LGBT rights are human rights.
No. Human rights are human rights. They predate the LGBT movement by at least two decades. And while there’s nothing in there that would deprive LGBT individuals from any essential liberties, I’ve noticed at least two items that many of them seem to take issue with:
Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 20.2: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Okay, how about a set of non-religious rules of ethics, or at least something all major religious groups can agree upon?
Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder/use violence, don’t make any unwanted sexual advances, those seem general enough that everyone should be able to agree, no?
Those are worded in an inaccessable way. “You shall not…”. How about “don’t lie”? It’s the same message without the clear religious overtones that are obviously steeped in the Christian translation from Latin and Greek.
If that’s the worst you have to say about them… sure, I’m not married to a specific translation.
I also disagree with #5. Not everyone’s parents deserve honor. Some are horrible and we shouldn’t make children feel bad for not loving shit parents.
Honoring them isn’t the same as loving them, you know. And even if they’re complete shitbags who don’t deserve any respect at all, you can still honor them for having given you life by becoming a better person then them. But sure, we can strike that one if you can accept the rest.
But even if I agreed to the rest, it wouldn’t work. Those things are the basis of social emotional learning. The GOP is explicitly legislating against teaching that.
Ah well, but of course you can’t… because Republicans exist. But if rules like this are the basis of social emotional learning, and Republicans want to legislate putting them into the classroom, how exactly does that prove that they are against this sort of thing? Or are you arguing that these rules are getting in the way of such learning? If so, how?
No, you’re not paying me at all, that’s the problem.
Might wanna ask them about that directly. I certainly won’t be able to answer that question.
deleted by creator
In general, specialized disciplines (like law, medicine, science, etc.) tend to also use specialized words. I don’t think English is unique in that regard, other languages do this as well.
Why would you say that, because it was a leftie who came up with it?
“The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.”
This totally applies to the supposed “all are welcome” of LGBT, because clearly, people who don’t agree with LGBT aren’t welcome. In the same way, it also explains why many Christians are wary of LGBT people because they tend to be explicitly anti-Christian, and those churches who do admit them often end up being completely overtaken by LGBT worship.
My point being, any group claiming to be more tolerant than anyone else is ultimately lying. Tolerance is always a matter of likeness and cohesion. Those who don’t fit the norms will always be excluded.
What’s with all that hate for Christianity then?
That’s true. It’s just childish and immature.
You’re welcome
Christians do not suffer like that. It’s literally impossible for Christians to suffer like that, as they make up the vast majority of the country. No one can possibly oppress a majority. Hurt their feelings, maybe, but not oppress.
Right. It’s not like the symbol of their religion isn’t literally a dead guy hanging on a cross. Totally a sign of how much they don’t suffer.
You’re acting as if Christians are somehow a completely homogenous group who all constantly agree on everything all the time. If anything, this shows how blatantly ignorant you are of the reality.
It’s not just that there are hundreds of different denominations whose only commonality is that they agree on who God is, but who constantly feud about various aspects and interpretations of their theology, but even within individual churches you’ll rarely find two individuals who are in complete agreement with each other about everything.
And it’s not as if Christians are somehow immune to addiction, self-harm, or even suicide. The smallest minority is the minority of one, and that’s in fact what the crucifix stands for, because Jesus went up alone against a mob full of murderous rage to defend the rights of the individual to be free from religious prosecution.
But I like your suggestion, so in the spirit of reconciliation, might I offer the following compromise: instead of the Ten Commandments, we use Jesus’s version found in Matthew 19:18:
There, no more reference to any God, creed, or mandatory holy days. Gay or straight, male or female, brown or white, Muslim or Buddhist, no one is excluded or unduly put upon. Except people whose religion tells them it’s good to kill or steal from other people I guess…
I don’t see much cheese on those macaroni but fair enough.
Again, I’m going to assume you’re being serious here and respond as if it’s a real conversation.
I appreciate that, and I will do my best to honor that.
You say that the ten commandments are a sign of respect. A respect for whom or what?
They’re a sign of respect for and recognition of the essential humanity of others. No one likes to be lied to, stolen from, murdered, or envied. There is no exception made for rich and powerful people, nor for different races, creeds, or sexual orientations.
Yes, you can make the case that they also proscribe a requirement to believe in the Christian God, in which case I would say that’s no different than arguing that the pride flag is not saying that you have to be gay.
What other context is there? It’s literally implying that hanging up a copy of the Ten Commandments will groom children into becoming Nazis.
Alright, I looked up the definition and this is what I found:
Bad faith is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. It is associated with hypocrisy, breach of contract, affectation, and lip service. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.
So in order for me to be guilty of this, I would have to pretend that I am in favor of LGBT while simultaneous arguing against it. If you can show me where I did that, I will accept the charge. But you can’t, because I never did that. Ergo, you are simply misusing the word in order to convict me of some sort of wrongdoing. It is, in fact, you who is acting in bad faith here.
Ah, the old paradox of tolerance strikes again.
Your comparison is invalid because clearly, the rainbow flag does NOT mean “everybody is welcome”. It means “everybody who agrees with us about who is welcome is welcome”.
Yeah, that oughta teach me to provide better service. /s