Albert Camus

@rathyy As a secularist and former fashionista, I am more prone to follow the teachings of Yves Saint Laurent.

Christianity is a lot like picking a side in politics; you're either a liberal or a moderate.  Moderate Christians tend to lean towards the literal translations of the bible to dictate how the religion should be viewed.  That, of course, sometimes leads to interesting contradictions such as supposedly not eating shellfish or wearing clothes made from more than one type of fiber.  Naturally, most ignore those edicts yet become so gung-ho on other issues such as same-sex issues.

Conversely, liberal Christians tend to have a more broader and inclusive view of the bible.  They would be more willing to, for example, interpret Jesus's condemnation of men sleeping with other men as being context from the ancient ritual of "sexually conquering" an enemy fallen in battle; that he never once mentioned anything about consensual sex between same genders.  That, unfortunately, breaks away from the traditional mainstream views that Christianity was originally born from and is probably considered a minority group in the world of Christianity.

Note that you should take what I say with a grain of salt.  I am nowhere near religious; I'm more of a theist.  My point is to mainly show that Christianity is a lot like being in politics; you will always be on one side with regards to the topic of gays.  Which is why I am not a fan of organized religion; it's too much like being in politics with some groups being exclusive rather than inclusive.

Thinkers often tried to justify their failing (or things perceived as ones in their time) by bullshitting.
Some try to pass it as religious revelation, some build entire philosophy on premise "I can't be bad, therefore it's good", and so on.

Historical context: Greek society was overly masculine, man was always expected to be a top, an active predator and penetrator. Main course of male-male relationship was a pederasty, while equal relationships were considered "sissy stuff".
And in Plato's period all homosexuality was dubbed shameful, so he was trying to exonerate himself.

我是一个佛教徒，也是G，在我接触到的佛陀教法中，佛教并没有独立看待异性或者同性爱恋。佛教的戒律甚至有禁止人与动物的性行为戒律，不过不是针对物种，而是行为本身。佛教是讲究禁欲的，虽然佛陀并没有明确的提到G或者异性，但是我觉得应该是一样对待的，佛教反对的是邪淫，就是说不乱交。在家人的单一伴侣制度是佛教认同的。

I'm not a Catholic myself, but I taught at Catholic universities for several years.  I think Francis is more LGBT-accepting than his predecessors, and on a visit to the US, he had a well-publicised private meeting with a former student and his husband.  At the same time, it's very hard to change the direction of a large institution with hundreds of years of tradition behind it–assuming he wanted to.

That said, the Catholic church is not as monolithic as some think:  At the local church level, some parishes are very diverse and inclusive; others are quite the opposite.

There's also a lot of variation by country/region:  I worked in Sydney, Australia for a while, and while the Anglican church there seemed quite homophobic, the Catholic church (at least the cathedral and its music programme) seemed very inclusive and welcoming.  That's a contrast to the US, the "Episcopal Church" (part of the Anglican Communion) is very LGBT-inclusive.

Raelism is explicitly LGBT friendly.
Japanese Shinto doesn't pay attention.
Voodoo is surprisingly tolerant, in theory, but in practice it depends on region and political situation.
Taoism aspires to peacefully transcend sexuality, and thus does not condemn gays. Priests are expected to marry women, but you don't have to be a priest.
Buddhists sometimes claim to be ones, but they are lying - dharmic religions are homophobic at their core, just like abrahamic ones (they have shared notes several millenia ago). At best they're just like modern tolerant christians.
Confucianism allows you to bang anyone as long as you make 1-2 babies (total, not per partner), but it's sort of out of fashion today.

Some neo-pagan/Wiccan circles are supposed to be this, but they're mostly laughingstock and bunch of posers.

Pastafarians and Unicornists are definitely this, but, well…

I learnt a lot about them from this site:
https://www.missionaryboys.com/

Judaism is very focused on proper social behaviour.

So, a symbol of our faith in the sense of something that would tell a person whether or not we are Jewish has no regulation banning it from the toilet or sex.  I would wear my kippa/yarmulka/that-thing-on-my-head pretty much anytime I'm awake.  I make an exception for walking down really windy streets where it could get blown off.  The same would apply to any symbol worn on a necklace or ring.

From what I've been told by Muslim women the similar rules apply to the hijab.  It wouldn't be worn in private or with your family.

WE have ritual garments, like the Sikhs, Mormons, Zoroastrians, and Hindus.  A Tallith (prayer shawl) and T'fillin require a special blessing to be said when they are first put on and only used for prayer.  They have to be removed when going to the washroom and as the conclusion of prayer.

Here's a picture of a young man of my ethnic background wearing the garments.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-sephardic-jewish-man-tallit-tefillin-56352403

The word "homosexual" first appeared in print in the 1860's. It is the product of modern psychological understanding and the theory of the unconscious or subconscious mind. The concept of an innate unconscious behavioural disposition did not exist before then.

The earliest translation of the Bible that contains the word "homosexual" was in 1941. If we accept that the Greek word "Arsenokoites" means a man bedding (having sex with) and another man, something highly debatable, homosexuality is an obviously incorrect translation.

1. more than half of homosexuals are women.
2. many homosexual men don't or have not yet had sex with another man, but they are still homosexuals.
3. if surveys are to believed, the small proportion of heterosexual men that have had sex with another man actually outnumber the total number of homosexual men since the proportion of men who are homosexual is so small.
4. Sexuality refers to a disposition, i.e. who are are sexuality attracted to. It does not refer to any sexual act.

The modern translations of the Bible that print the word "homosexual" are therefore clearly and absolutely wrong. The mistranslation changes the meaning from condemning people for what they do, to condemning people for how they were born.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/word-homosexual-first-introduced-bible/

https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

I am religious because my religion allows me to be whoever I want to be.

@raphjd:

If god exists, as in the 3 Abrahamic religions, then he's a vile cunt who doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

hahahaha, lol

in my case i can confirm this. my mother votes for the christian party but i was not raised in a religious family.

however i think its common that people unfortunate enough to be born in a scientology family decides scientology is not for them and then get isolated by the rest of the family.

@raphjd:

Virtually all believers are the same religion as their parents.

ew no. how would that even work? like id like to hear the explanation of how a people through all of recorded history, including in nazi ww2 germany has made a "choice" to be gay. absolutely make no sense so itd be interesting to hear how people think gay people make a conscious decision to b gay,

@flozen:

Are there any existing spells you would apply to this situation, or would you invent a new spell to cast on these educators?

I'd cast Riddikulus, but it may not be necessary…

Atheism is in the rise in developed countries with higher rates of education/big percentage of people with high education level so i don't think it's just a coincidence.

Edit to my previous comment.

Thank You. And I shaved.