God does not make mistakes. If He made you LGBT+, then what is the issue?
He didn't make anyone like that, this is one of the many effects of the corruption of sin. Much like evolution and other natural cataclysms.
(thread title is: “how do you reconcile being LGBT+ with your religion?”)
Personally, I do not want the help of so-called "allies" and queer activists who wish to destroy my religion.
Three things.
1. 1994 was not a free and fair election, as about 70% of the country suddenly became legally permitted to vote, which completely 180ed the political landscape of the country and the blacks united - and now we have a government in South Africa that is simply anti-white. The ANC being elected in 1994 can be compared to the formative years of apartheid - one ethnic group uniting against the other.
2. Minneapolis is fine. I don't mind the racial mix, as long as everyone is legal, it's great to celebrate and share different cultures! Especially when there are no race laws that would restrict white Minnesotans from pretty much everything in one way or another :)
3. I am NOT okay with brutalizing people solely because of their race, accent, or both. Remember, people with foreign accents and/or of a foreign race CAN be legal!
An African, African-American. What do you mean? My parents are both South African, whose ancestors lived in South Africa since way before the US even existed. In fact, white settlers came to 8 of the 9 South African provinces before the first black South Africans. So if anything my parents are more African than your average black South African, or more South African at least.
I don't see how you can imply we're any less African because we're white?
White straight Christians are routinely refused basic rights in all Western countries, what are you smoking?
Have you ever heard of the freedom of association? If this board is supposed to be coming from a libertarian point of view, at least research what Barry Goldwater said about the Civil Rights Act and why he voted against it. It's a clear violation of freedom.
You can't force people to violate themselves so that other people's feelings don't get hurt. Principles are actually more important than the ego of degenerates.
So... you're arguing that women's bodies don't belong to them. Then, pray tell, to whom do they belong?
Their creator Allah.
I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is an abomination, but that is just my objective opinion from what I have read in the bible
Could I just say that I am a racist as well, please? Races are real just like breeds of dogs are real. Yes, races, colors, and dog breeds come in gradients and degrees, but can be differentiated and have very significant differences.
pretty sure you choose to be gay or to be trans
same way you choose to be straight
Rhodesia was a meritocratic democracy.
There are all sorts of people in Reform; also, affinity bias exists. homophobia does not exist in the UK, people do not care so long as it is not discussed at every opportunity, why should people care?
I believe that Transgenderism is wrong, it goes against my beliefs.
Making jokes and informal comments is not sexism.
He didn’t make them [LGBT people] that way. The Demons corrupted such people. It is in their control. They choose to do such things (including just lusting after someone). Google Father Seraphim Rose, a former homosexual who repented and is now being considered for canonization.
My forebears rode out from South Africa in 1890 as members of the pioneer column, fought for King and Country in two world wars, voted for self government, championed the cause of sovereign independence, and went on to defy the world for 14 years before coming to terms with the winds of change sweeping across the continent
They were charitable towards the indigenous inhabitants of the land they called their home, they brought law and order to a society beset by chaos, they introduced public education and modern medicine to a people whose ranks were decimated by illiteracy and high mortality rates, they built an economy based on free enterprise and paternalism, they established parliamentary governance, and they looked forward to a time when the land they loved would take it's place among the nations of the free world
Regardless of their flaws and inconsistencies as human beings I am immensely proud of them and it is my hope that one day Zimbabweans of all races and colours will live together in peace and harmony not as blacks or as whites but as Zimbabweans
Rhodesia is history and with it so too is my family's legacy, despite this I will continue to celebrate our independence and honor the war dead.
On a final and parting note let me leave you with a verse or two from Clem Tholet's "Peace Dream"
"May the sweetness of your soil yet bring you riches,
And your pastures ever fill your belly's needs,
May the nations that you harbour find a way to live as one;
Keep your standards high - do not give in to greed.
May God be with you and keep you strong;
May your tomorrows be rich and long."
Christianity does not infringe on people's rights; if anything, indoctrinated people of the churches changed it to fit the woke agenda. So, the woke movements have been infringing on the Churches.
In my opinion, Christianity should be protected from insult.
The American Race is the people of Germanic ancestry, particularly of English and Irish origin, living in the lands of North America. That's what the Founding Fathers meant by dedicating the nation to their posterity.
Well, of course !!!
Of whom are the 'TERFs', i.e., the feminists, the lackeys? Intellectual transphobia (not the instinctive revulsion, childlike caricaturing, bible-bashing, and violence which emerge as reactions from the Right) is an entirely feminist phenomenon!
It's the mainstream - the 'academics', the 'doctors', the 'journalists' of our fallen age, along with the intersectionalist liberal 'feminists', who are brow-beating feminists into repudiating and abolishing 'female' as a meaningful (social, legal, etc.) category, and attempting to abolish segregation on the basis of birth sex even in private institutions and voluntary associations.
You can't have women's rights and women's liberation without being able to answer the question 'What is a woman?' And Dworkin understood that
Womanhood is a condition of birth.
Seeing as in the West, material concerns are pretty much fulfilled (there are still issues with housing, and with healthcare and addiction, but no one is dying of hunger anymore), We should concern ourselves on the three other pillars of civilization: Identity, Social Cohesion and Defence. The Nation being the most developed form of societal structure, and the Family being the strongest one, the brick of all civilizations, I believe that the question of Identity is solved through national identity, which is mostly cultural, but has important linguistic, ethnic, and religious components. Social Cohesion is achieved thanks to an ordered hierarchy, where everyone has their place, and the preservation of the family structure, which is instrumental for any functioning society. Religious morality allows this hierarchical system to work more or less harmonically, and tradition allows the system to continue for the next generations. Defence is relatively self-explanatory, with the Army as a major institution, strict border control, and cooperation with Nations from the same greater Civilization (e.g., systems like NATO and the EU when they don't serve the interests of a single member or technocrats and foreign businessmen)
Obviously with urbanisation and the industrial and technological revolutions, traditions and identities must adapt to survive, but they shouldn't be got rid of. To preserve the system, it sometimes has to change, but the Spirit behind them must remain the same. The old-fashioned, rural form of reactionism cannot be replicated as is nowadays.
I think the answer is the same for both sides of the coin. We work against those who do not maintain the social values and expectations that we want them too as you do. Pride and lust are not societal values that I want to see perpetuated and celebrated in public as positive virtues(example, example 2). We are all actively shaping the world constantly and I intend to do what I can to make it a better society than we have. The LGBTQ movement celebrates Pride and often portrays people's sexual orientations as equating to their identities. In this way I hold the lgbtq community in the same regard that i hold "players" male or female who are judged similarly for equating their vices to be their identities.
Other side of the coin you decry anyone who does not embrace and accept your equating of identity to sexual preferences.
No I don't accept or embrace that. That doesn't make my dislike for your values special or different than then others that are detracting from a well ordered and positive society.
Rejecting these things in public and shared spaces strengthens our society by embracing a society with positive values and holds people accountable for their actions. Vice is not virtuous.
There is no real harm in the LGBT movement being closeted because they're outlawed in Ghana. Of course they're not going to bother or look for them if they're out of sight and out of mind. This is just to prevent in Ghana the ridiculous stuff that goes on in the US on the regular like gay pride parades where the cisgender normal folks or local opposition to LGBT lobby is suppressed for being too normal or "uncool" by the liberal media and influencers.
[On the topic of a piece of student artwork depicting religious trauma]
Not all parents are happy to show their children blasphemous works. It's a question of freedom of education, which is why I much prefer public schools to public ones: don't like your child's school choices? Send him to another one, the market is free!
Being LGBT is hardly blasphemous, and your usage of freedom of education is equally flawed. Your school is prohibited from discriminating against you based on religious beliefs, as clearly outlined in the First Amendment. It's the school that would be in violation, not the so-called "blaspheming" artist.
I was not talking about LGBT, the promotion of which is anti-biblical anyway, so I would understand if LGBT art were banned in a context where all or most people were Christian. By blasphemy I meant the blood-stained rosary.
And I'm not American, so I don't know about American amendments.
Sorry are you calling being gay imaginary?
Yes.
It is an imaginary, arbitrary, useless "identity" used to subvert, disrupt, and eviscerate established identities/peoples.
When the electorate won't do what you want, you create a new electorate.
(In a discussion about Libs of TikTok posts causing bomb threats)
free speech is not freedom from consequences. If you lie, defraud, etc., you are punished.
Oh I agree with this, absolutely.
Especially regarding the authors of [pro-LGBT] books.
But, as I said... I am not concerned about the "free speech" angle
I am an Italian Catholic. Maybe you are also Italian. But my mother is Romanian and I know a little bit about the culture of the East. People in Greece tend to be traditionalist and conservative as in most Orthodox countries. The fact that such a law passed despite the negative opinions of average people means that most of the elites, while talking about democracy, don't give a damn about the opinion of the people.
The truth is that homosexual activist NGOs are favored by powers such as the U.S., France and the U.K., and the rulers of countries affected by their influence often adapt under their pressure. The map of countries where homosexual "marriage" is recognized corresponds almost exactly to the list of countries under the influence of U.S. foreign policy. Exceptions are only a few cases of countries where there is exceptionally strong resistance to such laws, such as Italy, Poland and Japan. One likely reason for this policy is that homosexual activists are considered a reliable ally of Western countries: only Western powers defend and, often, favor them, so it is understandable how gay activism has every interest in exporting Western mindsets and interests.
I personally believe that recognizing homosexual "marriage" is a failure not only religiously, but humanly.
(Talking about transgender people)
There's no contradiction. Most religious people don't see people possessed with devils as evil themselves, but victims of a malady that has taken hold of their mind.
I myself do not hate the LGBTQ community, however I am against it and the entire month itself. I’m surprised that most people from the community haven’t noticed that businesses just use the month for money.
Mark 10:6-9 ~ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Leviticus 20:13 ~ 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.
Yet again, I want to clarify, I love everyone I just disagree with a lot of them.
Please tell me why canceling and calling Christians "homophobes" for disagreeing with Homosexuality on Biblical grounds isn't bigoted bullying. Please tell me why burning down non-Leftist regions on Nationstates that never attacked anyone isn't bigoted bullying. Please tell me why me being attacked for being against the various ideals of the Left, such as Marxism and Homosexuality for honest non-hateful reasons isn't bigoted bullying.
@"San Lumen";p="39527708"
How is gay adoption harmful?
The purpose of adoption is to rebuild broken families. Gay couples aren't families. Therefore, "gay adoption" doesn't serve the purpose of adoption. That's harmful because the purpose of adoption is good, so failing to serve it is bad. Also, gays are evil so their influence in society should be limited as much as possible in general in order to contain the spread of the evil and their influence over a child would be quite enormous.
I disagree. Part of the problem is that we need to work against an institutional bias. If we focused on just making everything equal legally, said extralegal bias would remain, so to counter that, the law needs to put its thuimb on the scale a bit.
No. There will always be bias. This is a psychological component of a person. A common example is interracial couples. The human brain immediately perceives this as disgusting, abnormal. A person's beliefs about this topic do not affect the reaction in any way. Real, true, without processing. Same with homosexual couples. No matter what position a person takes, no matter how he supports it, he will subconsciously be disgusted by it. Of course, a person will reject it, or even not understand it.
… (snipped for length)
(snipped for length)
I am for the fact that if people want equality, absolute equality should be given. No "privileges". Otherwise, sooner or later it will turn into the opposite discrimination. Personally, I do not support all these movements, I mean LGBT. However, I understand that the orientation is innate, and therefore it cannot be influenced in any way. I would even compromise: same-sex marriages are allowed, true legal equality is coming, however, any propaganda of non-traditional orientation is prohibited.
Considering that anti-LGBT hate crimes have been on the rise, and conservative states keep trying to take away their rights, I'd say they have good reason to feel under attack, and perhaps oppressed.
And these are just different views on life. In fact, I have little interest in the relationship with LGBT people in other countries.
Given the evidence here, unless you can find some proof that Apple has accounted for this in their hiring practices and expects higher qualifications from women for the same roles, it is a necessary consequence of the discrimination in the school system that the male employees of the same position are in fact more talented than the women, because the mens grades were downsized and the womens upsized before they were even hired.
The OECD education director even notes this. It's not just me saying it. It's merely a fact people who complain about the pay gap don't want to engage with and play the "Trick" I pointed out earlier of conflating;
"How dare you suggest women are less talented than men" with "How dare you suggest THESE women are less talented than THESE men". They are. We can demonstrate why. The attempt here and in the broader movement is to force the legal system to expand discrimination against men into the labour market.
Can you explain why you think women in these roles are equally talented to the men, given what we know about the education system?
Not necessarily. It’s just that religious conservatives don’t have the power and influence that they used to have, and now that they can’t force their lifestyle choice on others, they get pissed off and bitchy
Indeed. They're beginning to understand that "live and let live" was a mistake. And it confuses them (that's the bitchiness you're noticing). Religious conservatives thought that if they accepted the new rules of a NeUtRaL arbiter for justice, everyone could profit. They failed to recognize the snake in the garden. That's one thing I genuinely like about the contemporary Left... they understand that you cannot stop wielding the power once you've grabbed it. A single exception, when made, becomes an exploit that can be broadened.
I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.
Actually they [white nationalists] do deserve a platform after all this bullshit anti-white propaganda thats been thrown around, and if they are the only ones willing to speak up about it then fuck it.
You do not even know what the fuck white nationalism is, and i can tell you this, its not nazism.
Do people choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?
No. But believe it or not, suppressing certain urges is not bad. It is an exhibition of willpower and a rejection of dangerous temptation. While I understand children may be more vulnerable to following certain desires, the issue is that they never learn to say "no." They are not progressing; they are regressing.
Do you actually have evidence that such is true, or are you going to continue parroting a terrorist?
[Chaya Raichik] shows it to be true.
She's not a terrorist.
The "LGBTQ" movement are child rapists under civil rights protection
The reason why it's such a heated issue is that it's not just personal.
Yeah. The personal is political. Everything is political. Which means that no one can ever get away from you. Your crap is everywhere. That's why people are sick of you -- and not just political junkies like me but everyone outside your clique.
Trans people being domestically abused, denied treatment, forced through conversion camps, it's societal & institutional.
You (not just transgender but the entire "woke" tribe) are the most ridiculously overprivileged people on this planet. Every movie, every TV show, every book, every record label, every streaming site, every social media platform, every university, every institution universally supports your every whim. The complete pipeline from made up nonsense victim category being invented deep within the depths of Tumblr to it being discussed seriously before the United States Congress as if it were a genuine concern about discrimination against a real marginalized community in need of legislative remedy is getting to being measured in weeks rather than months at this point. There is nothing which could even conceivably be changed which would make you get your way more from the current system than you currently get besides punishing your political enemies more out of purely malicious vindictive spite. You run the world. You own Capitalism. You even get to enshrine your opinions as Science thanks to your controlling that too. It's time to stop pretending you're not in the position you are in fact in.
I should be surprised that we have an individual here vehemently defending certain people's "right" to be an unopposed shitbag. But it's 2022 and I've seen more than enough shit to desensitise me
Well, that may be because you appear to believe sexual orientation/gender identity is akin to race and ethnicity. I don’t. Being a POC isn’t a lifestyle, being LGBT is.
No, what is sickening from my perspective is being expected to just pretend or go along with the notion (from people I see as rediculous) that men can be women and women can be men, rather than your sex being set at birth/in the womb like was the case for most of entire world history among our species.
I want a chance with my biological "other half" as the Garden of Eden fable describes. Not some artificial creation that is an abomination at worst and a poor imitation at best in my view. I will choose staying virgin forever if the only alternative was being intimate with an MtF that passes as a woman.
Much has been said about rational reasons on the desire for monarchy: order, stability, hierarchy, etc. Some even simply find the aestheticism of the monarchy to be endearing, or they desire the tourist revenue from this. However, while God has gifted us with reason, we are not machines, for God has also gifted us with emotion, which serves to drive reason towards goals to be accomplished. For without our emotions, we have no desires and therefore nothing to direct our reason towards. CS Lewis writes that men have a desire for monarchy, and if not sated with a monarch, it will latch itself to wasteful men. I contend that this desire for a monarch is not rational or political, but rather is erotic. What I mean by this is less that it is sexual (though there certainly is an aspect of the sexual) than that it is based on a romantic love. It is not a platonic, or passive love, but is a desirous, possessive, and therefore erotic love that we bear for a monarch. Rather than being shameful or excessive, in this context, erotic love is rendered its most noble, it is the most Christlike expression of love. When Christ loves us, he does so erotically, so the Fathers say, in that he desires to obtain us for salvation. Likewise, when we love God, we desire to possess him, to acquire his grace and love. Likewise, when we love a monarch, it is out of a desire for his rule. This erotic desire for a rightful, lawful king exists even in those who explicitly despise the institution of monarchy. Speak to the most ardent anarchist of Nestor Makhno, and watch his or her eyes glaze over with tears and their voice begin to tremble with admiration, and you will see plainly their desire for him. The people will seek a lawful king even in the absence of a monarchy, and if there are no lawful kings to be found, they will find unlawful, or base monarchs to appease them, and this is what CS Lewis speaks of.
Just as Christ woos or seduces us towards virtue and salvation through his own virtue, a lawful (i.e. virtuous) King seduces our desire for such as himself, for the institution of the monarchy is a miniaturized icon of the marriage of Christ and the Church, of bridegroom and bride. It is, then, an icon of a marriage, for the monarch is not only married to his physical bride, but to his spiritual bride (i.e. the people over which he rules). A lawful king, therefore, is one who rules with an erotic or romantic love towards his "bride", that is, desiring to possess them, and to charm them with his actions, to prove himself worthy of such a fair bride. It is an unlawful king that is neglectful in his love, or who behaves with simple beastly lust, who commits adultery against his bride through pursuing only his own interests at the expense of his bride. Who is flamboyant but without beauty, for beauty is found not only in aesthetics, but in nobility of character. A monarchist is not merely one who believes a monarchy is just, but one who desires a monarch, even if it is a monarch of their heart's desire, and not a living man. Like all people who choose their bridegroom, there is the danger of a poorly made match, of being wedded to an unvirtuous monarch. In such a case, the monarch is unlawful in that his desire for his bride is not genuine, and as such the people maintain their right for a divorce, and to crown a rightful, lawful king. This is not lawlessness, but rather the law of nature, for when adultery is committed, it is a crime not only against the bride, but against God and the covenant, and is a crime which cries out to all humanity to correct by divorce, for erotic immorality was one of the great crimes against which the Law and the Prophets speak against, and which Christ and the Apostles condemn. However, erotic love fulfilled with continence, loyalty, and marriage, is virtuous and a great calling from God. And it is this which is the basis of monarchy. Rather than social contract, it is spiritual contract, for man and wife are anointed by God to follow their love.
(Conversation context wouldn’t fit in the character limit)
Hmm, I knew had SSA before middle school. I went a Catholic school from 3rd-8th grade, and homosexuality was brought up once in a Catholic sex-Ed lesson, that I actually missed that day. It was in 6th or 7th grade. The series was form the 80s and was called “In God’s image”
Either way, it’s not the Schools place to affirm one’s sexual feelings, attractions or actions. People go to school for an education, not to be indoctrinated into a leftist view of sexuality. The fact that the far-left and the radical LGBT activists want to expose young children to their lifestyle is deeply disturbing. I mean, the LGBT activists have tried their hardest to end the notion that LGBT adults recruit children, which I have personal experience with when I went to a church that was a MCC Church. At that time I was only 14-15 and I was sexually accosted.
The topic of homosexuality and transgenderism shouldn’t be brought up until high school.
This is the last reply I’m giving you. You blasphemous “joke” of the most Holy Trinity was unacceptable. Once again, you will be in my prayers.
My political beliefs are pretty straightforward. I believe in religious nationalism because countries need a transcendent center, otherwise they degrade into chaos and unbridled consumerism, and the Buddhist religion is the true and perfect religion which can unite Asia. I look at new solutions to problems when necessary, but I'm not going to throw away everything valuable in the name of neophilia