• MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve seen enough evidence to be convinced that it absolutely IS happening.

    Yes, there is no government mandate to do that, but it is happening nevertheless. There are tons of videos on YouTube of teachers explaining why it’s important to them. And while it’s true that LGBT doesn’t meet the definition of a traditional, organized religion, it does strike me as having quasi-religious character, as evidenced by the automatic assumption that anyone speaking out against it is acting in bad faith (i.e. committing blasphemy).

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think the word you’re looking for is culture. You know, the thing where people share ideas and traditions as a group.

      And comparing symbols of individual acceptance that certain people are OK to exist with government mandated displays of religion mandated rules seems strange. Almost “both sides.” Almost bad faith.

      • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        Okay, culture works. But it nevertheless strikes me as odd that you keep using the word “bad faith”, because it implies that there IS a component of faith involved which you are accusing me of being in violation of. Hence I am going to maintain my position that LGBT has at least a quasi-religious character.

        Also, I can’t help but notice that by saying “certain people are OK to exist”, you are elevating their right to exist over that of everyone else, i.e. you are creating in- and outgroups, those whose rights are worth protecting and those whose aren’t — something the Nazis knew a thing or two about.

        • 20hzservers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Dude your mental gymnastics game is on point. You practicing for your fox news interview? Like you know words can have multiple definitions right? Bad faith has nothing to do with religion and you know that. Also to say that a historically persecuted group trying to be “ok to exist” somehow degrades others rights is complete bullshit. Explain how. You proposed the idea I want you to explain how someone’s right to exist peacefully somehow takes away from someone else’s right. I’ll wait. 🙄

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            Alright, I looked up the definition and this is what I found:

            Bad faith is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. It is associated with hypocrisy, breach of contract, affectation, and lip service. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.

            So in order for me to be guilty of this, I would have to pretend that I am in favor of LGBT while simultaneous arguing against it. If you can show me where I did that, I will accept the charge. But you can’t, because I never did that. Ergo, you are simply misusing the word in order to convict me of some sort of wrongdoing. It is, in fact, you who is acting in bad faith here.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Paragraph 1: “bad faith” is arguing or acting in an intellectually dishonest way. Like if I were to say this paragraph was written in bad faith, I might accuse you of knowing the term has nothing to do with religion yet still trying to shoehorn it into this whole “religion of LGBT” thing you have going.

          Paragraph 2: wat

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          LGBT rights are human rights. If by “has a quasi-religious character” you mean that it is ideologically derived, then sure. Human rights are normative ideology. But to say that the idea of individual liberty and human rights are ideologically equivalent to watery tarts handing out swords, is to demonstrate an extremely profound ignorance of moral philosophy.

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            LGBT rights are human rights.

            No. Human rights are human rights. They predate the LGBT movement by at least two decades. And while there’s nothing in there that would deprive LGBT individuals from any essential liberties, I’ve noticed at least two items that many of them seem to take issue with:

            Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

            Article 20.2: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

            • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The fact that you cited that article specifically tells me a lot about what you believe a family should be. I dream of a world in which “family values” is not a code word for “queer people fuck off”, or at least not so universally one that fuckwads infer the latter from a UN document stating that parents and their children deserve state protection from groups that would try to separate them.

              Additionally, if you think being homosexual in general, or worse, believing that homosexual people should not be prosecuted for being so, constitutes belonging to an organization, I do not know what to tell you.