dont, and we dont need to take your LGBTQ beliefs into account when making rules for all of society otherwise you are being a hypocrite

[wintry zodiac]

If in your little world you decide its not okay I'm sorry for you and the people around you but go ahead. No one is forcing you to do otherwise.
The problem is you are forcing us to do it otherwise, sorry if I interrupted your little world of believing theres 60 genders and that you can be a cat but no one is forcing you to believe our religious beliefs, we simply ask for you to not impose your beliefs onto ours.

[rigid pumice]

Well the rules in this case are a matter of rights. We move towards equal rights irrespective of things like religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender, age. So idk what you mean.

If you mean we can't stop you from committing otherwise illegal acts towards people based on these factors we absolutely can and should.

[wintry zodiac]

Do you think that society should not have given rights to women because by many religious cultures they are the property of their fathers/husbands? Actually you probably do come to think of it.
Religion should be kept away from actual societal laws and/or structure, so should LGBTQ thats the point im trying to make. Also fun fact, women are different from Men and dont need the same rights as men because they are different. They need different rights because they are different, example being a womens bathroom or different sport categories

[wintry zodiac]

Well the rules in this case are a matter of rights. We move towards equal rights irrespective of things like religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender, age. So idk what you mean.

If you mean we can't stop you from committing otherwise illegal acts towards people based on these factors we absolutely can and should.
No one said we should harass LGBTQ people either physically or mentally, you keep misintrepreting my words and labeling them as though we should harass anyone whos a member of LGBTQ. Its not a matter of rights when you impose your beliefs onto ours and think its not fine if we do it as well, thats called being a hypocrite

Im not saying we should impose our beliefs onto yours, im saying you shouldnt impose your beliefs onto ours its as simple as that, I dont understand whats so hard to acknowledge that you cant impose your beliefs onto ours

[deft vapor]

@wintry zodiac fundamentally there’s nothing we can do to change your belief, and you are perfectly entitled to those beliefs as long as that doesn’t affect your treatment of anyone else, which I think is the core issue we’re getting at

You can believe it’s BS but simultaneously respect and not discriminate against them, that’s possible

But if you choose to act on your beliefs then you do become an ignorant piece of shit

[wintry zodiac]

You are imposing your belief into the next generations, by teaching it in school

[wintry zodiac]

There are certain aspects I dont have to respect because of my religion, such as using your pronouns

[wintry zodiac]

So because I dont play along with your pronouns im an ignorant piece of shit, nice

thanks for indulging me

[rigid pumice]

What am I imposing on you? It is impossible for anyone to change someone else's belief by force.

My position is very simple. Everyone should have the maximum amount of personal freedom so long as it does not infringe on another person's freedom.

In the case of this discussion. Teaching that being LGBTQ is something that many people naturally gravitate towards and there is nothing inherently bad about it is not infringing on anyone's rights. No one is saying you must be gay or trans. How is your freedom being impacted in any way by this? You have not explained that at all.

This is the same reason I take issue with Islam on its treatment of women. You actively take away individual rights based on your religions view, and that's not okay.

Now if people choose to adhere to the tenets of your religion without coercion that's fine.

[wintry zodiac]

What am I imposing on you? It is impossible for anyone to change someone else's belief by force.

My position is very simple. Everyone should have the maximum amount of personal freedom so long as it does not infringe on another person's freedom.
By teaching your belief in schools.

In the case of this discussion. Teaching that being LGBTQ is something that many people naturally gravitate towards and there is nothing inherently bad about it is not infringing on anyone's rights. No one is saying you must be gay or trans. How is your freedom being impacted in any way by this? You have not explained that at all.
It does infringe with peoples beliefs and rights to not ask it to be taught ( a lot of people ask for it not to be taught)

This is the same reason I take issue with Islam on its treatment of women. You actively take away individual rights based on your religions view, and that's not okay.

Now if people choose to adhere to the tenets of your religion without coercion that's fine.
How do we take individual rights based on religious views? I mean obviously islam countries use the Sharia law but I dont intend to do that, even then Islam recognizes that women and men are different and need different rights because we arent the same. We dont take away peoples rights we give different rights based on who they are

[rigid pumice]

Males and females are different. That does not mean that one should own the other.

I certainly see how a belief like that would be very popular among males though. Why work on being a decent person if you can just purchase a slave for life.

There is no modern basis for "different" rights. I understand that in the past women were more valuable to keep the species going. Many died in childbirth and so it wasn't feasible to let them do dangerous jobs or fight in wars. That is not the case anymore. Humans are not on the verge of extinction.

And they should have the same freedom to make personal choices as men.

[wintry zodiac]

Males and females are different. That does not mean that one should own the other.

I certainly see how a belief like that would be very popular among males though. Why work on being a decent person if you can just purchase a slave for life.

There is no modern basis for "different" rights. I understand that in the past women were more valuable to keep the species going. Many died in childbirth and so it wasn't feasible to let them do dangerous jobs or fight in wars. That is not the case anymore. Humans are not on the verge of extinction.

This is a huge misconception. Islam does not imply that men own women when they are married. The relationship between a husband and wife in Islam is based on mutual respect, kindness, and rights and responsibilities that are outlined in Islamic teachings.

[rigid pumice]

Teaching is not imposing. It is providing information. What people do with that information is up to them.

Religions have been consistently dragged kicking and screaming into modern morality, only to then pretend that's actually what their God believed all along.

Islam has some particularly defiant sects in this regard, so does Christianity, but your average Christian and Muslim will not adhere to the more barbaric requirements in the Bible and Quran.

[rigid pumice]

Is the woman not allowed to leave the house without her husband's permission? Is she not allowed to request divorce without providing proof of abuse, whereas the man can request a divorce at will?

That is a slave, however you might want to pretend it is not.

Is she not allowed to refuse sex?

[wintry zodiac]

Teaching is not imposing. It is providing information. What people do with that information is up to them.

Religions have been consistently dragged kicking and screaming into modern morality, only to then pretend that's actually what their God believed all along.

Islam has some particularly defiant sects in this regard, so does Christianity, but your average Christian and Muslim will not adhere to the more barbaric requirements in the Bible and Quran.

The statement "Teaching is not imposing. It is providing information. What people do with that information is up to them." simplifies the complex dynamics of teaching, learning, and belief systems, particularly in the context of religion. Influence of Authority needs to be considered

[rigid pumice]

I watch Muslim Skeptic regularly. I am well versed in the beliefs of the most radical Muslims. However, if you'd like to say you dont agree with these that would be fine.

[rigid pumice]

I find it interesting that you want to consider the influence of authority and its affect on impressionable minds, but don't take any issue with parents using that same position of authority to mold children to their will.

[wintry zodiac]

Is the woman not allowed to leave the house without her husband's permission? Is she not allowed to request divorce without providing proof of abuse, whereas the man can request a divorce at will?

The notion that a woman is not allowed to leave the house without her husband's permission and cannot request a divorce without providing proof of abuse, while a man can request a divorce at will, reflects traditional interpretations of Islamic law that many argue are outdated and not universally applied. In many contemporary Muslim communities and legal systems, these interpretations are being re-evaluated to align with principles of gender equality and justice. Modern scholars and reformists emphasize mutual respect, consent, and the rights of women to autonomy and fair treatment in marriage, arguing that these principles are in line with the core teachings of Islam. Thus, the strict traditional views are increasingly seen as cultural practices rather than religious imperatives, with growing advocacy for more equitable interpretations that support women's rights.

That is a slave, however you might want to pretend it is not.
Is she not allowed to refuse sex?

The assertion that traditional interpretations of a woman's role in marriage equate to slavery and deny her the right to refuse sex misrepresents Islamic teachings and fails to consider the emphasis on mutual respect and consent in marital relations. Islam advocates for mutual satisfaction and kindness between spouses, with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stating that the best among men are those who treat their wives well. The notion that a woman cannot refuse sex is a misinterpretation, as consent is fundamental to marital intimacy. While some cultural practices may impose restrictions on women's autonomy, these are not rooted in Islamic principles but rather in patriarchal traditions.

[wintry zodiac]

Modern interpretations and legal reforms in many Muslim communities emphasize gender equality, mutual respect, and the protection of women's rights, including their right to refuse sex and seek divorce. Thus, Islam, when understood and practiced in its true spirit, supports the fair and respectful treatment of women, ensuring their rights and autonomy within marriage.

[rigid pumice]

That is the modern liberal Muslim position which was forced upon them the same way you are saying LGBTQ is being forced upon them.

To say that the interpretations of Islam in the past were inaccurate is actually a big problem for the religion. They are just making changes and new interpretations to placate modern sensibilities.

[wintry zodiac]

I watch Muslim Skeptic regularly. I am well versed in the beliefs of the most radical Muslims. However, if you'd like to say you dont agree with these that would be fine.
I think theres some cultural influence involved, obviously he isnt the embodiement of what we believe in. There have been many mordenezations however the point still stands.

I find it interesting that you want to consider the influence of authority and its affect on impressionable minds, but don't take any issue with parents using that same position of authority to mold children to their will.

You need to distinguish between different forms of authority and their impacts on impressionable minds. Parental guidance is typically driven by a genuine interest in a child's well-being, development, and moral grounding, aiming to equip them with the tools to make informed decisions. In contrast, authority figures in other contexts, such as religious or political institutions, may impose beliefs and behaviors that serve specific agendas, potentially limiting critical thinking and personal autonomy. The key issue is not authority per se, but how it is exercised, whether it fosters independent thought and ethical development or enforces conformity and obedience without room for questioning.

[wintry zodiac]

That is the modern liberal Muslim position which was forced upon them the same way you are saying LGBTQ is being forced upon them.

Nope

[wintry zodiac]

To say that the interpretations of Islam in the past were inaccurate is actually a big problem for the religion. They are just making changes and new interpretations to placate modern sensibilities.
Nope

[wintry zodiac]

(Opinion) You're not important enough to provide me with an instruction manual on how to talk to you. You can have any self perception you like, but you cannot expect me to take part in that self perception. The language we use matters, and so is being specific. There are millions of millions (if not billions) of people in America, Western europe who agree with me and refuse to partake. And thats not just those 2, I can go into asia africa and south america. I find this image percticularly funny.

[deft vapor]

my religion tells me if i ever meet you irl i'd have to throw hands

yeah i should've gussed you were religious

[wintry zodiac]

Dont know how that works but sure

Its not just religion btw

many non-religious people dont want to play along

[deft vapor]

i don't think skitles knows what she's talking about

[wintry zodiac]

😂Im sure I do

[wintry zodiac]

A few interesting problems I've seen people bring up as well:

**-Apperantely smearing the road thats covered in a rainbow is a hate crime (or atleast they want it to be or already viewed as) but burning the American flag (In the US) and tearing down monuments is a form of expression.

-Veterans get a day but LGBTQ get a month

-LGBTQ celebrations cost a fortune while theres millions starving (or struggling heavily) in the US itself (the tax money is used for celebrating LGBTQ btw)

-Wal-Mart paint on a public street is potentially slippery safety hazard. (The ones used for painting LGBTQ colors on the road.)

-There is a concern that anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ+ individuals infringe on the religious freedoms of those who oppose LGBTQ+ lifestyles on religious grounds. For example, business owners may face legal challenges if they refuse services for same-sex weddings.

-Sports and fairness for women, as transgender women being allowed is unfair because of biological advantages.

-Some argue that expanding LGBTQ+ rights can create complex legal scenarios, such as navigating parental rights in cases of same-sex divorces or ensuring fair treatment in child custody battles.

-There are concerns about the appropriateness of discussing LGBTQ+ topics with very young children in schools. Some parents feel that discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity should be introduced at an older age.

-Concerns are raised about the long-term effects of hormone treatments and gender-affirming surgeries, particularly for minors. Questions about the reversibility, mental health implications, and the adequacy of informed consent processes are common.

-The long-term physical and psychological effects of hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgeries are still being studied. Some argue for more comprehensive research before these treatments are widely endorsed, especially for minors.
**
The list goes on and on

[clever quest]

And again, I direct you to consider the male nipple. Not everything that exists in our world is there because it's good at reproduction. Some other stuff comes along for the ride as well. Nature isn't solely about reproduction.

The atheist view of nature is that nature is simply what happens. Nature is not a conscious driving force, or anything that has a purpose or meaning. It's actually quite a misleading label at times, because it often gets used to differentiate between man-made actions and actions from everything else, when in fact humans operate by the same rules as everything else. So really, everything humans do is natural as well.

It's impossible to say that something is or is not "meant to be", because there is no purpose, and no meaning behind any of it. "Meant to be," "Supposed to be," these phrases have no meaning without religion. It is unfortunately confusing sometimes when people talk about nature, because they do it still with a lot of religious assumptions. But if you remove the religion out of it, then there simply isn't a right or wrong with nature. There is simpy what is.

[wintry zodiac]

To add on to this, many Gay or lesbian individuals are also against the LGBTQ which is interesting, I wonder if you could answer why?

[clever quest]

Religious reasons.

[wintry zodiac]

Nope ive seen many who arent religious

they dont have to be

[clever quest]

OK, show me an example.

[wintry zodiac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjKjCqfMrHE use this for an example, she has nothing that relates to religion

[wintry zodiac]

And again, I direct you to consider the male nipple. Not everything that exists in our world is there because it's good at reproduction. Some other stuff comes along for the ride as well. Nature isn't solely about reproduction.
This is missing my point and nipples are generally made before the sex is determined, unlike the penis

[clever quest]

I think that image is actually incredibly rude and insulting, for equating people who do not follow the two-gender religious view with nazis. I suggest you don't go spreading that image anywhere you want people to respect you.

[clever quest]

That's irrelevant, and I think you're missing my point.

[clever quest]

If you're saying that some LGBTQ+ people don't agree with all of the actions taken by individuals claims to act on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community, then I can agree with you. But that's not them being against LGBTQ+, just against the behaviour of some individuals.

You need to make the distinction between LGBTQ+, and the visible LGBTQ+ community.

[wintry zodiac]

The atheist view of nature is that nature is simply what happens. Nature is not a conscious driving force, or anything that has a purpose or meaning. It's actually quite a misleading label at times, because it often gets used to differentiate between man-made actions and actions from everything else, when in fact humans operate by the same rules as everything else. So really, everything humans do is natural as well.

It's impossible to say that something is or is not "meant to be", because there is no purpose, and no meaning behind any of it. "Meant to be," "Supposed to be," these phrases have no meaning without religion. It is unfortunately confusing sometimes when people talk about nature, because they do it still with a lot of religious assumptions. But if you remove the religion out of it, then there simply isn't a right or wrong with nature. There is simpy what is.
(From an athiest point of view) While Nature is not conscious, Nature is made up of natural selection, evolution, biological processes and adaptations meant for enhancing the survivability and reproductiveness of the species. So while nature is not a conscious mind, some of its creations can still be viewed as "Meant to be" as they are meant to be for a specific purpose to enhance survivability and/or reproductiveness

[wintry zodiac]

Yes the image is rude, I can pull up this one which also makes no sense in my perspective.

"Demiagender: with demigirl"

"Bigender: third gender and demi-boy"

[clever quest]

Nature is made up of natural selection, evolution, biological processes and adaptations meant for enhancing the survivability and reproductiveness of the species.
No, not "meant for".

Viewing nature as "meant to be" is inaccurate. It can be helpful in understanding some aspects of nature, but it's inaccurate on the point we're discussing here.

Where it is useful, it's only useful for people that only understand things in terms of purposes.

[wintry zodiac]

It is relevant because the male nipple argument doesnt work against the idea that the penis is meant to be for sexual reproduction

[clever quest]

But I'm not using it to argue against that idea.

[wintry zodiac]

Yes but some is an understatement, its crazy how you underestimate or overestimate things to your liking. Its more like most of the individuals who act this way

[clever quest]

It's not most LGBTQ+ individuals. It's a small number of highly vocal individuals, who you happen to see a lot.

[wintry zodiac]

How come its inaccurate, the point is that from an athiest pov, natural selection evolution and other things are meant for enhancing the survivability and/or reproductiveness of the species. I dont understand whats so hard about this lol

[wintry zodiac]

Then why bring it up?

[clever quest]

Because the media make those individuals more visible than people who don't do sensationalist stuff that will generate online clicks.

[clever quest]

I'm using it to argue that not everything in nature, not everything that exists, has reproduction as a purpose.

[wintry zodiac]

Supporters and members both count I assume, and you as an individual i've noticed supports these actions and movements, and underestimates/overestimates or exaggerates things to your liking

[clever quest]

If you're going to make an accusation of bias like that, firstly, well just don't, because it doesn't help a conversation. Secondly, you need to bring facts to back up what you think is the correct balance.

[wintry zodiac]

The nipple in general has a reproduction purpose, the problem is that nature hasnt figured out that its supposed to be made after the sex is determined, maybe later in the evolution aspect it will be changed but the nipple has a reproductive purpose and it just so happens to be that its made before the sex is determined because biology/nature isnt perfect yet otherwise there would be no genetic anomalies

[clever quest]

What part of " "meant for" is a phrase that has no meaning without religion" do you not understand?

[wintry zodiac]

the statement "meant for" has meaning without religion, <- what part of this do you not understand

[clever quest]

I've explained why it has no meaning. You can't just state that it does have a meaning and expect me to agree. In your view, how does it have a meaning?

[wintry zodiac]

Another interesting image, and these kinds of things are very common in LGBTQ pride events

[wintry zodiac]

It has meaning because of natural selection, evolution, biological processes and adaptations which are the aspects of nature that are only there to inhance the survivability and/or reproductiveness of a species, which is another way of saying "meant for"

[clever quest]

The nipple in general has a reproduction purpose
There you are ignoring my point. I'm talking about the male nipple, not nipples in general.

the problem is that nature hasnt figured out that its supposed to be made after the sex is determined
There again you're bringing "supposed to" into the conversation without justifying how that phrase can have meaning without religion.

because biology/nature isnt perfect yet otherwise there would be no genetic anomalies
...and there you're basically admitting that the point I'm making is correct, that all kinds of things exist naturally. Except you're going on from there to claim that there is a separate right or wrong, not realising that the existence of a right and wrong is something else you've added in on top of what nature itself provides.

[clever quest]

This isn't a justification for using "meant for", this is just stating that they are "meant for".

It's simply inaccurate to state that those aspects of nature are there to enhance the survivability and/or reproduction capability of a species.

So trying to draw any conclusions from that statement is inherently a flawed idea.

[wintry zodiac]

when we say that the penis is "meant for" reproductive purposes, we are referring to its evolved function within the framework of biology and natural selection. Over countless generations, the penis has developed as a specialized organ for delivering sperm to the female (reproductive part), facilitating fertilization and ensuring the continuation of species, this functional perspective does not imply conscious design but rather the result of evolutionary processes that favor traits enhancing reproductive success. Thus, "meant for" in this context describes the biological role and evolutionary adaptation of the penis in reproduction. So, it is possible to use the phrase "meant for" in a non-religious context when discussing nature's creations, as it can refer to the evolved functions and roles of biological traits.

[clever quest]

You can use it, it's just misleading in this particular context we're discussing at the moment.

[wintry zodiac]

How?

[clever quest]

I've explained that at least 5 times already.

[wintry zodiac]

Explain it properly

[clever quest]

It implies a purpose, which nature doesn't have.

[clever quest]

Don't be rude.

[wintry zodiac]

Also dont forget to adress these concerns

[wintry zodiac]

My bad

[clever quest]

OK, I'll go through those now.

[wintry zodiac]

Nature does not have a purpose in the intentional or conscious sense, as it is not a sentient entity with goals or intentions. Instead, what we observe as "purpose" in nature is the result of evolutionary processes like natural selection, which favor traits that enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. These processes create the appearance of purpose by shaping organisms to be well-adapted to their environments. For example, the wings of birds are not "designed" for flight by any conscious force, but they have evolved to enable flight because this trait offers significant survival advantages

[wintry zodiac]

Some of those a related to a specific issue and easily solvable though but yeah some of them arent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rBC0Nc2BEM This video also has good points, he is not religious he is gay and he disagrees with many LGBTQ+ people.

[wintry zodiac]

brb for now

however I like this quote "I cannot accept you for who you think you are because you havent accepted yourself for who you really are" referring to a man identifying as a woman for example

[radiant trout]

Thats not how evolution works, sorry my chap, back to school studying evolution

Evolution has no goal

Improved survivability is a natural result of evolution, not a goal and its definitely not ''meant for'' as you describe it

[radiant trout]

This is completely false and you are the one making the overexeggerations here. You keep showing things about LGBT that are on social media. Most people in LGBT, like most people in ANY GROUP are not vocal about it. You only get to see the extreme cases on social media.

How would you like it if I were to describe all muslims as terrorists, because the only muslims i see in the media are in fact terrorists? Thats the exact same comparison as you are making here. An extremely small minority of a specific group is somehow presented as the ''representation'' of that group. It makes no sense, it is inaccurate, and it is exactly what anti-lgbt propagandists want you to believe.

Are you a terrorist?

Because i have certainly seen enough videos of western people getting beheaded

And you said you were muslim

therfore all muslims are terrorists right?

Which in extention makes it a fact that you are a terrorist, and your only goal is to destroy anything that is western

Now that I wrote that down, it starts to make sense why you are against LGBT, because it is your goal to undermine western values as a terrorist

[radiant trout]

It has the exact same explanation as the previous one that skittles brought up. There were more than 2 genders back then. Powerful men had wives that they made children with, but most likely they also had slaves or subordinates that they used to perform sexual acts with. They were not considered men though, as often they were for example castrated. They did not perform the sociatal role back then associated with men. Hence also back then more than 2 genders already existed and that is also nothing new or contemporary.

[radiant trout]

Yeah, in here that starts to happen more and more too, and to me personally it's saddening to see. I am from a rural area (as far as that is possible in one of the most densely populated countries) but there the mentality is much different from where i live now (big city). Although I guess on a more societal level, there is still the social aspect of caring for eachother and the idea that everyone deserves an equal start to life etc. Its just more ingrained here. But my guess is that over time western european countries will ''americanize'' and become more indivudualistic too.

[radiant trout]

Agreed. BUT the people who wrote the bible are long gone. All we have now are the contemporary interpretations of the bible. We don't factually know how the writers intended them to be interpreted. Hence there are so many branches of christianity alone. So as of today, there is no real reason to believe one interpretation to be above the others, assuming they are all based on text, context and historic events.

Like, there is no real reason for you to believe your interpretation above mine, other than that's what you have been taught about the bible. For me its the opposite. There is no reason for me to believe yours over mine, because that's what I have been taught.

We discussed topics like these when I was a church-goer and went to bible school on sundays.

And my conclusion now after many years is basically that none of us are/were correct

[deft vapor]

religion as a justification for any action that interacts with other people is just flat out unintellectual

i could give two shits about what the geezer in the sky thinks

[clever quest]

I've numbered them to make it easier to respect message length limits.

1. "Apparently..." This isn't a problem, nor is it an inconsistency. Protesting in a way that targets others for persecution and disrupting their actions is something very different from protesting against the actions of a collective you're all part of. Burning a national flag as a citizen of that country doesn't target any group for bad treatment, because you're a part of what you're criticising. It's self-criticism. Burning someone else's flag is a bit different, and IS very rude.
   Public monuments are national expressions, and shouldn't be done in a way that targets any group for persecution. For example, celebrating a figure who was renowned for persecuting a particular group is very much akin to celebrating that persecution, and so it makes sense to refrain from doing that with such figures.

2. "Veterans...". It's not like anyone is prevented from celebrating anything at any time. Pride month is about raising awareness of the issues surrounding it, and it is as long as it is because awareness levels are low and need a lot of work to improve them.
   Your opinion is that fighting in the military is something worthy of the same level of respect as fighting against discrimination and injustice? You're allowed to think that if you like, but I wouldn't agree.
   .

3. "LGBTQ+ celebrations..." By this reasoning, you have to criticise almost every piece of money spent on anything, including all celebrations of any kind, anywhere. Also, is your phone or car more important than feeding a starving person? Why not sell it and feed someone with the money?
   That's not necessarily wrong, but the discussion about how to prioritise money and energy is a very complex one when it comes to deciding how much those of us with the most advantages should sacrifice in order to support others. Myself, I think that we could spend a bit less on big celebrations like those and put that money to better use. But before we get to that, there's a lot more money being wasted elsewhere that we should redistribute first. This isn't an LGBTQ+ problem, it's a problem with society overall.

4. "Wal-mart paint..." Well first let's check to see if it's actually slippery. And if it is, then I suggest they use a different type of paint, or a different substance that isn't slippery.

5. "There is a concern..." Yes, religious freedoms are infringed upon, but only those religious freedoms that conflict with the values of the society they are trying to live within. The society is more important than religious freedom, so religions need to compromise if they want to remain within societies.
   .

[wintry zodiac]

😂Yeah none of this has an end goal no shit, however certain things are "meant for" certain purposes like the penis meant for the purpose of reproducing

[clever quest]

6. "Sports and fairness..." Sport isn't fair in any sense. There are biological differences between all people that give some people unfair advantages over others in certain tasks. That's certainly not something that's confined to gender. Should I expect to be able to compete fairly in a wrestling contest against someone twice my weight?
   If you want to divide contests into groups of more or less equal capability in a given sport or activity, then the problem is not transgender people. The problem is thinking that dividing by gender ever solves that problem. If that's what you want to do, divide the population into bodyweight categories, experience categories, age categories etc. There are many examples of men and women that can compete against each other fairly.

7. "Some argue...complex legal scenarios..." LGBTQ+ doesn't make any of those examples more complex. You always have to take into account the specifics of the individuals and the situation involved before making any kind of decision. Making any of those decisions based on gender is a recipe for disaster.

8. "There are concerns ...appropriateness" This isn't a problem, this is just stating that some people think there is a problem. Of course there can be discussions about what age is appropriate for children to be taught about gender and sexuality. But that discussion needs ot be based on reason, not on the general unease felt by some parents (which mostly likely comes from religious teachings anyway).

9. "Concerns are raised...hormones". It's fine to have concerns about safety. Concerns about reversibility are only valid if you assume it's a mistake to begin with, so we can ignore those concerns. Mental health concerns are generally the reason for gender treatments in the first place, so of course they are considered already.

10. "The long-term physical and psychological..." This is the same as #9.

[wintry zodiac]

Whats not false is that most of you exaggerate things to your liking, its not that I label most of everyone part of the LGBTQ as an exaggerator for no reason I dont do that

[deft vapor]

if there's no end goal there's no "meant for" you dumb shit

[wintry zodiac]

Its based on personal experience

[clever quest]

I'm not sure what you're quoting there, but saying something can give the appearance of a purpose is not the same thing as saying that there is actually a purpose.

[wintry zodiac]

calm down 😂

[deft vapor]

it's funny cause before skitles i geuniely thought people like her were made up by the LGBT community to victimize themselves

i didn't think that these people were actually real 💀

[clever quest]

We should definitely all try and remain calm in this discussion.

[wintry zodiac]

😂 I literally grew up in a western country and I honestly would rather fight for the westerners than anyone part of the east or anything

[deft vapor]

wait which time zone are you again

[clever quest]

But it is frustrating when your messages just repeatedly state that there is a "meant for" without justifying it.

[wintry zodiac]

People fought for the freedom you have right now, I see this deeming more respectful than someone fighting discrimination and injustice because the only reason you have freedom right now is the military that keeps you safe and kept you safe. Im not for discrimination or injustice im for stopping the LGBTQ movement though

[radiant trout]

You don't understand the point I was trying to make?

[wintry zodiac]

GMT+4 moved to dubai about a year ago for business plans

is there a problem?

[deft vapor]

why are you so agressive 💀

no bro i was just curious

[radiant trout]

But from what I have seen, you are the that exeggerates the most out of any of us

[wintry zodiac]

Ive justified it multiple times

[wintry zodiac]

No, I can see that there is no endpoint in evolution

[radiant trout]

The point was that the media is not an accurate representation of what is happening

[deft vapor]

OMG REALLY?!

[radiant trout]

So if you use media exposure as an argument that ''most of lgbt people are like that'' than that in itself is flawed

Then I wanted to show you how rediculous that reasoning was

By suggesting that since you are a muslim, therefore you must be a terrorist, as I have seen terrorist muslims in the media

Which to be clear, I in no way actually believe you are a terrorist

Or that muslims in general are terrorists

By far most LGBT friendly people are completely silent about it outside of their personal sphere.

So suggesting that anything that happens during a pride event is in some way an accurate representation of lgbt people is completely ludarcris

Just how it is ludacris to think that terrorists and their views are an accurete representation of muslims or the islam

Which I'm sure you would agree with yourself

[deft vapor]

i feel like your issue with the lgbt community isn't with the actual community but the hyperreality portrayed by the media

is anyone here familiar with baudrillard

[radiant trout]

yes

[clever quest]

No you haven't, otherwise we wouldn't still be having this conversation.

[deft vapor]

yeah i feel like skitles is primarily concerned with the hyperreality of lgbt and not the actual thing

[radiant trout]

Yeah I concluded that the day this topic was opened

[deft vapor]

lmao

[radiant trout]

As one of the first arguments he brought up was something about young children getting taught about sex-changes

Which is completely false except for maybe some extremely niche situations

But it is misinformation that is spreading fast through right-wing conservative media

[wintry zodiac]

However evolutions rely on natural selection which is a mechanism where organisms that are more adapted are more likely to survive and pass the genes. However I will repeat "Over countless generations, the penis has developed as a specialized organ for delivering sperm to the female reproductive tract, facilitating fertilization and ensuring the continuation of species. This functional perspective does not imply conscious design but rather the result of evolutionary processes that favor traits enhancing reproductive success. Thus, "meant for" in this context describes the biological role and evolutionary adaptation of the penis in reproduction.". The penis is an organ specifically evolved for the purpose of reproduction. Across various species, including mammals like humans, the penis serves a critical role in sexual reproduction by delivering sperm into the female reproductive tract during copulation. This function is essential for fertilization and the continuation of species. The anatomical structure and physiological mechanisms of the penis, such as its ability to become erect and its sensitive nerve endings, are all geared towards facilitating successful insemination. This reproductive function underscores the evolutionary adaptation of the penis as a specialized organ dedicated to enhancing an organism's reproductive success. Which is what im trying to say, the biological perspective on penis is that the primary function of the penis is reproductive in nature, specifically for delivering sperm into the female reproductive tract during sexual intercourse. I do agree evolution does not actually have an end goal but a natural process driven by multiple mechanisms. Its primary function is to enable species to adapt to changing environments over time. Through the process of evolution, organisms acquire traits that increase their fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) within their area.

[clever quest]

Every time you try to justify it, you always insert the concept of meaning and purpose into your explanation without justifying where it comes from.

[radiant trout]

Hence my conclusion was that his view of LGBT people is mostly based on misinformous media

[radiant trout]

I am not with you in a discussion on the penis

I merely stated that the way you described evolution was factually incorrect based on the wording you used

thats all

[wintry zodiac]

So labeling me as transphobic, homophobic and everything else is not an exaggeration? I mean what have I really exaggerated

[deft vapor]

chat is this real

[wintry zodiac]

Im starting to get lost on what you are actually trying to get from me

[wintry zodiac]

Its not entirely AI generated, I ask AI for help on certain points though

[deft vapor]

what's copulation

[radiant trout]

But you are scared of gay and trans people... You don't want anything about the topic being taught. You don't want your own children or people close to you to be gay or trans. Everything you say points towards the fact you are homo and transphobic, except for you not admitting you are...

[deft vapor]

no person sits down and types "the penis serves a critical role in sexual reproduction by delivering sperm into the female reproductive tract druing copulation"

[wintry zodiac]

sexual intercourse

[radiant trout]

Specifically your reasoning that you are afraid that if children get to learn about LGBT, then they are more likely to become lgbt too. Which is in itself a completely homo- and transphobic stance to take

[wintry zodiac]

I am indeed scared that they will influence my children into being gay and part of the LGBTQ

[clever quest]

It's very obvious that some messages are written by Skitles, and some not. But I don't think we need to worry about it overly.

[radiant trout]

Therefore its not an exaggeration to call you homophobic, it is a fact

wheter you like to use that word or not is irrelevant

all your actions show you are

[radiant trout]

Hence you are homo and transphobic

you even admit it here 🤣

[wintry zodiac]

Im open about using AI, I do use AI to help make some of my points

[wintry zodiac]

Not necessarily

[radiant trout]

well if we go by the oxford definition of homopobia, you are 100% a homophobe, and you even admitted it seconds ago. Why are you trying to defend yourself? Just because you don't like the negative connotation that comes with the word homophobe?

[wintry zodiac]

I dont show any prejustice towards homosexual people, honestly if you are homosexual then good for you and I could care less however I do not want my children to be homosexual and homosexuality is I beleive largely influenced by LGBTQ

[deft vapor]

it's like the alt right not wanting to call themselves facists cause of the negative connotations

[wintry zodiac]

I personally have nothing against someone who is homosexual

[radiant trout]

Exactly

[radiant trout]

But you do as you don't want them to publicly show their sexual orientation, henc you are prejudiced against them

Its not rockets science

[wintry zodiac]

Speaking of fascists, ive also been labeled as that because I disagreed, interesting because Im not

[deft vapor]

what are your core beliefs

like lay them out

[radiant trout]

Also, you stated some gross oversimplifications and exegerations about homosexual or trans people, which in itself is homo and/or transphobic. Its just a fact that your actions and beliefs comply with the definition of the word. Whether you like it or not

Or now you gonna say ''i dont believe in that definition of the word, i'll make up my own definition'', just like you did with gender?

[wintry zodiac]

I personally dont want anyone showing public affection, obviously in America you can and I dont really care if you do but if you celebrate it and all it does get annoying, it has nothing to do with you being homosexual or trans but rather you being annoying about it

[wintry zodiac]

On the LGBTQ topic?

[radiant trout]

You can't go on typing prejudiced things in this chat about people of the LGBT community to then claim you are not prejudiced

[deft vapor]

no just like in general

[radiant trout]

If that is how you defend it for yourself that's fine. All I am doing is making an observation where i conclude based on your views and actions that you are homo and transphobic.

Its not my personal opinion

its based on evverythign you have said here

Assuming that that accurately represents your views

Which i believe to be a valid assumption, as you were the one typing it in the first place

[wintry zodiac]

My core beliefs are:

• Dont teach my kids about LGBTQ morals and ethics because we have ours (this can be home schooled)
• I dont care if you are gay/homosexual but I will influence/teach my children to not be because of religious and cultural reasons
• I wont actually be violent or necessarily discriminate like others do to you if you are gay or trans
• I dont believe trans women should be in womens bathrooms or sports
• I dont want to play along with your gender spectrum thing and want to keep the simplicity hence why I like the quote "I cannot accept you for who you think you are because you havent accepted yourself for who you really are"
• I probably missed a few here'

I dont agree with gay or trans people and their beliefs, but that doesnt necessarily make me a transphobe

[clever quest]

You say that homosexuality is wrong.
I say that the only way anyone can reach that conclusion is via religion.
You say that you can reach the same conclusion by looking at nature.
I say that homosexuality is a normal part of nature.
You say that homosexuality is wrong in nature.
I ask why it's wrong.
You say it's wrong because it's simply not "meant to be".
I ask on what basis you are deciding what is "meant to be" if you aren't referring to religion.
You say that it's wrong because it doesn't have a reproductive purpose.
I say that not all of nature has a reproductive purpose.
You repeat that it's wrong because it doesn't have a reproductive purpose.

That seems to be where we're getting stuck right now.

Something not having a reproductive purpose doesn't mean it's going against nature. So we're back to the question, why is homosexuality not "meant to be"?

[deft vapor]

why are all of your beliefs about lgbt bro

are you that obsessed

i'm asking more generally

big gov/small gov type shi

like what ar eyour values

[deft vapor]

i've given up on engaging with him intellectually

[clever quest]

I think it's clear that Skitles' values come from religion. Arguing against a religion can be interesting, but there's no way you're ever going to persuade someone of anything in that kind of discussion because religion isn't based on reason to begin with. So challenging it on rational grounds doesn't affect the belief in it.

I agree, I think we have reached the limit of where a rational discussion can go in this conversation.

The answer to the question about "meant to be" is clearly "religion" in my view.

[wintry zodiac]

You say that homosexuality is wrong.
I say that the only way anyone can reach that conclusion is via religion.

I tried pointing out homosexuality is biologically not what is the penis actually used for from the biological perspective, I do think that homosexuality is wrong/sinful and its obviously based on religion

You say that you can reach the same conclusion by looking at nature.
I say that homosexuality is a normal part of nature.

You say that homosexuality is wrong in nature.
I ask why it's wrong.

You say it's wrong because it's simply not "meant to be".
I ask on what basis you are deciding what is "meant to be" if you aren't referring to religion.

While homosexuality is present in animals that doesnt mean you can use animals as good examples because if you think homosexuality is fine because animals do it then you might as well say cannibalism is fine as well. Homosexuality is an available option though I dont deny the existence of people that are homosexual however just based on the purpose of the penis from my perspective and biological perspective its not like its evolutioned to be for homosexuality.

I say that not all of nature has a reproductive purpose.
You repeat that it's wrong because it doesn't have a reproductive purpose.

The type of nature im talking about is obviously natural selection evolution and other things, however typically they are the way they are because they have been among the highest rates of survivability because they are good at reproduction and survivability. It has not come through this was and survived because of homosexuality because its virtually impossible to pass down genes if you are homosexual (assuming you only have sex with a male) and therefore the only reason we are alive right now is because of heterosexual kind of

[wintry zodiac]

Yes most of my values do come from religion

[clever quest]

Yeah, I think that has clarified the remaining points. Thanks.

It is true, we do exist today partly because of our reproductive ability. But it's not the only factor in natural selection, and it also doesn't mean that natural selection controls every aspect of nature. Randomness does also exist.

We don't need to justify everything by strict natural selection. Male nipples can't be justified by strict natural selection alone, as I think we've basically agreed already. But if we did want to justify homosexuality by strict natural selection, then there actually are valid natural selection reasons for homosexuality. As well as the ability to reproduce, we also need to survive up to the point of reproduction, and so anything that increases our success at things like finding food, finding shelter, avoid dangers, attaining social status, anything like that, also ends up being favoured in the competitive environment of natural selection.

The most relevant one for homosexuality, is perhaps the point about social status. Humans have gained most of their success by being social creatures, working together with others. And the higher your social status within a community the more likely you are to reproduce. It's not just about your social status in the eyes of the opposite sex, it's also about your social status among your own sex, as you're competing against them. In a cooperative society, if you have good will from other members of your own sex, then they are less likely to compete against you.

It starts to become advantageous to form better connections to members of your own sex as well. Make others of your own sex feel good, and your social status will rise. And therefore your reproductive chances improve. So then basically as soon as you're living in a mixed-sex cooperative community it's not a clear case of needing to focus only on pleasing the opposite gender in order to reproduce. Same-sex sex for pleasure can absolutely provide natural selection advantages.

[wintry zodiac]

Didnt read the whole thing but honestly you can do wtv the fuck u want with ur penis lol, I was just trying to make a point that a penis is primarly intended to be used for reproductive purposes biologically speaking. I dont think anyone is stopping you from having sex with another man if you want to its just that I see it being wrong because of religion and because to me its not necessarily that logical however if you are attracted to another man then who really cares just like no one cares if you are attracted to a woman as a man

Homosexuality doesnt really contribute to the reproducing or surviving part of humanity, really it does the opposite by not making any babies

I dont think homosexuals or heterosexuals have any difference in the ability of finding food, shelter, avoiding danger and/or attaining social status because what 1 can do so can the other (assuming we live in a world where everyone could care less and wont judge you for being gay)

I dont think homosexuality will increase your chances are having a higher social status than someone who is heterosexual

[clever quest]

You probably should read what I wrote, because it addressed that exact point.

Either way, I'm not writing it out again to reply to what you're typing now.

[wintry zodiac]

While yes you may have less competition in attaining higher status if you have a male partner that most likely wont compete with you, that also increases the chances of higher status for anyone hetero sexual as it eliminates competition. Also being a heterosexual typically means that you have a higher chance of keeping your social status (for example being high up in the government) because you can then pass down the power to your children although I might be entirely misintrepreting what you are trying to say

[clever quest]

I think it's easy to see that it gives an evolutionary advantage if you can appeal to both sexes.

[wintry zodiac]

It starts to become advantageous to form better connections to members of your own sex as well. Make others of your own sex feel good, and your social status will rise. And therefore your reproductive chances improve. So then basically as soon as you're living in a mixed-sex cooperative community it's not a clear case of needing to focus only on pleasing the opposite gender in order to reproduce.
But it can also be beneficial to form good connections with the opposite sex. This all applies to heterosexuals.

Same-sex sex for pleasure can absolutely provide natural selection advantages.
Explain how?

[clever quest]

I did explain how. Make people feel good, they will treat you better.

[wintry zodiac]

In terms of social status you pleasing a few men and/or women wont affect as much when considering you have billions of other people, however if its among a small group then maybe it gives better social status but really in a modern society nothing is a evolutionary advantage anymore really because everyone is being protected by one another to some extent (examples being disabled people)

[wintry zodiac]

Yes but that applies for women

and men

[clever quest]

Hence both forms of homosexuality.

[clever quest]

Yes, I agree. Humans haven't lived in large societies for very long on an evolutionary scale. So when we're considering natural selection processes, the most recent ones were when we were living in smaller communities.

[wintry zodiac]

I meant that men can please women and gain the same social status

[clever quest]

That's not true though. Men need to rise above other men to stand out and be chosen for reproduction. And same with women and other women.

So you need to please both.

[wintry zodiac]

Still realisticly speaking, among most of those smaller communities homosexuality is thought to be discriminated and or frowned upon because it doesnt produce any children or because of religious views so really it wouldnt give that much of an evolutionary advantage considering you can please both women and men no matter what sex you are

[clever quest]

Without natural selection providing an intensely competitive environment, all the natural variation of our species continues instead of being filtered out. So all the variation we see can be explained by nature taking it's normal course.

[clever quest]

Religion is also a very recent invention on evolutionary scales.

[wintry zodiac]

To gain a higher social status you dont need to have sex with both to please them, you can be clever about it but if we exclude the other ways of pleasing them then technically the more you please the better but then at that point who are you really attracted to or are you just trying to get a social status higher than everyone elses'

[wintry zodiac]

Wdym

[clever quest]

Well exactly. Then it becomes a matter of individual situations about whether it is better from a natural selection standpoint to focus more on your own sex or the opposite sex. Natural selection then encourages a range of different attitudes to develop in different situations.

[wintry zodiac]

I do think that having a mid social status doesnt really have much of a lower chance to reproduce/survive compared to a higher one

[clever quest]

Well Christianity for example isn't even 2000 years old, and evolution is a process that happens over millions and billions of years. Other religions had different views on homosexuality, and we don't really know what the ancient religions that we don't have records from promoted or discouraged.

[clever quest]

Right now, no, I agree it doesn't. I think we're agreed that natural selection at the present time results in a much greater variety of genes being passed on to future generations, because we don't have the harsh competition to survive and reproduce that we did in the past and that most other species still have.

[wintry zodiac]

Its a bit more than 2000 years old, our calendar is based on the birth of Jesus (pbuh)

[clever quest]

Yes, but the religion didn't start until considerably later than his birth.

[wintry zodiac]

Come to think of it, being a coward and letting everyone fight for you is part of natural selection isnt it? kind of right?

[clever quest]

If you can persuade others to sacrifice themselves for your benefit, then yes, that can be an evolutionary advantage.

[wintry zodiac]

The religion is centered around the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) so really it kind of started like 2000 years ago

So many around 30 AD

maybe*

[clever quest]

Almost 2000 years ago, but not quite 2000 yet.

[wintry zodiac]

Kind of sad to think that most likely a good chunk of the population right now is based off of someonne earlier than them being a coward and not fight

[radiant trout]

Kinda sad to think that a good chunck of the population right now is based off of someone earlier than them having commited acts of violence

What is this glorifying fighting sentiment you got on lmao

[clever quest]

It's unlikely that is the case. Although being a coward might be an advantage in some situations, the net result of all situations is that we're all alive now as a result of our ancestors being very good at solving the problems they faced, whatever they were, the full range not just one or two types of problem.

[radiant trout]

Also just pointing out that choosing not to fight in many situations is not the same as being a coward. Cowardice implies fear, but many times not fighting is the preferred option, whether or not you are afraid of fighting.

[wintry zodiac]

No im not glorifying fighting but a lot of the fights are not just fights out of pure stupidity, many had reasons to defend or attack whether its for revenge or lack of land to prosper etc

Just the idea of people letting others die for their total homeland

[radiant trout]

Lets not stray off of the topic. I am just really opposed to the wording that was used.

[ebon perch]

I mean, I could say the same for you. I guess it really matter about who the people in power decide to follow.

[wintry zodiac]

I disagree on it being unlikely but everything else I agree

Imma go for now cya tmrw

[ebon perch]

I'd agree, but Herm doesn't really care too much about the discussion as much as just trying to "'laugh' his opinion into the spotlight". Same with panda, except panda isn't really getting involved, just quick sections of calling people rude then hopping off.

[ebon perch]

I think that is just the natural order of growing societies in a world with limited resources (And I know y'all probably wont agree with this statement ->) and without a solid religion, whther the religion is factual or not. I mean, from my particular belief sets, we will never get to a point where everyone is just so individualistic that no one left decides to nto care about others to any extent, as from my belief God put his moral law onto all of our hearts, so as long as that is there, some people will still use that when making decisions (assuming we have free will)

[ebon perch]

Yea I agree. Without the authors we have no true way of knowing what the message of parts of each book are truly meant to be. For interpretations it now just comes down to which one you believe most accurately represents what the words were saying based on the given context and knowledge of the entire collection of books in and religious text.

[radiant trout]

I mean, from my particular belief sets, we will never get to a point where everyone is just so individualistic that no one left decides to not care about others to any extent, as from my belief God put his moral law onto all of our hearts, so as long as that is there, some people will still use that when making decisions (assuming we have free will)

I don't think our set of morals and beliefs is that different on most subjects to be honest. Its just that for myself I don't need a god to justify that. For me I believe that altruism is an inherent part of human nature. Whether you explain that through god or something else, I think the resulting morals are for a big part still the same.

[rigid pumice]

You can say that he doesn't speak for all Muslims, and that's true. I'm glad you dont subscribe to those extreme positions. But those positions come from the same place as the positions on LGBTQ. So I find the fundamentalist Muslim position, however more abhorrent I may find it, to be the more consistent and less hypocritical position. Same with fundamentalist Christians. Whenever you open the door to modern interpretations you can call into question basically any teaching.

I'm curious. If ten years down the road the same modern Islam scholars came to the conclusion that actually being LGBTQ is fine and this new interpretation of specific verses in the Quran support it, what would you say then? Would you just go along with it because now your religion is okay with it?

Christians largely supported slavery using the Bible and then once it was outlawed they found excuses in the Bible for why that was good too.

[rigid pumice]

Defacing the road was vandalism. Any crime can have a hate crime modifier if the reason for the crime was deemed to be hate towards a specific group.

Veterans day is a federally recognized holiday, pride month is not. There is a month designator for almost anything. June is also national candy month, children's vision awareness month, and national dairy month to name a few.

The government wastes money on everything. I would like all the waste to stop but don't really care if it's going to pride parades or beekeepers.

Religion freedom does not mean you get to break the law. You can't refuse to do the same service for one person and not another based on them being part of some group. Otherwise people who want segregation back could just claim its against their religion to serve black people.

We have decades of evidence on the safety of puberty blockers and all risks are presented to the parents on side effects of hormone replacement. It's up to a minors support team to decide what is best. I don't want the government involved.

There is no substantial evidence that trans women competing in sports is unfair. A few trans women have won events, but they are not dominating by any means. I'm open to additional fairness restrictions in sports based on physical characteristics.

[deft vapor]

There’s no discussion to be had here lmao

[blissful drum]

"As long as you don't annoy me with it..."

That's your standard? I don't see how openly displaying a bunch of flags in every store and school in the country while also teaching this stuff to 1st graders somehow doesn't qualify as annoying a bunch of people.

You don't need to teach sex in kindergarten. That's so perverted. Children don't have sexual preferences. The idea that "you can be gay" is meaningless to someone without the maturity to understand what that's saying.

[blissful drum]

This version of history is sooooooo misinformed. You're ignoring the part where pretty much every single person who fought against slavery was a devout Christian everyone being created equal comes straight out of Christian beliefs.

[blissful drum]

You can and should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. You should also expect public backlash if you do it for the wrong reasons, and it always makes more business sense, and therefore makes you more money, if you remain professional with all customers and treat everyone the same.

[dapper bay]

Seen 0 where I live and I’m a student + I work in a school lmao

Don’t think your situation is the same for everyone

[rigid pumice]

Everyone fighting to keep slavery was a Christian too because at that time being anything but a Christian was not socially acceptable in America.

[blissful drum]

Also, where is this evidence for puberty blockers? Are you kidding me? Every single study ever conducted shows extreme dangers. They are not safe by any measure, and European countries are backtracking very quickly as they realize how horrible the effects are on children. Where did you ever get the idea that they are safe?

[blissful drum]

That's absolutely not the case.

[blissful drum]

Where do you live?

[dapper bay]

Canada

[blissful drum]

So they aren't teaching the stuff to kindergarteners in Canada?

[dapper bay]

That I don’t know

[blissful drum]

The fact is, people aren't being reasonable about it here. They're saying people have to allow men to go into women's locker rooms and undress in front of young girls, and if you say anything you're transphobic.

[rigid pumice]

Puberty blockers have been in use since the 80s on kids who were going through precocious puberty and then later on kids with cancer because going through puberty basically kicks the cancer into overdrive. So yes, we have plenty of evidence on their use and safety in stopping puberty and the potential side effects.

[blissful drum]

Don't tell me it's just "live and let live." If it was really that, no one would care. I don't want penises displayed for young girls.

[blissful drum]

Show me just one study that says they're safe.

[dapper bay]

That’s already the case with the internet

[blissful drum]

I mean, this is an extremely specific case where drugs have a useful purpose. But you want to use it to stop puberty for healthy children and somehow expect there to be no side effects? You're out of your mind.

[dapper bay]

But yeah, dont @ me in this post, I think this post is useless and I don’t have much to say in it

Have a nice day tho

[blissful drum]

No it's not. You aren't forced to be exposed to a penis on the internet, but even if you were, you damn well shouldn't be forced to endure a man exposing himself to a six year old girl and not be allowed to do anything about it.

[blissful drum]

@dapper bay Yeah, I wouldn't want to defend that position either if I were you.

[dapper bay]

😂 shut up

This is just not worth my time

[blissful drum]

Defending the indefensible isn't something that's worth anyone's time.

[dapper bay]

Keep yappin

[deft vapor]

doesn't change the fact that the ot was used to justify slavery

[blissful drum]

People have been poorly justifying their actions since the existence of people. It's a million times easier to justify slavery using atheism that it could ever be using Christianity.

[deft vapor]

out of curiousity have you ever seen one?

[deft vapor]

yet historically it's the religious that justifies slavery

[blissful drum]

Seen what? People exposing themselves in the women's locker room? No, because I don't go in the women's locker room.

[blissful drum]

That's absolutely not the case for Christianity.

[deft vapor]

no seeing someone exposing themsevles

those fringe cases don't justify generalizations

[deft vapor]

????

[blissful drum]

How am I supposed to see it if I don't go into women's locker rooms???

[deft vapor]

have you skipped american history

[blissful drum]

Why don't you enlighten me. Tell me how people used Christianity to justify slavery.

Because they definitely used Christianity to say everyone was created equal, and that everyone had value as children of God. Those positions are easy to hold. It's much more difficult to somehow twist it into saying that you should have slaves.

[deft vapor]

what the fuck even is this bro

did you graduate high school

“the slave is the owner’s property” (Exod 21:21).

But slaves could be beaten (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20), and slaves could be taken as concubines (Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11) or even raped without serious consequence (Lev 19:20-22).

slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters “in everything” (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.”

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

mate have you read your book

i've seen the defense that societal standards have shifted but i have NEVER seen the argument "tell me how ppl used christianity to justify slavery"

@blissful drum

oh now you've run off when confronted with something that intellecutally challenges your beliefs

how predictable

[rigid pumice]

I mean yes because that is what has been found to be effective. Parents doctors and patients deciding together on the best course of action. You seem to be perfectly fine with government overreach when it comes to interfering with personal medical decisions but want to government intervention in the economy. Does that about sum up your position?

[blissful drum]

Wow, what the hell is wrong with you?

Really? You don't have two minutes of patience to allow someone to read the things that you post?

You can't fathom how someone could possibly want to actually look up what someone else presents and see if there's merit to their arguments.

What a pathetic loser you are man.

[deft vapor]

ok and what did the 2 minutes of research reveal