What religion/faith are you?

[PSGarak]

You're not insane about Star Trek, tho. That's for the DSC forum.

You have a point.

 

[Discofan]

I read it in 'national geographic '.
You can look it up.
Jurassic park got it from actual science amazingly enough.

In addition there are hundreds of species where the male takes care of the young.
Even in species like wolves, a male may stay with the offspring while the mother goes and hunts, for various reasons.
I'm not sure why makes taking care of the young was even mentioned.
Not sure what it has to do with religion.

The question was not if a male could take care of an offspring, it's that a pair of males could adopt a young or an egg in the case of the Penguins once it's been abandoned by the female that laid it. As for the relevance with this thread, it's pretty obvious. It's the religious right that keeps objecting to two men or two women raising a child together.

 

[Nakita Akita]

Well, I had a bad dream last night where the Earth shifted axis and there was mass flooding.
I was on a 14,000 ft. mountain top and the water did not reach there. There were other people there also.
I was VERY upset because the other people wanted to eat my Siberian huskies and it meant that the Bible was wrong.
I woke up and was mad and upset.
I hate having bad dreams.

 

[Nakita Akita]

The question was not if a male could take care of an offspring, it's that a pair of males could adopt a young or an egg in the case of the Penguins once it's been abandoned by the female that laid it. As for the relevance with this thread, it's pretty obvious. It's the religious right that keeps objecting to two men or two women raising a child together.

There are lots of species where the male raises or takes care of the young.
Those are various animal species.
Penguins are animals.
There seems to be no information where one of the male penguins became pregnant and then laid the egg.

And I don't think anyone objects to two males or two females raising human children. Surely there are millions of children raised in that situation.

The objection comes in when the two males or two females act in a sexual nature towards one another.

 

[Discofan]

I have a rule: "Enthusiasm Breeds Insanity." The more emotion you invest in ANYTHING, the more likely it is that you will, at some point, stumble off the deep end and go insane, at least regarding that thing.

This applies to all known human activities, from religion to sports to sci-fi fandom to guns to food to environmentalism to politics to ponies to social justice to interpersonal relationships. The more you care, the more insane you become.

This knowledge has served me well in my ongoing efforts to reduce the amount of fucks I give.

On the other hand, a life devoid of passions of any kind may not be worth living.

 

[Discofan]

...
The objection comes in when the two males or two females act in a sexual nature towards one another.

Why am I not surprised?




How is that any of your business?

 

[Nakita Akita]

Why am I not surprised?




How is that any of your business?

I never thought it was but it seems like in the past 20 years it has to be rubbed in everyone's face 24/7.
"Candidate X is a man that only dates submissive Asian looking women. Vote for Candidate X! "
Does that sound like a good platform for political office?
Does it sound like anything that you even care about unless you are interested in dating Candidate X?
Really, people just can't keep their private lives private.

 

[Discofan]

I never thought it was but it seems like in the past 20 years it has to be rubbed in everyone's face 24/7.
"Candidate X is a man that only dates submissive Asian looking women. Vote for Candidate X! "
Does that sound like a good platform for political office?
Does it sound like anything that you even care about unless you are interested in dating Candidate X?
Really, people just can't keep their private lives private.

Does this even have a foothold in reality? I am not an expert in American politics but it seems to me that Trump has tried to keep his whorish life private as much as possible.

As for keeping things private, I am sure you don't object if a candidate talks about his wife and kids. Boy, are you heavy!!!

In France, except maybe for extremists (voters), people don't give a hoot about the sexual life of a candidate. His being a crook or a liar or someone that doesn't keep his promises matters a great deal more to us, we're odd that way...

 

[PSGarak]

I never thought it was but it seems like in the past 20 years it has to be rubbed in everyone's face 24/7.
"Candidate X is a man that only dates submissive Asian looking women. Vote for Candidate X! "
Does that sound like a good platform for political office?
Does it sound like anything that you even care about unless you are interested in dating Candidate X?
Really, people just can't keep their private lives private.

Citation needed.

On the other hand, I think it is quite relevant and appropriate for LGBT candidates to be as open about their relationships as hetero candidates. It is part of their identity and in some cases at least will give you an indication of where their support of human rights might fall. (Although not always, as there have been plenty of anti-LGBT politicians who are, themselves, LGBT. Those are usually the closeted cases, though.) Photo ops? Not "rubbing it in your face." Just taking pics with their families or romantic partners if not married.

Many anti LGBTers use that language, "They should just keep it private," without holding hetero couples to the same standard. I'm not going to make an assumption that this was your intention, but please be aware that language is common among those who are against human rights for the LGBT community.

And to bring it back to religion, this is where I take serious issue with a lot Christians and Muslims. They're not content with following their own morals. They want to have their morals legislated on people who do not share them. They have made it blatantly obvious that they want a theocracy, and for some reason one of their major bones of contention is what happens in people's bedrooms.

 

[Discofan]

Citation needed.

On the other hand, I think it is quite relevant and appropriate for LGBT candidates to be as open about their relationships as hetero candidates. It is part of their identity and in some cases at least will give you an indication of where their support of human rights might fall. (Although not always, as there have been plenty of anti-LGBT politicians who are, themselves, LGBT. Those are usually the closeted cases, though.) Photo ops? Not "rubbing it in your face." Just taking pics with their families or romantic partners if not married.

Many anti LGBTers use that language, "They should just keep it private," without holding hetero couples to the same standard. I'm not going to make an assumption that this was your intention, but please be aware that language is common among those who are against human rights for the LGBT community.

And to bring it back to religion, this is where I take serious issue with a lot Christians and Muslims. They're not content with following their own morals. They want to have their morals legislated on people who do not share them. They have made it blatantly obvious that they want a theocracy, and for some reason one of their major bones of contention is what happens in people's bedrooms.

You're right, she hasn't said it yet (although I am willing to bet she'll never deny it) but often the religious right who find natural that a heterosexual candidate brings their spouse and kids on the dais with them, will say that it's rubbing it in when an LGBT candidate does exactly the same.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

I never thought it was but it seems like in the past 20 years it has to be rubbed in everyone's face 24/7.

As opposed to the other way, which has only been rubbed in everyone else's faces for the last half-million years or so. I'm so straight you could use me to split atoms, and even I know that's nonsensical.

"Candidate X is a man that only dates submissive Asian looking women. Vote for Candidate X! "
Does that sound like a good platform for political office?

It sounds like an imaginary scenario you made up because you know that your position is not defensible.

 

[Discofan]

...

It sounds like an imaginary scenario you made up because you know that your position is not defensible.

Yeah, replace that by "Candidate X is a man that has a man as a life partner"

 

[PSGarak]

You're right, she hasn't said it yet (although I am willing to bet she'll never deny it) but often the religious right who find natural that a heterosexual candidate brings their spouse and kids on the dais with them, will say that it's rubbing it in when an LGBT candidate does exactly the same.

Exactly. I mean, I get that different people have different levels of tolerance for PDAs. (I might think it's ridiculous if someone finds a public kiss or hand holding offensive, but they have the right to feel that way.) As long as they apply it across the board, I take way less issue with it than when they're absolutely A-OK with a man and a woman kissing in public but yell that, "Those things are private!" the moment it's a same sex couple.

 

[Nakita Akita]

As opposed to the other way, which has only been rubbed in everyone else's faces for the last half-million years or so. I'm so straight you could use me to split atoms, and even I know that's nonsensical.

It sounds like an imaginary scenario you made up because you know that your position is not defensible.

I wish it was made up.
In the state where I live,
They always say on the TV news or radio news that candidate X is gay.
Like the person cured cancer.
To me it's about as relevant as if they say
Candidate X is white but married a black,
Likes submissive big women, etc.
Idon't care if they are gay, use that time pointing out something irrelevant to point out their voting history, or statements from their rally.
And if a person isn't married, I don't see hauling their lover up on the platform with them. Again, too much information.

 

[PSGarak]

I wish it was made up.
In the state where I live,
They always say on the TV news or radio news that candidate X is gay.
Like the person cured cancer.
To me it's about as relevant as if they say
Candidate X is white but married a black,
Likes submissive big women, etc.
Idon't care if they are gay, use that time pointing out something irrelevant to point out their voting history, or statements from their rally.
And if a person isn't married, I don't see hauling their lover up on the platform with them. Again, too much information.

So you are confirming you have a problem with the LGBT community. Got it.

 

[Amaris]

I wish it was made up.
In the state where I live,
They always say on the TV news or radio news that candidate X is gay.
Like the person cured cancer.
To me it's about as relevant as if they say
Candidate X is white but married a black,
Likes submissive big women, etc.
Idon't care if they are gay, use that time pointing out something irrelevant to point out their voting history, or statements from their rally.
And if a person isn't married, I don't see hauling their lover up on the platform with them. Again, too much information.

It comes down to perspective. You consider it too much information because you're not looking for that kind of detail about someone's life, but if you were gay, and you saw a politician bring his/her same sex partner up to the podium, you might start hoping that person understands what it's like to be in the minority, might understand what representation really means for people who have been marginalized in the past.

 

[Discofan]

So you are confirming you have a problem with the LGBT community. Got it.

I never had any doubt.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

So you are confirming you have a problem with the LGBT community. Got it.

Yeah, that's not news.

 

[PSGarak]

I never had any doubt.

I'm new to these parts. (Newly returned at least.) I still haven't seen a lot of posts from a lot of people, and I don't like to assume. But hey, once someone tells me point blank, at least I know.

 

[Nakita Akita]

It comes down to perspective. You consider it too much information because you're not looking for that kind of detail about someone's life, but if you were gay, and you saw a politician bring his/her same sex partner up to the podium, you might start hoping that person understands what it's like to be in the minority, might understand what representation really means for people who have been marginalized in the past.

If they are married it's fine.
I don't want to see anyone standing on the podium with their Flavor Of The Week.
It cheapens the position of Elected Official.