• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Being LGBT is Not a Sin


forn said:
Let me get this straight. You are a Christian, and you are unaware of any church anywhere that teaches that homosexuality is not sinful?
Click to expand...
The church of christ has been LGBT inclusive for more than 40 years. They are far from being the only ones. What is your Christian sect?

LGBTQ EQUALITY​


ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY​


As early as 1969, the UCC voiced its commitment to civil rights for LGBTQ people. In 1975, the General Synod passed resolutions denouncing discrimination based in “affectional or sexual preference.” By 2005, the Synod had passed a resolution that called “for an end to rhetoric that fuels hostility, misunderstanding, fear and hatred expressed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.” The resolution further directed officers of the church to share that resolution with legislators at the local, state and national level. Recognizing that not all congregations would be in agreement, the Synod asked dissenting churches, “to engage in serious, respectful, and prayerful discussion,” and provided a study guide to prompt healthy, responsible discussion. The General Synod of 2011 extended its focus on LGBTQ discrimination to encompass international concerns. According to the UCC website, “The message of love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. Open and Affirming ministries and resources are rooted in that Gospel message.”


The UCC is fully welcoming and affirming of transgender persons. Resolutions of the General Synod passed in 2003 invite all members to, “learn about the realities of transgender experience and expression, including the gifts and callings and needs of transgender people.” Transgender and intersexual people are welcome as clergy and in lay leadership roles.
Click to expand...
www.hrc.org

Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: United Church of Christ

The United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination with about 1.3 million members, has been one of the most accepting religious groups of LGBTQ people.
www.hrc.org www.hrc.org

LittleNipper said:
There are far worse things than death. Living a long life and then ending up in HELL for all eternity is the worst thing I can imagine. I bet you believe in ABORTION ---- so how do you live with such hypocritical views?
Click to expand...
You cannot objectively prove that hell exists. You believe that hell exists and have faith that hell exists but you cannot prove that Hell exists in a way that does not require religious faith and belief. That also applies equally to the existence of your god.
 
AGENT J said:
YOU made a statement and now its YOUR job to back your BS claim up, but you wont cause you cant LMAO
Click to expand...
Look friend, I wouldn't mind giving you some examples of progressive churches, but I think you're being willfully ignorant. You know as well as I do that there are LGBTQ affirming churches, Lisa gave one above. And if you don't believe it all you have to do is use Google and you'll be up to your neck in them. It's like you're asking me to prove that blades of grass exist. You really can't find one on your own? If you have a point, make it, but don't play dumb just because you want to argue.
 
forn said:
Look friend, I wouldn't mind giving you some examples of progressive churches, but I think you're being willfully ignorant. You know as well as I do that there are LGBTQ affirming churches, Lisa gave one above. And if you don't believe it all you have to do is use Google and you'll be up to your neck in them. It's like you're asking me to prove that blades of grass exist. You really can't find one on your own? If you have a point, make it, but don't play dumb just because you want to argue.
Click to expand...
LMAO and the dodge train keeps on chuggin!!!
no matter how many retarded and failed dodges, deflections and strawmen you post we are still in the same spot
your false claims get the shit kicked of them and us still waiting for you to answer.

now you can make a post based on honesty and integrity or post another deflection to continue our entertainment and make your post look even more stupid


so here we are, once again
whos and what political agenda are you speaking of, factual examples, please

😂🍿
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Fearandloathing:

In changing societies, battles over social issues and justice are never really won or lost, they're just under cease fire armistices. As long as some segment of a society's population still holds on to anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs and convictions, then their capacity to grow in influence and to reassert old predjudices remains. How do we change that in a liberal, democratic society? I don't know the answer to that.

I agree, but in a a society which protects freedom of religion that is almost impossible. Only through illiberal and authoritarian secular rule can such ideas be effectively suppressed.

Yes, the Doctrine of Discovery still stands and the popes still refuse to rescind it. That is disgusting. But does Canada or the USA have the licence to force the Vatican to change that policy or any other matter of dogma?

Power and influence. They are powerful shields.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
Through changing the laws and ensuring we dont become another bourgeois democracy or the dictatorship of rich donors. In the UK the media is also at fault for the rise in reactionary attitudes because its been entirely celebrity based and rather one sided.
 
Evilroddy said:
LittleNipper:

If and only if American Christian citizens attempt to influence their governments' policies on their own or as part of grassroots political organisations. The moment Christians start using their churches or federations of churches as leverage to effect political change, that is organised religion attempting to shape government policy. That runs up against the Separation of Church and State provision in your constitution.

Mentioning of God in school curricula is not necessary for inoculating positive moral and ethical beliefs and behaviours into children. Teaching of various religious beliefs is not necessary to imprint good moral and ethical behaviour patterns on the young either. This can be done through secular means. Just because a principle has its origins in a Judeo-Christian tradition does not mean that such a principle cannot be taught in a secular public school classroom by secular means.

If public schools start promoting the religious values as determined by religious churches then there will be both chaos and trouble. Can Catholic parents insist that the public school curriculum in their Catholic-dominated school district stress their interpretation of these principles or can Baptists do the same? Some sect or religion will lose out in this process and that will foster unrest in communities. How would you feel about your kids being forced to learn about the tales of Hanuman or Ganesh if Hindu parents had control of a local school curriculum? Would you be okay with your kids being imprinted with the principles of the Seven Pillars of Islam as part of their elementary school curriculum in a Muslim-dominated school district?

Schools don't let students form their own opinions and beliefs about core values and morals, they never have. One of the roles of schools is to "socialise" students into the larger society around them. If a student believes that the concept of private property is a capitalist chauvinism and thus takes the pencils of other students to complete her great work of art for the benefit of the whole class, the teacher will still intervene and discipline the student for not following American societal norms about property. So removing certain problematic religious beliefs/principles or problematic secular beliefs/principles from the population is one of the jobs which public schools do. Discernment skills come later when basic societal ethics have been rooted in young minds.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
What we often also dont understand is the other side of the various isms, power. Racists werent just racist because they were misguided, they did it because it was a means of obtaining wealth and power, the evangelicals in this particular issue are not immune to such situation. You cant be anti racist or anti homophobia until you realize that these things exist as a play for power too.

The Klan was once a very profitable MLM scheme and a means of obtaining power. Evangelical super churches know bigotry is hugely profitable, even transphobia can be profitable.
 
A convicted paedophile hosted a family of Ukrainian refugees for a number of weeks in County Armagh before he was deemed unsuitable to be a sponsor.
A criminal record check by the UK Home Office did not flag his conviction, the Sunday Independent reported.
It said the family, which included a baby, moved into a mobile home on the man's property before further checks had been completed.

www.bbc.com

Homes for Ukraine: Paedophile hosted family in County Armagh before checks complete

The family moved into a mobile home on the man's property while safeguarding checks were still underway.
www.bbc.com
 
The reason it was necessary to go through the courts and its really juvenile to think that you can just gain rights without going through the courts is because when you are trying to gain equal rights you have to go through the legal process and if you want to dismantle unjust systems of power, you have to do the same.

Also dont feed the trolls (basionok)
 
Evilroddy said:
LittleNipper:

The American Education System prior to 1963 had lots of very serious problems. Here is a brief history of American education which illustrates the many problems and some solutions it faced over four and a half centuries:

stacker.com

History of the American education system

Stacker takes a look at how the American classroom has changed, the people who changed it, and the struggle for control over the country's young minds.
stacker.com stacker.com

The signing of the Johnson Era Vocational Educational Act in 1963 and the Elementaty and Secondary Education Act in 1965 were need to sort out the mess that American Public Education had fallen into first during the Great Depression and WWII and later in the late 1940's and 1950's. Saying prayers and learning by rote memory were not avenues to excellent education, they were obstacles to it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
Oh definitely we are finding out that the testing regime for school funding has been an unmitigated disaster. Running the government like a business is a disaster.
 
bomberfox said:
Through changing the laws and ensuring we dont become another bourgeois democracy or the dictatorship of rich donors. In the UK the media is also at fault for the rise in reactionary attitudes because its been entirely celebrity based and rather one sided.
Click to expand...
Bomberfox:

While I agree that changing laws is one part of a societal solution for any kind of deeply ingrained bigotry, it often falls short. One shortcoming is the laws can simply be reversed by courts or a government more sympathetic to the bigots. The other shortcoming is laws which target peoples' morality often trigger strong political reactions and opposition from those with different morality which can lead to changes of government or policy shifts in incumbent governments which fear losing power.

An example of the first shortcoming is the recent SCOTUS Dobbs decision on privacy and abortion which reversed the American Federal right to abortion after 49 years standing. A good example of the second shortcoming is the use of alternative pronouns for non-binary folks. The moment a government makes laws designed to protect non-binary folks from discrimination regarding other people's pronoun use, it gets into the thorny issue of compelled speech. Then freedom of speech and freedom of expression issues kick in to oppose compelled speech laws and a culture war erupts. Thats where we were about 5-6 years ago and we haven't really gotten past that point since.

So things like education/indoctrination/socialisation, persuasion, grass-roots social media campaigns and attempting to alter religious teachings and institutions are probably more effective societal tools than law-making regarding many facets of winning the full acceptance of LGBTQ+ communities in our modern society.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Bomberfox:

While I agree that changing laws is one part of a societal solution for any kind of deeply ingrained bigotry, it often falls short. One shortcoming is the laws can simply be reversed by courts or a government more sympathetic to the bigots. The other shortcoming is laws which target peoples' morality often trigger strong political reactions and opposition from those with different morality which can lead to changes of government or policy shifts in incumbent governments which fear losing power.

An example of the first shortcoming is the recent SCOTUS Dobbs decision on privacy and abortion which reversed the American Federal right to abortion after 49 years standing. A good example of the second shortcoming is the use of alternative pronouns for non-binary folks. The moment a government makes laws designed to protect non-binary folks from discrimination regarding other people's pronoun use, it gets into the thorny issue of compelled speech. Then freedom of speech and freedom of expression issues kick in to oppose compelled speech laws and a culture war erupts. Thats where we were about 5-6 years ago and we haven't really gotten past that point since.

So things like education/indoctrination/socialisation, persuasion, grass-roots social media campaigns and attempting to alter religious teachings and institutions are probably more effective societal tools than law-making regarding many facets of winning the full acceptance of LGBTQ+ communities in our modern society.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
We cant just social media our way out of this. People are suffering RIGHT NOW. The reason respectability politics rarely works is because you are fighting people that have dominance over you. Every segregationist without exception was inflicting societal and physical violence upon black people. To misunderstand the battle for human rights as merely a battle in the marketplace of ideas is to completely misunderstand what oppression is. I cannot go up to someone who had police dogs maul their faces off or someone who suffered brutality and indifference from the canadian police and tell them they have to wait until the white man’s time table is here because i an not a white moderate.

The segregationists had to lose and what they lost was something they never deserved in the first place.

I will come back to this later but i had to clarify something.
 
Evilroddy said:
Bomberfox:

While I agree that changing laws is one part of a societal solution for any kind of deeply ingrained bigotry, it often falls short. One shortcoming is the laws can simply be reversed by courts or a government more sympathetic to the bigots. The other shortcoming is laws which target peoples' morality often trigger strong political reactions and opposition from those with different morality which can lead to changes of government or policy shifts in incumbent governments which fear losing power.

An example of the first shortcoming is the recent SCOTUS Dobbs decision on privacy and abortion which reversed the American Federal right to abortion after 49 years standing. A good example of the second shortcoming is the use of alternative pronouns for non-binary folks. The moment a government makes laws designed to protect non-binary folks from discrimination regarding other people's pronoun use, it gets into the thorny issue of compelled speech. Then freedom of speech and freedom of expression issues kick in to oppose compelled speech laws and a culture war erupts. Thats where we were about 5-6 years ago and we haven't really gotten past that point since.

So things like education/indoctrination/socialisation, persuasion, grass-roots social media campaigns and attempting to alter religious teachings and institutions are probably more effective societal tools than law-making regarding many facets of winning the full acceptance of LGBTQ+ communities in our modern society.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
To answer the question about the first is the reason the courts were able to get away with overturning roe is because it was never codified into federal law.

Secondly i thought it would be obvious in Canada’s example, but bill C-16 was a mere change in already existing law which despite Jordan Peterson lying his ass off about it did not criminalize misgendering. It added protections against harassment so your description of the law is incorrect. It did not compel speech. This is something i knew about way back when not even moderates were buying Peterson’s ramblings. Nowhere in the law would it be a criminal act to simply misgender someone.

Lastly is the Issue with Maya Forstater, her case did not involve a violation of freedom of speech and by the legal experts ive read from takes a rather bizarre addition to laws meant for protecting religious groups and stretches it to just any belief whatsoever which is just plain bad law and allows people to weaponize freedom to discriminate or bully others under the pretense of sincerely held beliefs without any employee being able to go to HR to address harassment concerns like saying that you are just faking it when you ask for a simple nicety in order to trick women so you can rape them. Like the date rape drug. Sympathetic judges indeed let you off the hook.

Your last part is just plain wrong im sorry. It comes from a position of a white moderate which doesnt actually solve things.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
 
Last edited:
The term minor-attracted person (MAP) refers to individuals with sexual attraction to individuals who are minors or below the legal age of consent.

Pedophilia as a sexual orientation is systematically confused with sexual abuse of minors.

Should We Add 'P' for Pedophile to the LGBTQ Acronym?​

 
bomberfox said:
We cant just social media our way out of this. People are suffering RIGHT NOW. The reason respectability politics rarely works is because you are fighting people that have dominance over you. Every segregationist without exception was inflicting societal and physical violence upon black people. To misunderstand the battle for human rights as merely a battle in the marketplace of ideas is to completely misunderstand what oppression is. I cannot go up to someone who had police dogs maul their faces off or someone who suffered brutality and indifference from the canadian police and tell them they have to wait until the white man’s time table is here because i an not a white moderate.

The segregationists had to lose and what they lost was something they never deserved in the first place.

I will come back to this later but i had to clarify something.
Click to expand...
Bomberfox:

Here we go again. The respectability politics critique is one I reject.

Much of the upsurge in respectability politics talk is due to the protest movement against police-involved shooting deaths. Some espouse in-your-face tactics. Others prefer the methods of the civil rights movement. When these two viewpoints clash, proponents of aggressive tactics accuse their opponents of championing respectability politics.

But such conversations have moved well beyond the context of police brutality. Whether Luke Cage, a Netflix show based on a Marvel comic book, endorses respectability politics is an actual conversation people are having. Members of the LGBT communitypolice each other’s remarks for instances of respectability politics. Muslims do, too.
Click to expand...

From:
www.theguardian.com

The long list of legal cases against Donald Trump

The former president faces 19 legal actions, from alleged financial improprieties to his role in the 6 January insurrection
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The respectability politics argument is an excuse for using aggressive tactics up to and including street violence to effect rapid social change. Pronouns are not worth a riot or street violence, and never will be. If folks want to change the world go ahead and try, but if they use violence then they completely discredit their movement and I will support the state using violence against those militants who advocate confrontational violence.

Given our "debating" history on this topic, I do not wish to give you a second forum for advocating such aggressive, confrontational, militant societal change, so I yield you the floor in this debate and will engage with you no more on this issue. What you seem to be preaching is dangerous, far more dangerous than the anxiety born out of pronoun use/misuse vs. compelled speech.

Be well and farewell.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Bomberfox:

Here we go again. The respectability politics critique is one I reject.



From:
www.theguardian.com

The long list of legal cases against Donald Trump

The former president faces 19 legal actions, from alleged financial improprieties to his role in the 6 January insurrection
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The respectability politics argument is an excuse for using aggressive tactics up to and including street violence to effect rapid social change. Pronouns are not worth a riot or street violence, and never will be. If folks want to change the world go ahead and try, but if they use violence then they completely discredit their movement and I will support the state using violence against those militants who advocate confrontational violence.

Given our "debating" history on this topic, I do not wish to give you a second forum for advocating such aggressive, confrontational, militant societal change, so I yield you the floor in this debate and will engage with you no more on this issue. What you seem to be preaching is dangerous, far more dangerous than the anxiety born out of pronoun use/misuse vs. compelled speech.

Be well and farewell.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
Yeah passive aggression is not a good look. You are just a white moderate. I said nothing about street violence, only during the days of segregation violence was already being inflicted by the segregationists. You dont want to accept that you completely do not know what you are talking about and misrepresent your own country's law.

You are a white moderate who thinks they can just talk down to people who are suffering and try to collaborate to make bullies feel comfortable. I dont give that sort of consideration because it never works. The fight for human rights is a fight against power and dominance. You completely misrepresent law to back up your own biases and pretend that comfortable people are being oppressed while ignoring the victims of injustice. You are lying about compelled speech just as Jordan Peterson lied about bill C-16, Im sorry but i will not let that go unchallenged.

Maybe quit making shit up and I wont have to keep bringing it up?


It aint about simple pronoun use and you should know better. Its about Maya going around convincing her friends and larger society that simply being nice to you is secretly a trick to lull women into a false sense of security so you can rape them. Pronouns are Rohypnol. You want to dodge that because it makes the issue actually a concrete one of harassment and you want to avoid that because it goes counter to your insane ideology that there should be no limits whatsoever on speech. Sorry the workplace isnt 4chan no matter how much you might like it to be.

have a shitty day ;).
 
Last edited:
Furthermore the pushback is one that to any outsider who actually observes the facts of what the GC crowd does would know that the constant lying is very deliberate and purposeful. These people will destroy stonewall and the trevor project to get at the T. So please tell me how respectability politics will stop these people from trying to destroy essential suicide hotlines pretty plox in the middle of people that I interact with online still being thrown out of their homes for being gay? Please tell me im all ****in ears :D.
 
Evilroddy said:
Bomberfox:

Here we go again. The respectability politics critique is one I reject.



From:
www.theguardian.com

The long list of legal cases against Donald Trump

The former president faces 19 legal actions, from alleged financial improprieties to his role in the 6 January insurrection
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The respectability politics argument is an excuse for using aggressive tactics up to and including street violence to effect rapid social change. Pronouns are not worth a riot or street violence, and never will be. If folks want to change the world go ahead and try, but if they use violence then they completely discredit their movement and I will support the state using violence against those militants who advocate confrontational violence.

Given our "debating" history on this topic, I do not wish to give you a second forum for advocating such aggressive, confrontational, militant societal change, so I yield you the floor in this debate and will engage with you no more on this issue. What you seem to be preaching is dangerous, far more dangerous than the anxiety born out of pronoun use/misuse vs. compelled speech.

Be well and farewell.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
psst the civil rights movement changed the law too. The panthers carried guns to threaten policemen so their brothers and sisters wouldnt get shot or brutally mauled to death. You always gloss over that part Mr. Chamberlain. Would you support state violence to suppress people fighting back against state officials sending dogs to maul them to death in order to keep the others in line?
 
Last edited:
The thing is, is that the Bible was literally warped to say "homosexuals don't inherit the Kingdom of God" and "homosexual" inserted as a list of sins God hates in the 40s and 80s when the LGBT community became more visable. As I outlined in my OP, the words "arsenokoites" and "malakos" are dishonestly misinterpreted as "homosexuals" when Jesus Himself uses "malakos" to condemn tax collectors showing off their expensive clothes. A more proper rendering is "weak willed, impulsive, lacks self control, womanizer" etc. It did mean "effeminate" in the sense that women and femininity was seen as the "weaker" of the two sexes so it meant more so "negative female qualities." Arsenokoites is a word Paul made up! In past translations people thought it meant "male child molester" since that was rampant at the time of Paul. Others translated it as "masturbators" and "buggers" and other uses of the word post-Paul all allude to some kind of male abusive sex and/or rape. "Arsenokoites" and "malakos" are dishonestly merged to read as "homosexual" as if all homosexuals are these effeminate males (which is not true) and by extension words denoting the male sex somehow apply to women too. The church saw the LGBT community and by and large label it "disgusting" or "against nature" and literally with much dishonesty changed the Bible to translate as "homosexual" when this makes no sense to do so apart from putting biases into scripture. LGBT individuals are called "sodomites" and even the word "sodomy" has evolved. At first it meant any kind of non penile-vaginal coitus or any sex not leading to reproduction. It later morphed to sometimes mean masturbation, rape, and anal sex (heterosexuals included). Now "sodomy" typically means "gay sex" as if it has always meant that... in Ezekiel it clarifies the sins of Sodom as being murderous, inhospitable, etc. The reason they wanted to rape the angels at Lot's house was to dishonor his guests since housing a guest meant the host assumes their safety. Lot offers his daughters instead, and their rejection of raping the daughters wasn't due to them all being gay, it was due to the fact that they wanted to violate Lot's house by raping his guests. Ezekiel doesn't mention sex at all when it clarifies the sins of Sodom.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Seems the only ones obsessing over gays are gay. Those of many organized religions acept the religious view that being gay is a sin. The confirm that belief but few come close to obsessing over it. LBGTQ seem to think of nothing other than why religious believers think they are sinning. Well, as a Christian, I can tell you. Read the bible and you will find out.
Here's just one example.
bibleask.org

Does the Bible say that homosexuality is a sin? - BibleAsk

Before we allow the Bible to answer the question: Where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin, you need to know that although God hates sin, He loves the sinner to the point of death. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him...
bibleask.org bibleask.org
Click to expand...

A 2,000 year old book compiled from even older documents of which there is little to no direct evidence. Often written in a cryptic way. Translated in over 700 languages. With around 30,000 different interpretations.

Surely you can always find something in the bible to support your own view.

So I am an Atheist. But I do not deny the existance of Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact I am convinced that he did exist. And all he wanted was for people to live together in peace and harmony. That as a concept is admirable. Yet people from all over the world make it there life long obsession to discredit his word and give it a twist that suits there own agenda.

So please stop judging people for what they do and/or want to do if it does not concern your own life. Because if you really want to go there, I am sure that I can write a whole book about those same people explaining why these people are sinners and would end up in hell. Provided of course that this even exists.

If you do not like it, than don't do it. But who do you think you are to impose your own views on people that are not like minded. Because that is the kind of thing that dictators do. People like Hitler, Xi, Trump, and Putin. You really want to put yourself on par with these people? Because the only difference is the scale at which it happens, for the rest the mindset is pretty similar.

Joey
 
Two Americans, including the US Army’s first openly transgender officer, were arrested after offering military personnel medical information to an undercover FBI agent posing as a Russian embassy employee.

www.rt.com

First openly trans US Army officer arrested as ‘Russian spy’

America’s first openly transgender Army officer was charged with a plot to give sensitive medical data to Russia, the FBI has revealed
www.rt.com www.rt.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom