This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Looking through their tenets of gospel, it seems like they aren’t really about lesbians as commonly understood, either (women being attracted to women,) so much as lesbian feminism, which seems to be more about rejecting heterosexuality as a misogynist structure.
Looking through their tenets of gospel, it seems like they aren’t really about lesbians as commonly understood, either (women being attracted to women,) so much as lesbian feminism, which seems to be more about rejecting heterosexuality as a misogynist structure.
I honestly wonder how many of those women are genuine lesbians as opposed to misandrists with internalized heterophobia.
So… about that religious freedom stuff that’s been going on lately. Y’know how I said it was more a license to discriminate than anything? Well, how do we define this springing up in the wake of the religious liberty movement?
(NOTE: Despite the headline, this article is mostly about TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Lesbians themselves aren’t really a focal point.)
Well, they have the same right to form a church as any other group.
I’m going to form a church with blackjack and hookers and yada yada yada.
I’m going to form a church with blackjack and hookers and yada yada yada.
I think you’d need some sort of license in order to have gambling and I am going to guess that having gambling would prevent your tax exempt status. Also, hookers are illegal, even in churches.
*sigh*
Not in Nevada. At least, that’s what they told me.
Looking through their tenets of gospel, it seems like they aren’t really about lesbians as commonly understood, either (women being attracted to women,) so much as lesbian feminism, which seems to be more about rejecting heterosexuality as a misogynist structure.
I honestly wonder how many of those women are genuine lesbians as opposed to misandrists with internalized heterophobia.
I’m not going to go into the misandry/heterophobia subject; however, there’s a reason why it’s called political lesbianism. The group is explicitly defined as using lesbianism as a means to escape heterosexuality, which to them is a structure built to reinforce misogyny. They consider themselves “lesbian by choice,” and at some of the more extreme ends reject sexuality altogether.
Unfortunately, I need to find more sources on how this movement manifests in the modern era, as most of the readings I’ve found limit themselves to the perspective of the '70’s.
So… about that religious freedom stuff that’s been going on lately. Y’know how I said it was more a license to discriminate than anything? Well, how do we define this springing up in the wake of the religious liberty movement?
(NOTE: Despite the headline, this article is mostly about TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Lesbians themselves aren’t really a focal point.)
Well, they have the same right to form a church as any other group.
That’s not the problem. The problem is that this is most likely TERFs just piggybacking off the religious liberty bills (bills that I disliked to begin with) as a means of justifying transphobic discrimination.
I’m going to form a church with blackjack and hookers and yada yada yada.
I think you’d need some sort of license in order to have gambling and I am going to guess that having gambling would prevent your tax exempt status. Also, hookers are illegal, even in churches.
My favorite part of this is “even in churches.”
Frink, in my responses I already accepted it could have been more precise and that I understand the assumption you made. I still don’t understand the significance of your objection. If I had just pulled a yearly number like mfm suggests, I’d get it. I did nothing remotely like that.
I fully recognize the technical point that a person could make the assumption it was s mass shooting (as I did with Collipso’s post months ago) but it wasn’t my intent. I don’t understand your fixation what amounts to a flimsy debating point.
The blue elephant in the room.
I suppose as long as you can recognize how that assumption could be made, it can be avoided in the future. And that’s all that matters, really.
I suppose it is.
The blue elephant in the room.
I don’t understand your fixation what amounts to a flimsy debating point.
It’s not a debating point. I saw it, it annoyed me, I commented on it.
I’m not the one who keeps bringing it up again.
to them[, heterosexuality] is a structure built to reinforce misogyny.
I don’t understand how that is supposed to work.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
to them[, heterosexuality] is a structure built to reinforce misogyny.
I don’t understand how that is supposed to work.
I won’t pretend to understand the ins and outs of it, but to my understanding, it has a bit to do with the culture of the 60’s and 70’s (when the movement gained traction), where men were assumed to take an authoritative role and the women a subservient role in relationships, on top of the fact that marital rape was still legal at the time.
Again, I’m having a hard time finding more details on how this manifests/ gets justified in the modern day, so much as the roots of the movement, so I can’t say what forces persist their justification of these beliefs (Though I do know that they’re not necessarily held by mainstream feminism).
I don’t understand your fixation what amounts to a flimsy debating point.
It’s not a debating point. I saw it, it annoyed me, I commented on it.
I’m not the one who keeps bringing it up again.
Cool.
The blue elephant in the room.
No churches should be tax exempt just for being churches.
The Person in Question
No churches should be tax exempt just for being churches.
What criteria do you prefer? How loudly they pray?
If they are charitable enough to be considered charitable organizations then I’m okay with them being tax exempt, but they should absolutely not be tax exempt just because they’re religious institutions.
The Person in Question
So why is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “box of rocks” as our non-box friend Mrebo put it and our non-box friend Jay agreed with? I’m listening to an interview with her (granted it’s Pod Save America so they’re softball questions) and she sounds reasonably intelligent to me.
I said she was uninformed, not unintelligent. That wasn’t even in this thread (which I’ve done my best to stay away from because it’s basically digital cancer), but if you’re going to call me out, at least get it right.
Please keep my name out of your mouth, if you don’t mind. Thanks.
MTFBWY…A
Box of rocks alluded to her status as a protest candidate aimed at taking down the establishment (metaphorical rock throwing) as well as the dopey things she says. When she is asked follow up questions on issues she appears passionate about she all but crumbles and becomes incoherent.
Her comments on Israel stand out where she was saying the correct liberal thing but reveals she doesn’t really have much of a clue when asked follow up questions. Her comments on the low unemployment rate where she said there’s low unemployment because people are working too many jobs. There’s her inability to express how the policies she favors would have funding. She has a degree in economics and international relations but based on those particular segments I saw, I wouldn’t have known it.
In a friendly interview with a friendly audience, I wager she does just fine. The ability to speak is plenty in politics.
The blue elephant in the room.
Please keep my name out of your mouth, if you don’t mind. Thanks.
Lol. He’s not supposed to reference comments made by the site administrator?
The Person in Question
Please keep my name out of your mouth, if you don’t mind. Thanks.
Lol. He’s not supposed to reference comments made by the site administrator?
If you left the thread because you found the discussion toxic, I wouldn’t be in here mentioning your name, especially in reference to a post you made elsewhere. If he has a problem with what I said, he can bring it up in the thread I said it instead of posting it in a topic everyone knows I’m deliberately avoiding because I said as much.
And I don’t know why you guys keep bringing up the fact that I’m the admin. It has zero relevance.
Back to lurking moderator mode. Peace.
MTFBWY…A
Please keep my name out of your mouth, if you don’t mind. Thanks.
Lol. He’s not supposed to reference comments made by the site administrator?
If you left the thread because you found the discussion toxic, I wouldn’t be in here mentioning your name, especially in reference to a post you made elsewhere. If he has a problem with what I said, he can bring it up in the thread I said it instead of posting it in a topic everyone knows I’m deliberately avoiding because I said as much.
He probably forgot which thread it was in and it’s relevant to this thread. If I made a political comment somewhere and someone brought it up in this thread and I wouldn’t hold it against them. It’s actually one of the few things that even I wouldn’t hold against somebody.
And I don’t know why you guys keep bringing up the fact that I’m the admin. It has zero relevance.
When an admin of a site makes a demand, there’s an implicit threat behind it. It’s very obvious. It’s like if your landlord tells you to stop doing something.
Back to lurking moderator mode. Peace.
Cool.
The Person in Question
Please keep my name out of your mouth, if you don’t mind. Thanks.
Lol. He’s not supposed to reference comments made by the site administrator?
If you left the thread because you found the discussion toxic, I wouldn’t be in here mentioning your name, especially in reference to a post you made elsewhere. If he has a problem with what I said, he can bring it up in the thread I said it instead of posting it in a topic everyone knows I’m deliberately avoiding because I said as much.
He probably forgot which thread it was in and it’s relevant to this thread. If I made a political comment somewhere and someone brought it up in this thread and I wouldn’t hold it against them. It’s actually one of the few things that even I wouldn’t hold against somebody.
What you find bothersome isn’t relevant. And whatever thread it involved, I made it clear that I didn’t want to participate in this one anymore, so I don’t appreciate my name being brought up in attempt to goad me into defending something I never said. Address what I posted where I posted it and leave me out of this mess.
And I don’t know why you guys keep bringing up the fact that I’m the admin. It has zero relevance.
When an admin of a site makes a demand, there’s an implicit threat behind it. It’s very obvious. It’s like if your landlord tells you to stop doing something.
And like a landlord, I would cite the lease if you were in violation of the terms and suggest you act accordingly. Did I cite the rules? No. I told him to get his shit straight.
If you feel threatened, that’s everything to do with you and nothing with me.
MTFBWY…A