There’s no need to go all reactionary atheist (a religion that has no churches or temples - but lots of media) on me - it’s not going to gain you anything.
I’ll explain it this way -
To be anti-LGBTQ+ is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
To be anti-religion is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
There is no contradiction here. If you think there is one, it’s your logic that requires examination.
Do you really believe that it’s religion itself that is (somehow) fundamentally threatened by homosexuality? Are you really going to try and tell me that Christianity grew inside the Roman empire because the Romans (of all people) were all closeted homophobes deep down?
Come now… I know you’re smarter than that.
If the Christian churches all over the west that align themselves with empire are peddling anti-LGBTQ+ narratives it’s because the embrace of LGBTQ+ people poses a threat to said empire - not Christianity.
Please explain to me how queer people are a threat to Western governments.
You mean…liberals themselves hysterically painting transgender people as a “threat to liberal values” isn’t enough for you?
Content warning - it’s very liberal.
I mean… did you really think the colonialists brutally imposed heternormativity on the colonized world for shits and giggles? Or do you perhaps suspect that it has somethng to do with the vast resources flowing from the colonized world to the liberal empires and the cheap, expendable labor that makes it flow in the first place?
Yes, I know right-wing people hate queer people. That doesn’t answer my question. If it is governments, not religions, that are the cause of homophobia, what threat do queer people pose?
There’s no need to go all reactionary atheist (a religion that has no churches or temples - but lots of media) on me - it’s not going to gain you anything.
I’ll explain it this way -
To be anti-LGBTQ+ is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
To be anti-religion is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
There is no contradiction here. If you think there is one, it’s your logic that requires examination.
Who do you think tells them to be homophobic? Do you think it’s genetic or something? They get it from the churches.
Do you really believe that it’s religion itself that is (somehow) fundamentally threatened by homosexuality? Are you really going to try and tell me that Christianity grew inside the Roman empire because the Romans (of all people) were all closeted homophobes deep down?
Come now… I know you’re smarter than that.
If the Christian churches all over the west that align themselves with empire are peddling anti-LGBTQ+ narratives it’s because the embrace of LGBTQ+ people poses a threat to said empire - not Christianity.
Please explain to me how queer people are a threat to Western governments. This should be interesting.
You mean…liberals themselves hysterically painting transgender people as a “threat to liberal values” isn’t enough for you?
Content warning - it’s very liberal.
I mean… did you really think the colonialists brutally imposed heternormativity on the colonized world for shits and giggles? Or do you perhaps suspect that it has somethng to do with the vast resources flowing from the colonized world to the liberal empires and the cheap, expendable labor that makes it flow in the first place?
Yes, I know right-wing people hate queer people. That doesn’t answer my question. If it is governments, not religions, that are the cause of homophobia, what threat do queer people pose?
What did you think right-wing ideology exists for? What did you think the status quo is?
You really don’t know any of this, do you? Fine.
None of this is a secret anymore, you know - you could have found this all by yourself.
Maybe find a better source. An opinion article from a medium-credible one isn’t exactly great.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/novara-media-bias/
But I get it. Religion is blameless. No evil in this world can ever be traced to religion.
No. It’s a perfectly fine source for a lot of things - that is, unless you prefer the “objective” centrist claptrap I showed you first?
It’s your choice.
More reactionary atheism… and you’re still stuck in a dead-end.