@Draccy69 Hi I really enjoyed Blossom of Bone by Randy P. Conner as a general LGTB+ spiritual history. As a more specific masculine path, I didn't read many, but the last one (which I also enjoyed and recommend) was Le Masculine Sacrè by Antinoüs Seranill. Do you know any others?

I think the title of this thread is spot-on: Francis' pastoral style was about opening doors, and allowing fresh air and light to come in. His views on LGBTQ and women's issues were quite progressive, but he was not a Vatican bureaucrat who would write rules and declare teachings in accord with his views. At best, his viiew was "crawl before you walk before you run," which is wise strategy with a large institution. I'd like to think that his unfortunate comments about seminarians were the product of a bad day. He seems to have had no animosity against LGBT people, shown perhaps most clearly by his visit to the US some years back, where he had a private dinner with a former (male) student of his and the student's husband. This was the only private dinner on that trip, and such dinners are rare on all papal trips. He was a pastor, not a politician, and only time will tell how much long-term influence he will have on the church. I never met him, but I think he and I would have gotten along quite well. For full disclosure, I am an active member within the Anglican Communion, whether it be the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of England, or the Episcopal Church in the US, depending on where I'm working or teaching. That siad, I hold the Roman Catolic Church in high regard, and I share in mourning of Catholics around the world.

@raphjd Yes, it turns out that the "making of the 2015/2016/2017 calendar" is live at https://www.gaytor.rent/details.php?id=9ab2ee94bf51613b3f627acd8bc2072fddce83a45d3a9613 . The "making of 2017" is dead at https://www.gaytor.rent/details.php?id=732bc6620d41e3363f627acd8bc2072fd8e78e14a66b4fa4 , but there are some good preview pics.

These are amazing. Where can I see more?

Pray to stop watching gay porn? Umm, no. Bisexual porn? No. Straight porn? Nope. I don't see how one is greater or is considered "more sinful" than the other, lol! Hell, if it weren't for porn, I'd never have "met" my porn husband Boomer Banks.

@nagysanci I think its not.Wasnt the final goal of buddhists to erase any kind of desires in order to achieve happiness? I dont know too much about this but i remember it was something like, when life gives y something not matching your expectations y suffer pain,and if life gives y all y expect your expectations rise so the only way to avoid pain(and thus achieve happines) is to erase any desirey have. How can that match with sexual desire? If y get blocked by the 10 in grindr, y will suffer, so y wont be happy according to buddhism XDD Excuse my english

@eobox91103 said in First Trans Lutheran Bishop: Religion, or something claiming to be religion, is a part of society and family, and something that will affect LGBT people in a variety of ways. It would be good to have discussion on that, especially since the religion topics don't seem dominated by bullies or cancel culture. I agree with the first part of the quote. On one hand, the historical Churches are certainly declining in attendance, but religion, the feeling of transcendence or the need to feel a transcendent, arcane and trans-individual "breath" is still very present (in yoga trend, the fascination of superheroes sagas...). On the other hand, the non-historical churches, e.g. charismatic churches, are very much flourishing. And these tendencies, institutions, gatherings, and movements do impact the life of LGBTQ people. Concerning the second part of the quote, I shall partially disagree. I have read posts in this forum in which the tones weren't always respectful, or weren't perceived as respectful by the party concerned. I guess there is always room for improvement! Anyway, in light of my personal religious path and my gay identity, I would be very much interested in sharing positive and negative interactions with religious institutions and persons with other members of this Forum and Community! Best, K.

I have found that religious people are LESS moral.. because they tend to be HYPOCRITES! For instance.. you have two men.. both of them get drunk.. one of them is a construction worker wearing a "Drink Budweiser" shirt, the other is a priest who preaches that getting drunk is a sin which one is behaving less moral?

@blablarg18 About "caring" -- I found K's pics of hard-core Lenten rituals very interesting, glad he brought this thread to the Forum. You can keep those blessings for me, and in return, I won't seek the guidance you need from my trusty Ouija board, lol, lol. End of comments. [image: 1650225983835-easter.jpg]

@bi4smooth said in Utah Billionaire Leaves LDS Church, Donates to LGBTQ Group: I'm confused.... when you refer to the "Woke mob", are you referring to: The liberals who support LGBTQ+ rights, or The Liberals (capital L) who force their beliefs on other thru aggressive means. The conservatives who want to suppress, even amplify, discrimination (and recrimination) of LGBTQ+ people? Conservatives (Capital C) are the small vocal minority of the party that uses their 2000 year old teachings that applied 2000 years ago to current reality. Real conservatives (little c) don't care a dam about what you call yourselves or who you choose to love. A difference between a conservative and a liberal: a conservative will help someone in need to the best of their ability and a liberal will do something similar but with other peoples resources thru big government.

@lololulu19 said in What is MORAL?: Actually, the word "Morality" comes from the word "mores". Mores are mereley behaviors practiced by the majority of society - which is hardly a credbile way to govern one's life. For instance, at various places and times, the majority of populations accepted slavery, bigotry, cannibalism, infanticide, incest, Barbra Streisand, etc. Indeed - morals are "societally agreed upon acceptable behaviors"... In Greek times, older men had younger boys who "helped" them sexually - though neither orally or anally - the older man would "fuck" the boy between his legs, never penetrating any part of his body (which would have been "unclean"). In Roman times, older men had a collection of younger men and women he could do with as he pleased... even killing them... without legal penalty (the crime of murder only applied to Roman Citizens, not mere slaves!). The issue with "morals" is not one of society - society's rules change - sometimes quickly (when I started out my professional life, I could have lost my security clearance by simply admitting that I had ever had sexual relations with another male! Now, 35 years later, my employer is not allowed to discriminate against me over the issue - I'm a "protected class" because I suck dick!). The issue with morals is that some people refuse to follow the "morals" of their times. Even when they know something is wrong, they do it anyway. Children who steal candy - knowing it is wrong - are acting "amorally" (or immorally, if you must)... which takes you to the "strength" of the rules that make up morals: Is the crime the same if I steal a bottle of water than if I steal a car or an expensive piece of jewelry? Is the crime the same if the person I kill is "beneath me" - or was trying to kill me - or was an illegal immigrant - or was on my property? There often are not easy answers there. A human with a functional brain should realize what is right and what is wrong. As you just said in your first paragraph: the ideas about what is right vs. wrong are societally put there! While it is fictional, read "The Lord of the Flies" sometime! For instance, I am not proud of the fact that I eat meat, but I realize that as a human, I must eat meat as sure as I must breathe. We can eat LESS meat, and as fully grown adults are not as dependent upon it, but we need to consume other animal products to develop. So, depending upon who you ask, eating meat is just part of nature - we (humans) are omnivores - we can subsist on any combination of plants and animals, though we are "healthiest" when we consume a mixture of both. I know plenty of "vegans" who would argue that eating animal protein at all is "immoral" - and I would disagree with them. A classic case of how individuals can have "morals" that do not agree! Now, getting to sexuality. What is sexuality? Frankly, it is overwhelmingly a behavior which elicits pleasure - and even then overwhelmingly in the form of masturbation. When it comes to genders.. what is worse? two males stimulating each other - essentially as a form of masturbation - to achieve a sense of pleasure and satisfaction? OR a male and female stimulating each other - with the risk of producing an unplanned, unwanted offspring - 24% of which are intentionally aborted in the USA, and quite a few more lost in miscarriages - and quite a few more who are born and neglected, unloved, and unsupported? I'm with you there! Too many unwanted pregnancies! But I think you'll have a rough time convincing straight men they should be fucking each other solely for the purpose of avoiding unwanted pregnancies! Mind you: I'm all-in on trying to convince them! But let's get something straight here (no pun intended): the desire to have sex (more specifically, to orgasm) is PRIMAL - which is why, when there is no one to have sex with, we do it ourselves! The urge to "get off" is a basic biological one - tied DIRECTLY to the biological drive to procreate! Still, what "turns you on" is entirely mental - but not on a conscious level (at least, not that we've been able to discern yet!) In general (and I teach my kids this) your body will tell you what you're attracted to: your dick gets hard, your pussy gets moist! You - as an adult human - have to figure out what to do from there! If you're attracted to boys, find boys who are attracted to you! If you're attracted to girls, find girls who are attracted to you! If you're attracted to both, apply BOTH rules above! But keep in mind: your being attracted to someone is only 1/2 the equation! You only have a right (these are morals here!) to ACT on those attractions when the attraction is mutual - and even then, as humans, we also have the right to act counter to our attractions - so there must also be consent! Also consider that in biblical times, birth control was virtually unavailable other than to take poison risking the death of the woman. If someone asked JC "I have decided I am going to seek sexual stimulation instead of living my entire life as a virgin. What should I do, have sex with a man which will not result in a child OR have sex with a woman - doing everything possible to avoid a pregnancy - and hoping it does not happen - and if it does, killing or neglecting the baby? You are trying to impose the morals of THIS society onto a historical figure 2000 years in the past. This isn't then, and then isn't now. In the times of JC, the bible told you that you must "be fruitful and multiply" - there was no such thing as an "unwanted" child! Children were the PURPOSE! Biologically speaking, that is exactly right! As with all other animal and plant life - our primary purpose is to procreate the species! That said, as we've already pointed out - societally, we've come a long way baby! With nearly 8-Billion people on the planet, we can focus on things OTHER than making more people! And that brings into play the whole morality issue again: some religions (societies) continue to believe that it is the moral obligation of every woman to find a husband and to have (and raise) children. Other religions (societies) have other, differing views: that women can have other roles to play, and that we don't really need that many MORE people! (And there are an INFINITE number of other "moral" viewpoints out there - and that's the crux of the matter again: your "morals" may not be the same as my "morals" - they are not universal! I realize that at certain times with young people in their 20's and 30's, they actually want to have children, and that is wonderful. However, realistically, that motivation for having sex is EXTREMELY RARE. I suspect you just don't see them... check out your local listings for fertility clinics and OB-GYNs! There are LOTS of people TRYING (in some cases, DESPERATELY TRYING) to have children! Even then, when this rare motivation for sex IS practiced, that makes women virtual breeding receptacles who spend their entire lives popping out more children and nursing them like cows - without having any other purpose in life other than propagation. Somehow, I don't think women would like to live their lives that way. Biologically speaking, that is the female role: provide the vessel into which new lives grow, and feed the infants until they can subsist on other foods. SOCIETALLY, (which, we you've pointed out - that means morally) we have agreed that we're above all that now... but you can't ignore biology either! Interesting points!

True! Islam is a violent religion towards gays, women and infidels

Albert Camus

@rathyy As a secularist and former fashionista, I am more prone to follow the teachings of Yves Saint Laurent.

Christianity is a lot like picking a side in politics; you're either a liberal or a moderate.  Moderate Christians tend to lean towards the literal translations of the bible to dictate how the religion should be viewed.  That, of course, sometimes leads to interesting contradictions such as supposedly not eating shellfish or wearing clothes made from more than one type of fiber.  Naturally, most ignore those edicts yet become so gung-ho on other issues such as same-sex issues. Conversely, liberal Christians tend to have a more broader and inclusive view of the bible.  They would be more willing to, for example, interpret Jesus's condemnation of men sleeping with other men as being context from the ancient ritual of "sexually conquering" an enemy fallen in battle; that he never once mentioned anything about consensual sex between same genders.  That, unfortunately, breaks away from the traditional mainstream views that Christianity was originally born from and is probably considered a minority group in the world of Christianity. Note that you should take what I say with a grain of salt.  I am nowhere near religious; I'm more of a theist.  My point is to mainly show that Christianity is a lot like being in politics; you will always be on one side with regards to the topic of gays.  Which is why I am not a fan of organized religion; it's too much like being in politics with some groups being exclusive rather than inclusive.

Thinkers often tried to justify their failing (or things perceived as ones in their time) by bullshitting. Some try to pass it as religious revelation, some build entire philosophy on premise "I can't be bad, therefore it's good", and so on. Historical context: Greek society was overly masculine, man was always expected to be a top, an active predator and penetrator. Main course of male-male relationship was a pederasty, while equal relationships were considered "sissy stuff". And in Plato's period all homosexuality was dubbed shameful, so he was trying to exonerate himself.

我是一个佛教徒，也是G，在我接触到的佛陀教法中，佛教并没有独立看待异性或者同性爱恋。佛教的戒律甚至有禁止人与动物的性行为戒律，不过不是针对物种，而是行为本身。佛教是讲究禁欲的，虽然佛陀并没有明确的提到G或者异性，但是我觉得应该是一样对待的，佛教反对的是邪淫，就是说不乱交。在家人的单一伴侣制度是佛教认同的。