you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MyLongestJourney 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Some of them are homophobic,some others are not. Things is, by supporting TRA politics, you also give plenty of ammunition to actual homophobes. Drop the T and they are hapless.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

One of my goals in the foreseeable future to help end the conflation between gender identity stuff and matters of sexual orientation. I think this will neutralize a lot of the obstacles I'm seeing with LGB support nowadays, and heavily reduce paraphilic and sexual oppurtunism in the extended acronym of LGBTQAI2S+ as a whole.

I realize it's not complete solution, though. As many don't conflate the two, but still don't support LGB. The common denominator among them is unsurprisingly another kind of ideology. Good ol' Bible texts.

Which is a shame, because the particular example I'm drawing from is very intelligent, creative, and understanding in many other ways and even supported LGB apart from the T a while back, and yet over time their forays into religious dogma turned then away.

Admittedly, this person and many others seem to hugely benefit from the order and guidance that religions provide, but in order to get that benefit some feel that they need to take in the bad with the good as a whole, otherwise they are not being faithful to their religion.

There's something to be said for keeping religions "pure" or "original" and whatnot. I'd say keep them pure and just drop the whole thing instead. But since many people seem to need some religion in their lives to be happy and fulfilled, I'm okay with plain religious reform. Of course, an secular atheist would have next to no influence or say in this stuff anyway, so all this is moot.

Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent.

Tldr; Agreed. Drop the T. And drop regressive religious dogma too.

[–]MyLongestJourney 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Regarding religion : I,as a 100% secular,agnostic scientist,has concluded that there is no way you will eliminate it. You know why? Because it offers comfort to the people,and that kind of false promises of hope that science would never do. And people need this, they need that hope and comfort that we the scientists can never offer them,because it is in direct opposition of our core principles.

But most people, can be reasoned with,most people can accept practices which do not harm themselves,their children and society in general.This is how, the original homosexual rights movement scored it's manor victories. "We know we are different than you,but we promise,if you give us the chance,we can be decent individuals and productive members of society".

So,do not call for religious reform. Call for reigning in the narcissistic monsters of queer critical theory.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My contention with religions are mainly scriptural. Because dogma is an obstacle to reason. It's mostly a pick and choose habit with scripture, but it would be difficult to consciously ignore what another member of one's religion correctly points out is stated in the respective holy text.

That's what I mean by religious reform. How literally should scripture be taken now? Which parts should be embraced and rejected? Because much of it is plain incompatible with social progress. People can compartmentalize contradicting beliefs up to a point, but eventually the cognitive dissonance between reason and dogma becomes too much; Something has to give. And frequently reason loses the Tug of War(especially during periods of emotional tumult when a source of said comfort is most needed). Preemptive religious reform can prevent this situation from occurring.

[–]reluctant_commenter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Regarding religion : I,as a 100% secular,agnostic scientist,has concluded that there is no way you will eliminate it. You know why? Because it offers comfort to the people,and that kind of false promises of hope that science would never do.

If you haven't heard of it already, there actually is some evidence that belief in a God/otherworldly power has a (partial) genetic basis. It's called the God gene.

Really takes all kinds of people to make the world go round!

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you haven't heard of it already, there actually is some evidence that belief in a God/otherworldly power has a (partial) genetic basis. It's called the God gene.

Oh,I have heard about it,ages ago. But I did not bother to read any cited studies. So,I do not know if its verified or not.But really,who needs studies to accept that people need that special kind of comfort ?

Really takes all kinds of people to make the world go round!

Agreed. The trouble starts when religion (or any kind of ideology) tries to overtake science.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But really,who needs studies to accept that people need that special kind of comfort ?

Well, without any evidence, we all could just be making shit up, haha.

Agreed. The trouble starts when religion (or any kind of ideology) tries to overtake science.

Yup. And sadly, I think even science has been infiltrated massively by ideology. Watching the silencing of academics who are trying to study detransitioners is a prime example.