Serious LGBT Discussion

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Very interesting. Can you elaborate on it? Why do you see homosexuality as sin, but at the same time condemn homophobia (well, besides the right to freedom of expression).

Spoiler: long

I immediately sniff out excuse for a bunch of other sins behind it.

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Love of God is already nowhere to be found in this world for the most part, and neither is loving our neighbors as ourselves. Even though sexual sins are considered to be one of the worst for pretty valid reasons, murder and torture are arguably the worst since you can't undo them, on top of it all being the direct opposite of the second commandment. I used to believe atheists who were cherry picking the Old Testament quotes and claiming that Christianity on itself is oppressive and bloodthirsty, until I learned that it's ceremonial law that was only relevant for Israelites of the old covenant.

Dehumanization that goes with homophobia on itself actually reinforces LGBT ideology, but sort of in a flipped way. LGBT activism is quite literally built on sins of pride and (self) idolatry, where idols aren't even really us as people anymore, but our traits. In queer circles, to criticize someone's sexual or gender identity is to criticize themselves as a whole.
By reducing people to their sexuality, homophobes reaffirm this mindset. In a negative way, but it doesn't matter, as both positive and negative affirmation, well, affirm the false idea that all that queer people are is their sexuality. But that's not what any living human being is. Everyone is made in the likeness of God, all humanity possesses equal dignity, our separate traits are not our whole identity, sins are even less so. True believer grieves for the sinner and prays that they will know God for themselves, because ultimately focusing on sin itself, "getting rid of sin", and such is not the goal; the actual goal is to come back to God and sins seem to fall away naturally out of genuine convicion or at least getting rid of it becomes means to get to the goal, but not the goal itself. Beating people up, harassing them, ostracizing them, torturing into "being correct" or killing them all because in your mind their trait is all that they are and forever will be doesn't convey the message in my previous few sentences at all.

Going back once again to what I said about sniffing out an excuse for other sins, it's true for all people, but in this case, most homophobes seem to be having a convenient, socially acceptable excuse to hate the whole person. Sometimes it's pride of their own, "look at me, how righteous I am, bashing these filthy queers". Other times it's just generally having "an acceptable" target to unleash whatever type of violence they crave, fueling their sinful nature. The urge to dehumanize, humiliate, violate, accuse and provoke is evil.

While any government shouldn't become a fully blown anarchy with zero moral code behind its policies, it's not possible to replace genuine relationship with Jesus by offering secular solutions and even worse, force them down people's throats. It's anti-Christian at its core, true love and its fruits cannot exist without free will, and no amount of rules that exist separated from a personal relationship with God and genuine conviction that leads to deeper understanding of who God is, what is sin and why, will ever work. It will just be Pharisees and Sadducees all over again, basically, the very people who crucified Jesus, and they clearly enjoyed the sight of his suffering. Doesn't it sound familiar?

Also, while typing about Pharisees, I recalled the story where "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" phrase comes from. All sin is sin. By saying that it's ok to dehumanize someone for their sin, we're saying that we will allow ourselves to be dehumanized for our sins. It's ironically a very secular way of life, and surprisingly common among atheist leftists. Your mistakes are sins that are going to forever curse you into being a convenient target, because your sin is what you are now. Your humanity gets erased. You're a walking label. Actually, you know what, scratch the "secular way of life", it's straight up satanic. Accusing, pushing people further into their sin either though internal means (temptation) or external (social pressure, labeling, etc), creating a veil of unforgiveness and damnation no matter how hard you repent, it's all what Satan basically does to people.
By the way, even in that video I posted, while I said that the encounter seems more like a little drama out of lack of street smarts, it wasn't the only angle I saw it. This woman attacked OP saying "I'll show you what they do to people like you in prison". Wait a fucking second. Prison? Does this imply she was in prison at some point? On top of that she was drunk. And you somehow aren't "a disgrace for the country" (something I too lean to see as idolatry)? Do you expect to be treated the same way for your mistakes? Matthew 6:15

Sorry if I'm jumping all over the place too much, I just thought I needed to mention every relevant detail to explain why I condemn homophobia. Maybe, considering the second commandment given by Jesus and all the biblical context, homophobia itself is a sin.

I don't really know, however, how to approach vague things that are defined as homophobia nowadays. Such as hurt feelings (even though I had them myself), or statements that homosexuality is a sin or that marriage can only be between a man and a woman being homophobic on their own. But I'm absolutely sure that any type of actual harassment and violence should be off the menu. Sin can't be solved with more sin, sin can't be approached from the place of hatred, Christians are supposed to be Witnesses of the Light, not rabid tards with bitter hearts.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

I don't really know, however, how to approach vague things that are defined as homophobia nowadays. Such as hurt feelings (even though I had them myself), or statements that homosexuality is a sin or that marriage can only be between a man and a woman being homophobic on their own. But I'm absolutely sure that any type of actual harassment and violence should be off the menu. Sin can't be solved with more sin, sin can't be approached from the place of hatred, Christians are supposed to be Witnesses of the Light, not rabid tards with bitter hearts.

As much vitriol as I tend to spout at the LGBTQ movement, this whole thing actually needed to be said.

The LGBTQ movement is evil, and we need to point it out, but we can't let the darkness consume us too. Nor should we chase the vulnerable and weak into their arms. Nor should we treat those with crossed wires like they're beyond redemption.

It's a very fine line to walk when you're dealing with a group as cultish and predatory as the LGBTQ. The more you validate their persecution complex, the more powerful they become. Never forget that's the only reason why they were able to get so far, was on their underdog or "persecuted minority" status alone.

The very thought terminating cliche that prevented people from effectively judging the LGBTQ lifestyle and ideology on its own merits. (You're only saying all of that because you're a homophobic bigot!)

 

[Skylavijas]

I don't understand what guilty conscious do you expect to hit by calling people homophobic or stigmatizing on a website that's a safe haven for folks with dark triad personality disorders

Ok, after reading the post @BIG SHOT Autos made I realized that the post I made earlier to someone else was slightly excessive. Yes, there are still many people that love the hate, but I should've better elaborated the nuances of it.

The more you validate their persecution complex, the more powerful they become. Never forget that's the only reason why they were able to get so far, was on their underdog or "persecuted minority" status alone.

Funny you mention that. Going back to discussion of Russia, I have noticed that some queers from the Russian speaking world have actually started to turn towards Christianity in order to cope. With lack of alternative outlets, they started to get drawn towards stories of Jesus being crucified or his followers being fed to lions at roman coliseums. But thing is... They still are very much in touch with their queerness, they just reinterpreted their struggle in a Christian lens. Some may argue that this is substantially more dangerous than LGBT being a separate secular entity. Because of this, I think Russia is doomed to experience a massive u-turn in it's homophobic laws, alongside due to numerous other issues like the country having a massive gender imbalance of women outnumbering the men.

Keeping with the theme of queerness and Christianity, travelling the nordics has subjected me to a culture shock of how much gay marriage is accepted there. Almost any queer couple can have their relationship blessed and consummated by a priest. Not just in some dingy hyper-progressive churches, there are full on national Lutheran cathedrals, built centuries ago, that may host special events or seminaries during pride events. I am not religious by any means, but that still was highly surreal to witness. It's not like the catholic church where support for LGBT is purely lip-service for the press. It's so unreal to think that there are gay Protestants in the nordics that are currently praying for their queer Orthodox Russian friends they met on discord to be safe and unharmed. Again, I think this all holds profound implications, yet nobody talks about it. It has potential of creating an entire new breed of LGBT advocacy that's more powerful than anything we've seen before.

 

[RybenZ999]

Keeping with the theme of queerness and Christianity, travelling the nordics has subjected me to a culture shock of how much gay marriage is accepted there. Almost any queer couple can have their relationship blessed and consummated by a priest. Not just in some dingy hyper-progressive churches, there are full on national Lutheran cathedrals, built centuries ago, that may host special events or seminaries during pride events. I am not religious by any means, but that still was highly surreal to witness. It's not like the catholic church where support for LGBT is purely lip-service for the press. It's so unreal to think that there are gay Protestants in the nordics that are currently praying for their queer Orthodox Russian friends they met on discord to be safe and unharmed. Again, I think this all holds profound implications, yet nobody talks about it. It has potential of creating an entire new breed of LGBT advocacy that's more powerful than anything we've seen before.

I wonder if this is the reason why /pol/ has turned on Christianity lately. Maybe they thought that the writing was on the wall and that Christianity might "cuck" out in this too like they did with migrants and stuff.

But the nordics probably aren't a good comparison because those countries just aren't religious, like at all. Sweden is probably one of the most atheist countries in the world.

To be honest I think the opposite is probably more likely to be true. Acceptance of homosexuality might implode if stuff like STDs became a huge thing. I think Robert R Reilly talks about this in his book.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

But the nordics probably aren't a good comparison because those countries just aren't religious, like at all. Sweden is probably one of the most atheist countries in the world.

The churches blessing a gay relationship sounds more like a cultural thing over there, because the nordics are so secular.

Kinda like Russia LARPing as being so trad and religious, even though hardly anyone actually goes to church, and things like alcoholism, domestic abuse, and STD infection is so widespread.

To be honest I think the opposite is probably more likely to be true. Acceptance of homosexuality might implode if stuff like STDs became a huge thing. I think Robert R Reilly talks about this in his book.

And everything else that goes with it. The LGBTQ continuing to act like spoiled brats despite getting everything they could reasonably want in 2015, AND then doubling down on their insistence on trying to corrupt children.

That would be an interesting sight to see, Russia getting taken over by the LGBTQ menace while the west gets sick of it and purges it.

 

[Jacques1194]

So a question for the gays here. What are your thoughts on "Queer baiting" and "queer coding"? To me, with how much LGBT rep has appeared in media in general, is there really any point in "Queer baiting" and coding characters? I don't get why people still believe that creators and writers would resort to playing games with gay viewers by hinting that "this character has hints that they're gay" when they could literally make it canon if that's the case. Especially if a show already has gay characters on it.

 

[DSHK]

As much vitriol as I tend to spout at the LGBTQ movement, this whole thing actually needed to be said.

The LGBTQ movement is evil, and we need to point it out, but we can't let the darkness consume us too. Nor should we chase the vulnerable and weak into their arms. Nor should we treat those with crossed wires like they're beyond redemption.

It's a very fine line to walk when you're dealing with a group as cultish and predatory as the LGBTQ. The more you validate their persecution complex, the more powerful they become. Never forget that's the only reason why they were able to get so far, was on their underdog or "persecuted minority" status alone.

The very thought terminating cliche that prevented people from effectively judging the LGBTQ lifestyle and ideology on its own merits. (You're only saying all of that because you're a homophobic bigot!)

Nah, fuck that they all belong in a ditch.

 

[Blue Flying Leaf]

I tried to reform them. They can't be reformed. I was only wasting my time.
They formed their personalities around degeneracy and destroying actual society and are detrimental to any country they are (let) in.
They crossed the line when I saw them recruit youths.

No, there is no salvation or help for them nor do they deserve it.

 

[DSHK]

I tried to reform them. They can't be reformed. I was only wasting my time.
They formed their personalities around degeneracy and destroying actual society and are detrimental to any country they are (let) in.
They crossed the line when I saw them recruit youths.

No, there is no salvation or help for them nor do they deserve it.

Theyve been given over to a reprobate mind. God has given up on them.

 

[Blue Flying Leaf]

Professional agitators

 

[HootersMcBoobies]

I still recall how back in a day the large crutch of the issue regarding homosexuality was whether or not it was a choice or not. I glanced what the scientific consensus is and apparently it is.... both? Like, there is no gay gene, but it doesn't eliminate the genetic factor... I can't even reference it without contextual elaboration, maybe there is a good reason nobody has this discussion of choice vs nature anymore, as it goes nowhere.

There is the really weird case where the younger brothers are more likely to be gay:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5777082/

Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The research of Blanchard et. al. suggests this is due to different hormone levels in the mother during later pregnancies. I wonder if there is a behavior aspect researchers are refusing to look at: competition or even abuse from older siblings.

I used to believe atheists who were cherry picking the Old Testament quotes and claiming that Christianity on itself is oppressive and bloodthirsty, until I learned that it's ceremonial law that was only relevant for Israelites of the old covenant.

I do think the new atheism movement has failed the western world, but I also think this view of "ceremonial law" (I think you mean civil law) is a great over simplification. The Christianity of today is here because of those atrocities, as are all successful states and religions:

https://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/06/christian-atrocities-three-centuries-of-pagan-persecution/

When you go back to ~600 AD, there were still many Abrahamic faiths. Tom Holland covers this in his documentary Islam: The Untold Story (2012). He claims many of the caliphates didn't know anything about Mohamed until Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan adopted the story to solidify his empire, in the same way Constantine adopted Christianity into Rome.

All of that is to say, the old Abrahamic people who we've retroactively labeled "The Jews" or "The Arabs" followed a massive variety of texts, gods and faiths. We've essentially retroactive-cannoned these faiths into discrete categories from a time when biblical cannons didn't exist.

Christianity in the form we have it only exists because earlier sects were diminished or wiped out. Some of them were massive like the Valentinians, the Coptics and many other gnostics. This is often justified as those who defied God's true word being subject to the fate of their heresy. But if God is not guiding these events, then it can be argued the God we have now survived because of holy wars and inquisitions.

That's all to say, it was basically Might Makes Right when it comes to religion. The great irony is we like to claim reason and evidence in decisions today, but our States and religions have always been formed by shows of power and trial by combat.

Everyone is made in the likeness of God, all humanity possesses equal dignity, our separate traits are not our whole identity, sins are even less so. True believer grieves for the sinner and prays that they will know God for themselves, because ultimately focusing on sin itself, "getting rid of sin", and such is not the goal; the actual goal is to come back to God and sins seem to fall away naturally out of genuine convicion or at least getting rid of it becomes means to get to the goal, but not the goal itself. Beating people up, harassing them, ostracizing them, torturing into "being correct" or killing them all because in your mind their trait is all that they are and forever will be doesn't convey the message in my previous few sentences at all.

This is a description of modern Christianity. It would literally not exist without the push to make it more secular. Even in 1600s Boston, heretics were often hung and witches burned. Behavior has always been cultivated in society by a combination of force, corrosion, religious mysticism, and execution for defying behavior norms.

The great irony is the the concept of religious freedom and the freedom to speak, that was solidified in the American Bill of Rights, was written by the deistic (and masonic) descends of those who left for the new world in order to start puritan theocracies (rebranded to us in school as religious freedom).

And yes, you can trace many of the concepts of these baseline rights to the Magna Carta, but Americanism really solidified "endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights."

I have noticed that some queers from the Russian speaking world have actually started to turn towards Christianity in order to cope. With lack of alternative outlets, they started to get drawn towards stories of Jesus being crucified or his followers being fed to lions at roman coliseums. But thing is... They still are very much in touch with their queerness, they just reinterpreted their struggle in a Christian lens.

Keeping with the theme of queerness and Christianity, travelling the nordics has subjected me to a culture shock of how much gay marriage is accepted there. Almost any queer couple can have their relationship blessed and consummated by a priest. Not just in some dingy hyper-progressive churches, there are full on national Lutheran cathedrals, built centuries ago, that may host special events or seminaries during pride events. I am not religious by any means, but that still was highly surreal to witness.

Christianity may very well be the origin of Victimhood as Virtue. According to Helen Dale, the Romans didn't have the concept of refinement through hardships. Sure there were stories similar to the Book of Job, but it wasn't a large part of their culture. The adoption of Christianity changed that. It's the combination of "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:10) and "For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,..." (Matthew 10:35) that forms the duality of Christianity in the modern world. It is the arrows and the olive branch clutched in the talons of the American bald eagle.

That is all to say, Christians should absolutely not be shocked there are progressive/LGBT churches. The modern evangelical, fundamentalist or even reformed Christian can cry out all they want that this is a bastardization and goes against God's word. (most churches who started going down this route in the 2000s, like the PCUSA who split from the PCA, did so by dismissing the works of Paul, the 14th apostle or 13th living apostle, who is the only one that addressed sexual immorality. If so much of the other old civil law, such as eating shrimp and pork, was dismissed, why is homosexuality an exception? Was Paul a false prophet/apostle?).

The progressive church fighting for the rights of the alphabet soup is literally the logical progression from the direction Christianity has been steering for the past few centuries.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

The more you validate their persecution complex, the more powerful they become.

Theres a FINE distinguishment to make.

LGBT do the whole "appear strong when they are weak" thing. And for years they appeared "nice" til they got a bunch of rights and shit and then acted awful openly.

More importantly their prosecution complex is so inbuilt trying to bypass it is stupid, its like a nigger who has an IMMENSE chip on his shoulder about race, and screeches why he doesn't make the same as his boss despite coming into work drunk. Theres no navigating that, you HAVE to remove them.


LGBT is similar, they really just bluster a ton while they have their (fragile) power, because they know removing their power is not hard. Its not too different to how runty, or low tier people might be extra aggressive, because every challenge IS close to the end of the world for them.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

And for years they appeared "nice" til they got a bunch of rights and shit and then acted awful openly

Fair point with the rest of the post, though I have to point out that they never appeared nice. They never acted nice, they were always unpleasant people who took joy in persecuting and destroying anyone who disagreed with them, one example being Dan Savage intentionally trying to infect republicans with the flu bug, or manipulating the google algorithm in response to some remarks made by Rick Santorum.

They just gaslit you whenever you point it out, or they say it's a perfectly normal response to being persecuted or marginalized for their sexuality. It wasn't until they got EVERYTHING they could have want, and near-complete control over the establishment, that we see that wasn't the case at all because they still are awful people no matter how much society rims them.

There's also still the question on how you prevent people (especially minors) from getting sucked into the LGBTQ cult, namely at their most vulnerable. Until we are given power to just curbstomp the LGBTQ wholesale and remove the threat once and for all, that is.

LGBT is similar, they really just bluster a ton while they have their (fragile) power, because they know removing their power is not hard. Its not too different to how runty, or low tier people might be extra aggressive, because every challenge IS close to the end of the world for them.

I think this also explains a good deal on why the woke left loses their shit over people like JK Rowling or Scott Cawthon. Their strategy relies on destroying anyone who opposes them, even a little bit, and making an example out of them.

Or they simply find ways to torment them whenever possible. Psychological warfare is a big part of it, they call it "Direct Emotional Modeling," or "Waging Peace," as outlined in After the Ball.

To see both people continue to be successful, or at least well off, despite all their best efforts, drives them mad, because when normies see such people suffer no lasting negative consequences for daring to cross the LGBTQ (Scott's depressive spirals notwithstanding), it also basically gives THEM permission to start shitting on the LGBTQ and questioning why on earth we are supposed to do what these degenerates and reprobates want.

 

[Skylavijas]

So a question for the gays here. What are your thoughts on "Queer baiting" and "queer coding"? To me, with how much LGBT rep has appeared in media in general, is there really any point in "Queer baiting" and coding characters? I don't get why people still believe that creators and writers would resort to playing games with gay viewers by hinting that "this character has hints that they're gay" when they could literally make it canon if that's the case. Especially if a show already has gay characters on it.

Queer baiting generally happens not to tease the viewers, but because the company put their foot down and said "no, we're not gonna add a scene of two gay characters kissing". So if the writers can't present it overtly, they present it subtly instead. Sure, companies like disney love adding queer representation into their films... For as long as they are in the background and can be easily edited out for international release. Not just Disney, Mark's gay friend from Invincible was effectively presented in such a way that it would be super easy for foreign dubbers to remove all references to homosexuality and change his relationship with a jock into them being brothers or cousins (weird, but the original English dub of Sailor Moon also did something similar). Unless you are a producer or director like Rebecca Sugar (creator of Steven Universe) that holds enough influence to take the whole project down with them in a suicide vest, you're not gonna be able to create stuff like wedding scenes of queer characters, because that MASSIVELY reduces your ability to distribute the show internationally without undertaking major cuts, or contending with the fact that you just lost millions of dollars of potential revenue because there is just no way of fixing it for international release.

And even then, even if the creators manage to negotiate with the studio (or threaten to quit en masse) of including an overtly queer scenes like kissing, the studio may decide to actively sabotage it's distribution. Legend of Korra for instance was notorious for possessing inconsistent schedules of when new episodes would premiere and the final few episodes were basically dumped online and not shown on TV (the ones with overtly lesbian scenes). Similar stuff happens with anime as well. "Yuri on ice" is an explicitly yaoi anime, but there's not a single scene in it where the guys are kissing or expressing their affection as most other anime couples do. And on Japanese TV the show was shown exclusively at midnight hours, when most had fallen asleep, so the only reason it is well known is thanks to the internet. I can also cite Shinji's and Kaworu's relationship from Evangelion as well, where both in the show and the rebuild movies they are written to have immense sexual tension but they don't so much as hold hands. It's all presented in a way so there'd be some minimal deniability "oh yeah, Kaworu did straight up say to Shinji that he loves him and constantly gives bedroom eyes, but we never EVER considered writing them as gay characters. Trust us bro". Although Japan in general is weird with it's censorship laws, you can make a guy character that constantly cross-dresses as a girl, but you may NEVER depict that character in any serious romantic relationship, unless it's played entirely for laughs.

So as with most things in life... It varies. Yes, there are writers and creators that can add overtly queer scenes, but it's generally those who are very adept at the game of byzantine diplomacy that is the western entertainment industry. Especially now when certain companies may go as far as replacing some of their staff with chatgpt than needing to put up with their demands or how not even South Park is fully safe from being dropped by companies like paramount for getting too controversial under a new political climate and the creators of that show have a full on dedicated lawyer team that can advise them when tackling episodes with any sort of controversial subject matter. So most writers and creators will just do the next best thing and imply homosexual attraction. If even that is too much, they will just make the villain slightly fruity, as what most classic Disney movies did. I do have to say, I don't understand the people describing queer baiting as bad writing in such a way as if it is the fault of the creators for not wanting to risk losing their job over not following company directives.

 

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

you can make a guy character that constantly cross-dresses as a girl, but you may NEVER depict that character in any serious romantic relationship, unless it's played entirely for laughs.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

So a question for the gays here. What are your thoughts on "Queer baiting" and "queer coding"? To me, with how much LGBT rep has appeared in media in general, is there really any point in "Queer baiting" and coding characters? I don't get why people still believe that creators and writers would resort to playing games with gay viewers by hinting that "this character has hints that they're gay" when they could literally make it canon if that's the case. Especially if a show already has gay characters on it.

gay men are hyperfixated on buttsex and if they see a vaguely attractive man on tv all they can think about is to put peepee into poopoo

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Spoiler: long and partially off-topic

snip

I won't go over every single point, as I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm also not entirely sure why are you bringing all this up. There was never, right from the beginning, an idea that Christians (or humanity as a whole) are free from being retards and God tends to use said fleshly retardation literally from the beginning. It's reflected in the Old Testament through a huge variety of details and events, including the most bizarre and atrocious ones. There's a point why so many people, virtually almost all except Jesus, in the Bible are explicitly described as shitty people who sin all the time.

I think you completely misunderstood what I meant by "Christianity is not bloodthirsty".

Christians should absolutely not be shocked there are progressive/LGBT churches.

To be fair, while it is somewhat of a No True Scotsman argument, I have yet to see an actual follower of Christ to be shocked by something that is arguably one of fundamental parts of the faith. In fact, it would have been shocking if false churches didn't exist, as this is something that we were warned about all over the place, both directly in the context of antichrists and false prophets/preachers that were already roaming around that time, and indirectly through warnings of Satan's never ending shenanigans on this Earth, to combat which we're told to be sober and not to be spiritually lazy.

Oh boy, let me get back on at least a semi-relevant topic before I turned this thread into Christian Theology Thread Number 2.

"ceremonial law" (I think you mean civil law)

No? Ceremonial law is about all these purity rules, such as really strange ones like don't mix fabric and don't touch a menstruating woman, also include all the laws regarding sexual immorality. They partially overlap with moral laws, which leads me here:

If so much of the other old civil law, such as eating shrimp and pork, was dismissed, why is homosexuality an exception? Was Paul a false prophet/apostle?).

For starters, it will break the overall major theme which is, man and women were made for each other, complementary biology, Jesus=bridegroom, church/followers=bride which is reflected in earthly marriage, and so on. Sex itself is sacred, serious business and sexual sins are not only one of those sins that person commits against themselves, but also given the whole context of the Bible I'm assuming their effects are ones of the worst for the soul.

Even secular research in behavior and psychology pretty much agrees that sexuality is one of the most powerful tools/conditioning means in the human being, along with also being directly tied to violence. I mean, "fuck you" is an insult with very specific connotations. We also never really have sex or masturbate with an empty head. There's always context to our behavior and fantasies. So, spiritually something is happening. I can't see what's inside everyone's head, but from being in the alphabet soup for too long myself I can assure that way too many people have slipped and exposed that it's not really "we're just like straight people". There's always something in the context of their sexuality that either has disturbing roots, is an expression of something disturbed, and so on. (This obviously isn't to say straight people are free from sin, statistically most of sexual sin in the world is heterosexual by nature.)

There's much more going on here than it was with unclean food, which had its own contextual purpose, primarily to illustrate God washing off sins and extending salvation and breaking the barrier between Jews and Gentiles.

Also, worth noting that it's implied in Romans 1:24 that homosexuality on itself seems to be a punishment for a sin, at least in some cases. People who want to turn away from God so badly are essentially given into their depravity, as grace is no longer offered (includes power to fight sin, as we are weak on our own), and prideful descend into all sorts of stuff.

Observing the people... Isn't this true?

Last but not least, it's even in the link you have provided.

The mechanism is thought to be a maternal immune response to male fetuses, whereby antibodies neutralize male Y-proteins thought to play a role in sexual differentiation during development. This would leave some regions of the brain associated with sexual orientation in the 'female typical' arrangement – or attracted to men.

If all this is true, wouldn't this just confirm that it's a biological aberration? Thus, consequence/manifestation of sin. Diseases, death, imperfections, fall of man is responsible for all decay in the world. And while God works the best through the weakest and most affected by sin (be it by their own hands or due to external circumstances), as they're also usually humble enough to admit they need God, their afflictions don't stop being afflictions directly related to sin.

So, no, Paul wasn't a false apostle.

EDIT: typos

 

[Myrtle the Turtle]

So a question for the gays here. What are your thoughts on "Queer baiting" and "queer coding"? To me, with how much LGBT rep has appeared in media in general, is there really any point in "Queer baiting" and coding characters? I don't get why people still believe that creators and writers would resort to playing games with gay viewers by hinting that "this character has hints that they're gay" when they could literally make it canon if that's the case. Especially if a show already has gay characters on it.

Depends on the context.
Most of the time its done to appeal to a wider audience because they can't make the characters explicitly gay. Good example is Disney who may hint at sexuality but does it in such a way that it passes for conservative audiences, the middle east, Asia, etc. In the past the rule applied as well but it was a bit more understandable since there was a real threat of harm for explicitly gay characters. Now its done to pander slop to as many people as possible. Some decry it as 'slacktivism' but you're a stupid nigger if you ever thought that Disney or any other major media company would ever pick the gays over missing out on profits.

When influencers do on instagram and tiktok its a cheap way to court the gay audience for clicks and views.
Personally I find the latter to be more annoying since theres no risk to being gay on social media in current year.

 

[DSHK]

Theres a FINE distinguishment to make.

LGBT do the whole "appear strong when they are weak" thing. And for years they appeared "nice" til they got a bunch of rights and shit and then acted awful openly.

More importantly their prosecution complex is so inbuilt trying to bypass it is stupid, its like a nigger who has an IMMENSE chip on his shoulder about race, and screeches why he doesn't make the same as his boss despite coming into work drunk. Theres no navigating that, you HAVE to remove them.


LGBT is similar, they really just bluster a ton while they have their (fragile) power, because they know removing their power is not hard. Its not too different to how runty, or low tier people might be extra aggressive, because every challenge IS close to the end of the world for them.

Now the faggots and dykes are trying to alienate the troons and throw them under the bus to trick society into accepting them. Do not let them fool you!

 

[Skylavijas]

On the topic of queer representation in media, I think Adult Swim is the only network that you can confidently say did so earnestly. There is South Park as mentioned previously, but there were other shows like the Boondocks, Moral Orel and probably a few more that had queer storylines all the way back in the 00s or even the 90s. Rainbow capitalism just didn't exist as a concept yet and the internet was almost exclusively inhabited by nerds and geeks on niche forums (just like this website actually) so there was hardly any incentive, if any at all, to market your brand as queer friendly. Nevertheless, the writers and creators on Adult Swim were more or less just allowed to flung shit at the wall and see what sticks. The network took pride in the fact that it's original catalog was seen as ugly, edgy, disgusting and weird, it took pride in it's brand being defined in such way. And I guess that's the queerest thing one can possibly do.

The closest equivalent to that if I have to guess would be Toonami, which also possessed this attitude of "these ain't your grandma's cartoons!" with it's brand, and was surprisingly lax with the censorship, keeping most of the queer stuff intact. Funny how queer representation from brands that pride themselves on being weird and unusual feels so much more authentic compared to queer representation from brands that are obsessed with possessing a clean image. Like you can tell that these queer stories are written for weird shows by weird people for weird people.