I really hope this is in the right thread, I just figured it was news and that everyone should see this.
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/10/95774/india-forced-marriages-lgbt-community-nazariya?utm_source=tumblr.com&utm_medium=post

People are retarded. Religion is the main cause for stupid shit like this. Very depressing. That would be my reaction to my parents if I were him ^^^

>>2 Not just religion.

While I don't deny that there are religious folks that are this bigoted towards the opinions of people like you (despite you seeming just as bigoted as them >.>), there are plenty of people that dislike gays/bi/trans/etc. for other reasons.

Take, for example, atheists. While, yes, many of them aren't going to try and shove a copy of Darwin's Theory of Evolution down a religious person's throat, there are those who take their whole beliefs on science and stuff way too seriously.
(I'm not saying religious people can't be scientists - Hell, Newton was)
For example, I've met folks who have gone all "being gay is wrong because you cannot procreate and sodomy is morally disgusting!"
And then there are those who are like "If you are transgender, then it is your duty to choose one or the other for the sake of procreation!"
Of course, they were almost always shouted down with a "Just shut up and be apathetic like us, i.e. let them do their own business!"

I don't agree with them, but the country I live in dictates that I must live alongside them and resist bigotry, so I'll let them be who they wish to be.

>>3 What is your point? Non-religious people are not even 20% of the world's population, and atheists are an estimated 2%.

He stated truths (Well, almost, at least. It is difficult to pinpoint the cause of LGBT hate), I do not think that makes him bigoted.

I think dictation itself is a form of bigotry

>>4 I don't dislike >>2's opinion. However, when they called the people who had views such as those "retards" meant that they thought they were less than human simply because they had that opinion.

That's worse than bigotry, but bigotry in itself is hating someone because they have a different opinion than yourself, or rather having an intolerance of.

Yes, I do not like the opinion of the parents, but they are allowed to have that opinion. Outright insulting someone isn't the right way to express your opposition.

And back to you: 20% and 2% are bigger than 0% (given the current world population as well, this "bigger" part is much "BIGGER"). And if you twist Rule 34 to be less perverted, it comes out like this: If you can imagine something, it's out there somehow.

So there are non-religious folks that do not indulge in LGBT. That is my point, and no matter how small that number is won't change it. Personally, I've met many of these sorts of people, so it seemed pretty common to me.

To >>5, what form of dictation? --- Oh wait, nevermind. Yeah, commanding someone to do something (in the case of bigotry) is a form of bigotry.

"Assimilate! Assimilate! Assimilate!"
^^^ That or what?

>>6 If we look at 'retard' in the definition of 'a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way' I find it hard to disagree.

They are allowed to have the opinion, yes. But they are not allowed to ACT on that opinion. Just like how people can detest gay people but are not allowed to manifest their hatred, which is very well an opinion, with violence.

"Yes, I do not like the opinion of the parents, but they are allowed to have that opinion. Outright insulting someone isn't the right way to express your opposition." Some people, especially old, archaic, withering religious folks, are already psychologically damaged they cannot be reasoned with.

I still do not see your point.
You said "While I don't deny that there are religious folks that are this bigoted towards the opinions of people like you (despite you seeming just as bigoted as them >.>), there are plenty of people that dislike gays/bi/trans/etc. for other reasons" because >>2 blamed most of LGBT hate on religion. If you did not intend on refuting that a change of sentences would be good.

This'll be fun.

>>7 I DON'T intend on refuting it - not completely. My point is that many people who support these sorts of things often shoulder the blame solely on religion, which is to be avoided.
They said, specifically, that "the main cause is religion" - while that is pretty much true, they only seem to slightly acknowledge that other causes may be the case. If this person had acknowledged that non-religious people do the same thing as well, what would the likelihood of it be that they wouldn't mention it to begin with?
What I was attempting to do was put some acknowledgement into "the otherwise" into this thread - even the slightest misunderstanding can have such a butterfly effect that the greatest ignorance may be bred from it. It also seems as if, like I said, >>2 doesn't really acknowledge that non-religious folks aren't so high-and-mighty in this situation.

Also, I do find it hard to disagree that they shouldn't act on that opinion as far as this particular case goes (though, if we're talking this particular case, some may argue that this is family business and we should keep the same sense of apathy that we have towards each others' business)
Now, if we were to refer to those wedding cake makers in northwest USA that refused service because of a lesbian couple, we can't touch that - in this economy any business owner is allowed to refuse service to any customer regardless of the reason (it's why "No Dogs Allowed" is allowed).

As far as your acknowledgement on people deserving to have an opinion, and the following rebuttal - So what? Even if their opinion is full of inconsistencies, cannot be reasoned against due to whatever reason, and is just plain dumb - We must allow it.

To >>8, I'd point you to a popcorn stand but I'm busy atm so yeh

>>9
The fact that he used 'main' as an adjective shows that he understands religion is not the sole cause of LGBT hatred. There is no point in trying to convince yourself otherwise. Furthermore, what is the purpose of bringing attention to the non-religious who are also to blame for LGBT hatred? Those people are slightly acknowledged because they are a MINORITY and their hatred stems from something even more irrational than religion itself, but is not as hard as religion to fix.

We naturally hate all things different-- people are just brought up to be repulsed by intimacy between the same sex-- until some external element dictates or suggests otherwise. Unless it comes to religion, because religionists actually have 'laws' they think rational that they follow.

What kind of economy do you live in? "in this economy any business owner is allowed to refuse service to any customer regardless of the reason" Even privately owned businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on religion, race etc. "No Dogs" is allowed is because dog fur can be hazardous and if they defecate or urinate it will cause problems. But humans don't cause such problems. What about "No Muslims, No Christians?" Does it sound ludicrous to you yet?

People who sell wedding cakes or pastries are PUBLIC SERVANTS and they will serve the public or face the consequences of their bigotry.

>>10 Rereading this I feel as if I've left something out, but if you find whatever that is, then bravo to you.

---

I said they were a minority, but to be honest, atheism is a growing "religion". As a matter of fact, it's the fastest growing identification in the US.
And while I'm totally against them, their point seems a bit more logical to the impartial's eye than a religious person's: Against LGBT because it goes against how we evolved and is overall unnatural in nature.
So I'm not going to take either side specifically (may be leaning) but I do question the solidity of the statement that atheism is easier to fix.
As far as the entire "bringing attention to it" statement goes - Atheists exist, and they're growing; with them will come a possibly proportional amount of anti-LGBT atheists (not all of them of course). That seems justification enough to mention them. I didn't even mean for this to turn into a debate, and instead wanted it to be more of a brief lecture on something that >>2 may or may not even already know (because frankly I don't care and I'll say it because I want to).

I live in the USA. Whether you know it or not, people CAN deny another service and the reason will be utterly ignored.
They may have bigoted reasons behind denying service, but as goes the phrase, "We have the right to deny service."

These days, it's changing, and same-sex couples are very likely going to be added to the whole Civil Rights Act law - the same one that forces business owners to serve people without discrimination against race, color, religion, sex or national origin (morally speaking, they have already). The reason your examples fail to bring across the point is because the Civil Rights Act did not include same-sex couples at the time (though, using this law, it seems as though trans people had it better off). On the other end, people can proclaim the First Amendment and call oppression on the government (people usually didn't do so back then because most supported the Act, but hey, ask your grandparents because they might've).

So basically, there's a larger, glaring problem: With the knowledge of the 1st Amendment, we can see that the laws contradict the Bill of Rights.

There's a huge issue over this, but the fact stands - in most states in the US, as a business owner you can deny service. In other countries it's worse: We can look at Turkey (I think it's that one?), where the LGBT community (and the Women's Rights movement there for that matter) is facing the same violent discrimination that the Civil Rights Movement faced in the US in the 60s.

Personally, I'm being grateful we're fixing our problems WITHOUT the fire hose. I'll let those who are REALLY into this propose for more, and probably vote for their laws.

As I said before this'll be fun. Lets start from the beginning. >>3

"Not just religion."

I know... "Religion is the -->main.>)"

Don't take me too literally. I mean I had a picture of Eminem giving the finger, but continue arguing for the sake of it.

" there are plenty of people that dislike gays/bi/trans/etc. for other reasons."

Again... I said MAIN. Implying that I know there are others besides religious people who dislike 'gays/bi/trans/etc'.

"there are those who take their whole beliefs on science and stuff way too seriously."

Same with religion and every belief.

""being gay is wrong because you cannot procreate and sodomy is morally disgusting!""

That is very stupid. Just sounds like someone trying to apply logic to something they dislike for the base reason that they dislike it. I think that It is better than telling gay/trans/etc. people that they will go to hell if they are not sexually attracted to the 'right' gender.

""If you are transgender, then it is your duty to choose one or the other for the sake of procreation!""

All these examples of other people who have different beliefs on gays/trans/etc. because you missed one word in a sentence. Or you just ignored it for the sake of arguing.

""Just shut up and be apathetic like us, i.e. let them do their own business!""

I am not apathetic. I care that people think trans/gays/etc. are going to 'hell' or that they should be 'like us'. Or whatever the stupid reason may be for hating them.

"I don't agree with them"

Okay... so what was the point of this? I forgot. Oh yeah to argue for no reason!

"but the country I live in dictates that I must live alongside them and resist bigotry"

I don't think you need to be the policeman/woman of bigotry. We all have opinions and sometimes we don't like other peoples opinions. Shocker right? I think its good to resist being a bigot. I'm always open to being wrong or new ideas. Yet the only thing you have done with this is assume something based off a misread sentence. Or once again, you just wanted to argue.


"so I'll let them be who they wish to be."

Alright...

>>7 Pretty much said most of what I would have. So thanks for saving me the trouble. >>11 I just wanted to respond to the one directed at me to begin with. Krys seems to have taken the argument into his/her own hands lol. So you two can continue.

*CoughsKrysWinsCoughs*

I quote, "The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores."

The first amendment cannot allow religionists to discriminate and therefore cry 'oppression' when clearly they are the ones oppressing, if that is what you are trying to say. Most religionists who hide behind the first amendment know as little about it as they do their own sacred book of spot-the-contradictions.


Atheism is rising, yes. Mainly--I cautiously use this word--because of the internet, where people can freely express their views and opinions.

Atheists are generally less dull than theists, so I cannot assume that majority of atheists will become LGBT haters. Also, I foresee, that when the day of religion--that which has been for too many millenniums--finally passes into time, the various non-heterosexual sexualities will not be seen very different from heterosexuality, if not equal.

To think that when the cancer of religion is extirpated the new 'thing' would comprise mostly of LGBT-haters makes little sense. A cursory review of history(or even the present) can tell you that.

There will be haters, yes. Just like how racists still exist today, because they were brought up to be or they've had a bad encounter. Racism is no longer morally accepted in today's culture, however, the past shows us a completely different situation. Regardless, people fought back and things began to change.

I apply that to the LGBT community, which has already become the norm in the relevant societies.

Things change, they already have changed.