PRIDE

[angelicisight]

I read something fascinating with this Nicmercs controversy on Twitter. "Pride is meant to keep children who are different from committing suicide." This was astonishing to me, but I think it makes sense.

Now I seriously consider LGBTQ to be, in all effect, a religion. It is not a natural but rather a societal construct. However, I never considered the meaning of the religion. It is true it promotes a great deal of freedom and this is oft preferred, but freedom in and of itself does not benefit society. Therefore, why did society create it? It could be argued "No society merely discovered it." This is possible, but the some possibility still must be afforded to all religions, and in spite of this possibility LGBTQ was formed when it formed for a reason related to society.

I think the reason was suicide. Society has nothing of significance left to resolve, and so it tackles the issue of suicide as it pertains to the troubles it causes. In this, the societal solution was LGBTQ.

Now I will make a natural argument for LGBTQ although I do not adhere to the religion, I think there is natural grounds for its existence. These grounds can be found in the nature of passion.

We all ought recognize passion is a mechanism for our survival. Our species must have reason to continue itself, and so we have feelings of passion within us. However in consideration of the LGBTQ, passion suddenly seems less intuitively clear.

My passion should only be for that of a women. How then a man be gay? Is it on grounds of genetic defect? This may be possible, but then we should expect homosexuality and other sexual deviances to match the rate of other genetic deformities. It quite clearly does not unless you are to argue autism, retardation, sensitivities to sickness, and other unideal genes for society are deformities. I do not because these genes may contribute to the survival of society in spite of their personal imperfections.

So with the ground of deformity dismissed, on what grounds should the LGBTQ be assessed genetically, and I think it ought be assessed on the grounds of passion.

Passion for the purposes of this is "The natural proclivity we feel towards caring for and having children."

Now it is true that passion may be intuitively assessed as having sexual attraction towards one you are capable of having children with. This is an intuitive assessment, but I do not think this is the natural reality.

I refute this by recognizing the incredible fragility of our children. You see in this, passion ought not just care for the making of children, but also for the caring of kids. Namely, I have experienced passion in creating a hospitable and enjoyable environment to live in. This is a type of environment children surely can thrive in.

With this aspect of passion in mind, LGBTQ makes way more sense from a standard natural analysis. Not all are prone to have children. Perhaps some are merely prone to make a better environment for children to thrive. Such people may find enjoyment in pursuing their passions in LGBTQ ways. Although these ways have no way to be naturally learned, people might have a natural affinity towards them upon knowing of them. This would be particularly towards those who feel more passion for the environment and less for the raising of children in those environment.

In this LGBTQ is very anti suicide because it affords a place for people to express their passion. It is a religion unlike any other because it truly is a religion of pure passion. In this, it is almost the most natural of religions although this does not make it natural for no religion is naturally known to us though are argument may be made that there is a religion which our nature is inclined to think is most true. This argument can only be made if there is assessed to be any truth in religion at all not coming from society. Of course this cannot be known as all religion is formed within society.

Okay, I am too busy to consider this further, but this was interesting to me. Bye.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I have considered this myself- like how is homosexuality advantages from an evolutionary standpoint? I'm not homophobic by the way. It's just a genuine curiosity. The same as- how does it benefit us to develop mental illness and depression that can lead to suicide? Is mental illness a deviation from evolution? I guess so- seeing as it is labelled 'illness'.

Still- in the case of homosexuality- it has been observed in the animal kingdom too and I'm not sure they have an answer for that! May just be confusion but not always I believe.

Anyhow- in the case of humans- I'd say we're not very 'natural' anymore. We've overcome natural selection with our healthcare and IVF treatment. We are just as much cultural creatures as biological now. It's curious as to whether homosexuality comes about biologically or culturally- perhaps either or both are involved. Although- I think your comparison of it to a religion is interesting. Still- we can choose our own religion- to some extent- I know upbringing plays a role. Do people REALLY choose consciously to be LGBTQ? Isn't it more of an inner sense that they feel that way? I mean- I guess some people can experience religion that way- an inner calling or something. I haven't personally but yeah- I guess it happens.

 

[angelicisight]

I have considered this myself- like how is homosexuality advantages from an evolutionary standpoint? I'm not homophobic by the way. It's just a genuine curiosity. The same as- how does it benefit us to develop mental illness and depression that can lead to suicide? Is mental illness a deviation from evolution? I guess so- seeing as it is labelled 'illness'.

Still- in the case of homosexuality- it has been observed in the animal kingdom too and I'm not sure they have an answer for that! May just be confusion but not always I believe.

Anyhow- in the case of humans- I'd say we're not very 'natural' anymore. We've overcome natural selection with our healthcare and IVF treatment. We are just as much cultural creatures as biological now. It's curious as to whether homosexuality comes about biologically or culturally- perhaps either or both are involved. Although- I think your comparison of it to a religion is interesting. Still- we can choose our own religion- to some extent- I know upbringing plays a role. Do people REALLY choose consciously to be LGBTQ? Isn't it more of an inner sense that they feel that way? I mean- I guess some people can experience religion that way- an inner calling or something. I haven't personally but yeah- I guess it happens.

I mean you can't reasonably make a case that LGBTQ is natural, but maybe you can argue for LGB to be that. It's definitely a societal thing.

However I think understanding passion is natural and that passion can manifest in more ways than what is relational allows for an understanding for how people are drawn to these expressions of passion regardless of their nature.

Passion is the strongest natural mechanism in us to continue life. LGBTQ is the most passion based religion in society. Therefore it's the most anti-suicide. That's the essence of the argument.

In regards to the animal kingdom having homosexual relations. This would validate my stance that passion is not only about relationships. It's also about the environment. It stokes a sense of stronger community. Now I don't know the details well enough to do a valid study, but this is the concept I approach it in consideration.

 

[loyalskateboard]

I'm going to be honest, after reading your words I still don't know how you consider homosexuality a religion.

According to Collins English Dictionary "Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple"

There is no LGBT religion to which you can adhere. It literally started as a way to connect marginalised members who were regularly beaten, killed, excluded, and abused. We had less rights and protections than straight people. Of course it is a lot better in some Western countries but there is still a long way to go. The country my father came from only recently reduced the penalty from death to life in prison.

What causes homosexuality is up for discussion. You have the good old born this way vs society debate. Personally I think it is the former. Growing up I was exclusively around straight people, all of the media I watched was filled with straight people, all of my family members told me I would like boys one day. I never had a boy crazy stage. Even when my friends would talk about liking boys, I never understood. I didn't make the connection until I was older but when I was younger I had crushes on girls. I would stare at their ponytails and blush when they touched me or played with my hair. I even kissed my best friend but it was 'practice' and not because we both liked each other. I never said I would get a boyfriend but I did like the idea of marriage. I felt jealous of the boys when the girls would date them. I used to save photos of female celebrities that I liked looking at a little too much. I loved singing love songs with she/her pronouns. I always stared at the women in heterosexual couples on tv.

I know it's a bit long but that's just my opinion. Personally, I don't think it even matters what causes homosexuality. It isn't a problem and it doesn't hurt anyone. Straight people don't always want kids or even have the ability. IVF isn't natural but doesn't have as much controversy. Technically SN is natural and we all know what that can do. Homosexuality is a non-issue.

 

[SexyIncél]

Richard Dawkins on this topic (if I understand it)

 

[angelicisight]

I'm going to be honest, after reading your words I still don't know how you consider homosexuality a religion.

According to Collins English Dictionary "Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple"

There is no LGBT religion to which you can adhere. It literally started as a way to connect marginalised members who were regularly beaten, killed, excluded, and abused. We had less rights and protections than straight people. Of course it is a lot better in some Western countries but there is still a long way to go. The country my father came from only recently reduced the penalty from death to life in prison.

What causes homosexuality is up for discussion. You have the good old born this way vs society debate. Personally I think it is the former. Growing up I was exclusively around straight people, all of the media I watched was filled with straight people, all of my family members told me I would like boys one day. I never had a boy crazy stage. Even when my friends would talk about liking boys, I never understood. I didn't make the connection until I was older but when I was younger I had crushes on girls. I would stare at their ponytails and blush when they touched me or played with my hair. I even kissed my best friend but it was 'practice' and not because we both liked each other. I never said I would get a boyfriend but I did like the idea of marriage. I felt jealous of the boys when the girls would date them. I used to save photos of female celebrities that I liked looking at a little too much. I loved singing love songs with she/her pronouns. I always stared at the women in heterosexual couples on tv.

I know it's a bit long but that's just my opinion. Personally, I don't think it even matters what causes homosexuality. It isn't a problem and it doesn't hurt anyone. Straight people don't always want kids or even have the ability. IVF isn't natural but doesn't have as much controversy. Technically SN is natural and we all know what that can do. Homosexuality is a non-issue.

There is a huge difference between LGTBQ and homosexuality. The historical reality is different. The nature of its existence is different. What I wrote also examines the difference.

Regarding how LGBTQ is religion. It is prescribed set of beliefs for our spiritual tendencies. We'd have to get into how I comprehend reality to really unpack this. That is reality is inter-faceable by man in three layers. In the layer of existence, creation, and experience. Man interfaces with the layer of experience through beliefs, and therefore I consider the reality of experience to be that of a spiritual nature. No need to get into explaining more than that for this particular context but of course the foundation for my understanding has not been explained at all in this writing.

Religion is often in strife with religion. This is a well documented historical reality. Even when the religion is as similar as adhering to the same essential beliefs to an outsider, within their religions they war with each other on accusations of heresy. They are certainly more contentious with foreign religions, but they are often also more distant to balance things out in general.

The focus of the original post was not an examination of homosexuality although my thoughts on homosexuality were slightly explained. The primary focus was on the existence of passion and how LGBTQ sets up near religious practices for how to act out on passion and as a result becomes the most anti-suicide religion. Of course not all members are of the priest like status, but many are encouraged to ally themselves with the belief system for the various spiritual benefits namely that it is the religion that most encourage vibrancy of life. This is not meant to be comprehensive because I think there are so many different perspectives, so to be comprehensive would likely also become exclusive, but this is an sufficient explanation to the degree it can be reasonably engaged with. That's the way I prefer to write on these very abstract ideas.

There is a huge difference between LGTBQ and homosexuality. The historical reality is different. The nature of its existence is different. What I wrote also examines the difference.

Regarding how LGBTQ is religion. It is prescribed set of beliefs for our spiritual tendencies. We'd have to get into how I comprehend reality to really unpack this. That is reality it inter-faceable by man in three layers. In the layer of existence, creation, and experience. Man interfaces with the layer of experience through beliefs, and therefore I consider the reality of experience to be that of a spiritual nature. No need to get into explaining more than that for this particular context but of course the foundation for my understanding has not been explained at all in this writing.

Religion is often in strife with religion. This is a well documented historical reality. Even when the religion is as similar as adhering to the same essential beliefs to an outsider, within their religions they war with each other on accusations of heresy. They are certainly more contentious with foreign religions, but they are often also more distant to balance things out in general.

The focus of the original post was not an examination of homosexuality although my thoughts on homosexuality were slightly explained. The primary focus was on the existence of passion and how LGBTQ sets up near religious practices for how to act out on passion and as a result becomes the most anti-suicide religion. Of course not all members are of the priest like status, but many are encouraged to ally themselves with the belief system for the various spiritual benefits namely that it is the religion that most encourage vibrancy of life. This is not meant to be comprehensive because I think there are so many different perspectives, so to be comprehensive would likely also become exclusive, but this is an sufficient explanation to the degree it can be reasonably engaged with. That's the way I prefer to write on these very abstract ideas.

Richard Dawkins on this topic (if I understand it)

I think scientists do awful to explain reality, but they are wonderful at affirming and revealing reality. The question of what is, or what is most probable is far different from why is it, and how is it to be understood. We do not comprehend ideas in the way that they exist. We need ideas not only to be plausible and verifiable, but also believable. We need to experience the idea as though we can rightly engage with it, for it is in engagement that we allow ourselves an opportunity for comprehension.

Therefore we must not only recognize how an a thing came to being and how that idea exists as a being in present, but we need to hold some conviction for how that idea can be experienced and engaged or in other words believed. In this, scientists fall terribly short in their abilities because this simply is not within their scope of work. Scientists exist perfectly in a perfectly controlled environment where something like a belief is irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is good for good science, but it is awful for effective understanding at the human level.

You want to know what the existence of homosexuality means? The best way I propose to understand it is through the belief of passion. Passion is something we can universally affirm the experience of. Science would verify passion exists within our nature as it was created within us for the benefit of our survival. Passion, as I would define it in this discussion is the human tendency to want to further life. That is why most passion plays out in the way of finding a suitable partner to have and raise a child with.

However, it cannot be denied a remarkable amount of the species experiences passion in a manner that is different from the intuitive relations that ought be formed. The number is too numerous for it to be readily dismissed as a genetic defect. This is why I proposed passion comes in two forms. I say it is in relations but it is also for the environment. In this spectrum of passion, the existence of homosexuality becomes plausible. It is also perfectly reasonable we would be passionate for a good environment because of the fragility of our children. Again, this is not a comprehensive explanation, but merely an explanation which offers up the opportunity for engagement to those that would wish to do so. I limit the details of my explanation to prevent it from being exclusive. Not that I am looking for engagement particularly, but this is the nature in which I prefer to write on these topics, as I have come to disdain the rise of bubble culture. It has made American society terribly divisive and rather tragic to witness.

 

[odradek]

Jordan Peterson would be proud. Dr. Peterson, is that you? Just kidding. You write very well but I think I disagree? If I understand what you are saying? I don't have Twitter so forgive my ignorance on that front. I may be way off base here

Framing Pride's only purpose and substance here as "to keep children who are different from committing suicide and is therefore a religion" is not entirely fair or accurate imo. To me it's more about acceptance, inclusion, and allowing people to just live their lives. We can both just say stuff: It's not a religion.

I disagree there is an anti-suicide "LBGTQ religion" that has been formed because "society has solved every major problem except suicide." I disagree society has solved every major problem but I digress. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Can you say in simple terms briefly what you're trying to say? You invoked "passion for caring for and having children." Please connect the dots for me here. What religion are you talking about?

You go on to dissect the LGBTQ initialism, positing that LG and B could be natural. Does this imply that the T and Q part of the initialism are not natural? Does this further imply that those particular letters are the driving force behind this new, maybe not natural, "religion"? Are you saying it'd be better for children if Transgender and Queer people stopped "prothletising" their "religion"? Are you mad about Pride flags?

Honestly trying to figure out what you're saying.

 

[angelicisight]

Jordan Peterson would be proud. Dr. Peterson, is that you? Just kidding. You write very well but I think I disagree? If I understand what you are saying? I don't have Twitter so forgive my ignorance on that front. I may be way off base here

Framing Pride's only purpose and substance here as "to keep children who are different from committing suicide and is therefore a religion" is not entirely fair or accurate imo. To me it's more about acceptance, inclusion, and allowing people to just live their lives. We can both just say stuff: It's not a religion.

I disagree there is an anti-suicide "LBGTQ religion" that has been formed because "society has solved every major problem except suicide." I disagree society has solved every major problem but I digress. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Can you say in simple terms briefly what you're trying to say? You invoked "passion for caring for and having children." Please connect the dots for me here. What religion are you talking about?

You go on to dissect the LGBTQ initialism, positing that LG and B could be natural. Does this imply that the T and Q part of the initialism are not natural? Does this further imply that those particular letters are the driving force behind this new, maybe not natural, "religion"? Are you saying it'd be better for children if Transgender and Queer people stopped "prothletising" their "religion"? Are you mad about Pride flags?

Honestly trying to figure out what you're saying.

I can't with this analysis. At least you're aware though.

I can't with this analysis. At least you're aware though.

I guess it's the "agree", "disagree" talk. I'm not interested in introducing that type of thinking into the discourse in any serious way on my end. I think it's just totally meaningless and provides no value. It shouldn't matter if it's agreeable or not, and I can't act like it does.

 

[odradek]

I can't with this analysis. At least you're aware though.

I guess it's the "agree", "disagree" talk. I'm not interested in introducing that type of thinking into the discourse in any serious way on my end. I think it's just totally meaningless and provides no value. It shouldn't matter if it's agreeable or not, and I can't act like it does.

Okay... Let's take "agree/disagree" talk out of the discourse. What type of thinking are you looking for? What is the discourse? What are you trying to say? (You only really have to answer this one) Are you trying to make a point here or just musing on the dangers of an "anti-suicide LBGTQ religion"?

 

[angelicisight]

Okay... Let's take "agree/disagree" talk out of the discourse. What type of thinking are you looking for? What is the discourse? What are you trying to say? (You only really have to answer this one) Are you trying to make a point here or just musing on the dangers of an "anti-suicide LBGTQ religion"?

Thanks. That actually helps. The major issue with your understanding is how you are really framing things with an assessment of my intent. I simply find the truth beautiful when it can be clearly considered. I think concepts are wonderful things to explore and reflect on. My personal likings are fairly separated from this actual topic in that I really like the idea of passion. It explains so much when you open yourself up to the experience of it. It is so prevalent in our nature and the behavior of others.

You seem to wonder if I am against LGBTQ, which is strange. I just think they form a religion. They give prescription for spiritual practice, and this was explained in a previous comment.

I mainly care for the idea of passion. I like it a lot. I think it reveals so much mystery within society and humanity to understand it.

I am trying to look at an extreme of what passion is because I think there it is most exposed and isolated. It strikes the mind in an extreme case so as to provoke inquisition. It's an opens itself up to real testing as well because it is not couched safely in expectation. Few people see meaning in a focus of passion, and they find meaning in LGBTQ instead. I do find meaning in both, but I use one to provide a new sense of focus for the other. In that, I think most will end up disregarding their concerns as they fail to find my focus productive towards their concerns. I am always the foreigner it seems.

 

[odradek]

I am always the foreigner it seems.

Many in the so-called "LGBTQ religion" (I don't really agree with this framing but I wouldn't want to muck up the discourse) feel this sentiment too. Interesting. People and their passions can be examined through many lenses, I suppose.

I'll only further sidetrack the discourse with my disagreement with your premises (or I don't understand them), so I'll bow out here. Have a good day/night.

 

[angelicisight]

Many in the so-called "LGBTQ religion" (I don't really agree with this framing but I wouldn't want to muck up the discourse) feel this sentiment too. Interesting. People and their passions can be examined through many lenses, I suppose.

I'll only further sidetrack the discourse with my disagreement with your premises (or I don't understand them), so I'll bow out here. Have a good day/night.

Well it definitely seems you take religion to be something derogatory. I already have made the case for my definition, which you haven't acknowledged, but I can make the case one more time as it is considered by conventional definitions. It systematically structures a person's faith. There's definitely a lot discussion that can happen regarding how much the definition fits, but yeah nothing productive can come from the sentiment of "I disagree." The focus here is on the denotative meaning, and so to get hung up on connotations just does nothing. It's bad judgment to weigh feelings on a term heavily in this discussion. There is absolutely nothing about the word "religion" that has derisive meaning.

 

[MindFrog]

The LGBTQ+ is a community rather than a religion for the simple fact that sexuality is an intangible part of your identity.

Its not something you can just pick and choose like a belief.

It like categorizing a group of people as a religion based on their skin color.

And I can kinda see why you think that way.

All of this cluelessness comes from the fact that you dont "believe" that being gay is a person's identity.

That religion rhetoric is just a new rendition of "Oh no one's born gay, its just lifestyle!".

 

[angelicisight]

The LGBTQ+ is a community rather than a religion for the simple fact that sexuality is an intangible part of your identity.

Its not something you can just pick and choose like a belief.

It like categorizing a group of people as a religion based on their skin color.

And I can kinda see why you think that way.

All of this cluelessness comes from the fact that you dont "believe" that being gay is a person's identity.

That religion rhetoric is just a new rendition of "Oh no one's born gay, its just lifestyle!".

You haven't read what I wrote. LGBTQ is an ideology. It's not a person. If you read what I wrote about people in this thread, you would see your are making objectively false statements on what I am claiming about them.

You haven't read what I wrote. LGBTQ is an ideology. It's not a person. If you read what I wrote about people in this thread, you would see your are making objectively false statements on what I am claiming about them.

Also it's dumb to say anyone is born with a sexual orientation. It's literally not true. A baby can't comprehend that. If you want to understand how a sexual orientation develops naturally according to a person's genetic design, you have to consider it in terms of probability. It's the same as something like IQ, health, or even height and physical characteristics. Eventually sexual desire gets introduced to the body at a certain age, and that introduction is factored into our design, but our genetic makeup won't distinguish between male or female with that desire. In fact, that introduction isn't even focused on sexual orientation at all. It's a changing of biological balance within the body. It's an introduction of hormones. Hormones don't make someone feel a sexual orientation. They may be tracked by probability as its impact is considered in the whole of our design, but it's an oversimplification to say our body naturally adheres to a concept of being straight or gay or any orientation at all. There's a layer of separation from reality when we adhere words to it, and that separation can only be accounted for by reasonably noting the logic of our words is not the same as the logic of our bodies.