@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。

I'm not a Catholic myself, but I taught at Catholic universities for several years.  I think Francis is more LGBT-accepting than his predecessors, and on a visit to the US, he had a well-publicised private meeting with a former student and his husband.  At the same time, it's very hard to change the direction of a large institution with hundreds of years of tradition behind it–assuming he wanted to. That said, the Catholic church is not as monolithic as some think:  At the local church level, some parishes are very diverse and inclusive; others are quite the opposite. There's also a lot of variation by country/region:  I worked in Sydney, Australia for a while, and while the Anglican church there seemed quite homophobic, the Catholic church (at least the cathedral and its music programme) seemed very inclusive and welcoming.  That's a contrast to the US, the "Episcopal Church" (part of the Anglican Communion) is very LGBT-inclusive.

Raelism is explicitly LGBT friendly. Japanese Shinto doesn't pay attention. Voodoo is surprisingly tolerant, in theory, but in practice it depends on region and political situation. Taoism aspires to peacefully transcend sexuality, and thus does not condemn gays. Priests are expected to marry women, but you don't have to be a priest. Buddhists sometimes claim to be ones, but they are lying - dharmic religions are homophobic at their core, just like abrahamic ones (they have shared notes several millenia ago). At best they're just like modern tolerant christians. Confucianism allows you to bang anyone as long as you make 1-2 babies (total, not per partner), but it's sort of out of fashion today. Some neo-pagan/Wiccan circles are supposed to be this, but they're mostly laughingstock and bunch of posers. Pastafarians and Unicornists are definitely this, but, well…

I learnt a lot about them from this site: https://www.missionaryboys.com/

Judaism is very focused on proper social behaviour. So, a symbol of our faith in the sense of something that would tell a person whether or not we are Jewish has no regulation banning it from the toilet or sex.  I would wear my kippa/yarmulka/that-thing-on-my-head pretty much anytime I'm awake.  I make an exception for walking down really windy streets where it could get blown off.  The same would apply to any symbol worn on a necklace or ring. From what I've been told by Muslim women the similar rules apply to the hijab.  It wouldn't be worn in private or with your family. WE have ritual garments, like the Sikhs, Mormons, Zoroastrians, and Hindus.  A Tallith (prayer shawl) and T'fillin require a special blessing to be said when they are first put on and only used for prayer.  They have to be removed when going to the washroom and as the conclusion of prayer. Here's a picture of a young man of my ethnic background wearing the garments. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-sephardic-jewish-man-tallit-tefillin-56352403

The word "homosexual" first appeared in print in the 1860's. It is the product of modern psychological understanding and the theory of the unconscious or subconscious mind. The concept of an innate unconscious behavioural disposition did not exist before then. The earliest translation of the Bible that contains the word "homosexual" was in 1941. If we accept that the Greek word "Arsenokoites" means a man bedding (having sex with) and another man, something highly debatable, homosexuality is an obviously incorrect translation. 1. more than half of homosexuals are women. 2. many homosexual men don't or have not yet had sex with another man, but they are still homosexuals. 3. if surveys are to believed, the small proportion of heterosexual men that have had sex with another man actually outnumber the total number of homosexual men since the proportion of men who are homosexual is so small. 4. Sexuality refers to a disposition, i.e. who are are sexuality attracted to. It does not refer to any sexual act. The modern translations of the Bible that print the word "homosexual" are therefore clearly and absolutely wrong. The mistranslation changes the meaning from condemning people for what they do, to condemning people for how they were born. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/word-homosexual-first-introduced-bible/ https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

I am religious because my religion allows me to be whoever I want to be.

@raphjd: If god exists, as in the 3 Abrahamic religions, then he's a vile cunt who doesn't deserve to be worshiped. hahahaha, lol

in my case i can confirm this. my mother votes for the christian party but i was not raised in a religious family. however i think its common that people unfortunate enough to be born in a scientology family decides scientology is not for them and then get isolated by the rest of the family. @raphjd: Virtually all believers are the same religion as their parents.

ew no. how would that even work? like id like to hear the explanation of how a people through all of recorded history, including in nazi ww2 germany has made a "choice" to be gay. absolutely make no sense so itd be interesting to hear how people think gay people make a conscious decision to b gay,

@flozen: Are there any existing spells you would apply to this situation, or would you invent a new spell to cast on these educators? I'd cast Riddikulus, but it may not be necessary…