LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[ShadowArxxy]

Hell, I want to model a lot of US policy off of Israel because I think they are doing a lot of things wayyy better than we are, for example, not allowing gay marriage, and I respect them greatly for that.

In Israel, there is no such thing as civil marriage. Marriage is not only exclusively religious, but exclusively for the four Abrahamic faiths recognized by the Israeli government: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Druze. More specifically, Israel requires that both spouses must be government-registered members of a recognized denomination of the same religion; interfaith marriages are not permitted even if they are allowed by the religious faith.

For Christians, the recognized denominations are Roman Catholic and Orthodox. However, the law does not actually prohibit other Christian denominations; it merely does not recognize them. Since Protestant churches have no centralized authority which can coordinate with the Israeli government, Protestants who wish to be married in Israel must apply for government permission, which is granted on an informal, ad hoc basis.

For Jews, the only recognized denomination is Orthodox, and this is an absolute exclusive -- those of other Jewish denominations are explicitly not permitted to marry.

So Israel does not actually disallow same-sex marriage; if any of the recognized denominations of the recognized religions allowed it, Israel would respect that. It's simply that Israel only allows Abrahamic religious marriages coming from recognized denominations, generally those that are centralized enough to have official hierarchies and rulesets. Israel does not itself impose any restrictions other than not allowing interfaith marriages; all other restrictions are simply those of the recognized religious hierarchy.

Outside of this, Israel grants limited recognition of marriages performed outside of Israel as a matter of international reciprocity, and same sex marriages are included in this legal reciprocity on an equal basis with all other non-Israel marriages.

 

[FriedCFour]

So Israel does not actually disallow same-sex marriage; if any of the recognized denominations of the recognized religions allowed it, Israel would respect that. It's simply that Israel only allows Abrahamic religious marriages coming from recognized denominations, generally those that are centralized enough to have official hierarchies and rulesets. Israel does not itself impose any restrictions other than not allowing interfaith marriages; all other restrictions are simply those of the recognized religious hierarchy.

which itself is actually pretty based. Not recognizing the non orthodox especially because the other two main ones are complete cancer.

 

[King Arts]

In Israel, there is no such thing as civil marriage. Marriage is not only exclusively religious, but exclusively for the four Abrahamic faiths recognized by the Israeli government: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Druze. More specifically, Israel requires that both spouses must be government-registered members of a recognized denomination of the same religion; interfaith marriages are not permitted even if they are allowed by the religious faith.

For Christians, the recognized denominations are Roman Catholic and Orthodox. However, the law does not actually prohibit other Christian denominations; it merely does not recognize them. Since Protestant churches have no centralized authority which can coordinate with the Israeli government, Protestants who wish to be married in Israel must apply for government permission, which is granted on an informal, ad hoc basis.

For Jews, the only recognized denomination is Orthodox, and this is an absolute exclusive -- those of other Jewish denominations are explicitly not permitted to marry.

So Israel does not actually disallow same-sex marriage; if any of the recognized denominations of the recognized religions allowed it, Israel would respect that. It's simply that Israel only allows Abrahamic religious marriages coming from recognized denominations, generally those that are centralized enough to have official hierarchies and rulesets. Israel does not itself impose any restrictions other than not allowing interfaith marriages; all other restrictions are simply those of the recognized religious hierarchy.

Outside of this, Israel grants limited recognition of marriages performed outside of Israel as a matter of international reciprocity, and same sex marriages are included in this legal reciprocity on an equal basis with all other non-Israel marriages.

It’s not perfect but the Israeli way is. Better than the American way.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It’s not perfect but the Israeli way is. Better than the American way.

I disagree entirely. The Israeli way completely stomps over both freedom of religion *and* equality.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The question is adoption.

And welfare.

Adults who destroy their own bodies shouldn't be able to have the state as a fallback.

Covering SRS a s HRT by medicaid kills poor children and i don't think the state should cover HIV medication for.homosexual couples either. That lifestyle is inherently self destructive and cuckservatives who defend that position are contributing to a bleed on resources that they're supposed to be preventing.

Edit- everyone focuses on marriage, forgetting the far more costly and dangerous areas.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

That is a deeply disturbing point of view. You're literally proposing the prohibition of bona fide medical treatment which -- whether you like it or not -- is recognized as the proper treatment by an absolutely overwhelming consensus of medical and psychological professionals, on the basis that it's politically disliked by you.

As for barring HIV treatment for same-sex couples, I'm willing to compromise and put that on the list after, "Let's prohibit EMTs and firefighters from treating anyone who appears to be intoxicated."

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

That is a deeply disturbing point of view. You're literally proposing the prohibition of bona fide medical treatment which -- whether you like it or not -- is recognized as the proper treatment by an absolutely overwhelming consensus of medical and psychological professionals, on the basis that it's politically disliked by you.

As for barring HIV treatment for same-sex couples, I'm willing to compromise and put that on the list after, "Let's prohibit EMTs and firefighters from treating anyone who appears to be intoxicated."

No, im proposing that the state not cover it in their own Healthcare for the destitute and the poor.

Private insurance should not be barred from covering it.

But the resources for the poor should go towards things that aren't self inflicted. And it isn't politically disliked by me, HRT is a human rights atrocity and I don't give a single solitary fuck what consensus is gathered at the point of a metaphorical gun.

Sterilizing retards was widely considered to be the most ethical and humane thing evaarrr a century ago.

We stopped doing it because it's an abomination.

Our tax dollars need to go to sick poor kids, every grotesque penis inversion surgery or hamburger meat from the arm to make a fake Dick surgery is an organ transplant for a sick person.

If someone received a sex change operation and receives hormone therapy on the governments dime. the cost for their violent placebo was the life of a young underprivileged kid who died from cancer that wasn't detected in time because the money wasn't there..

and I'm just quoting a friend of mine who buried a daughter because of brain cancer while the state kept footing the bill for top surgery..

she blames trans people for the death of her kid and yknow? She is 20% right. The rest of the blame goes to government for funding that monstrosity.

It is on par morally with witch burning and trepanning and lobotomies and no conservative should defend it.

In fact they should be running ads in the suburbs with detransitioned people talking about their experience and comparing it side by side with testimony from the Nuremberg tribunals.

They should be aggressively hitting below the belt and comparing doctors who did it to Shiro Iishi and Joseph Mengele

As for aids meds and don't give me that shit, because medicaid doesn't cover liver transplants for alcoholics if it can help it lol.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

No, im proposing that the state not cover it in their own Healthcare for the destitute and the poor.

Which is a red herring, because Medicare doesn't cover HRT or SRS in the manner you claim. HRT is covered under some Medicare Advantage and Part D supplementary plans. . . but those are supplementary plans that people have to pay for themselves as an adjunct to government sponsored Medicare, and more to the point, that's the exact same coverage as post-menopausal hormone therapy for cis women.

If someone received a sex change operation and receives hormone therapy on the governments dime. the cost for their violent placebo was the life of a young underprivileged kid who died from cancer that wasn't detected in time because the money wasn't there..

Again, this is refuted by the fact that HRT and SRS are not covered by Medicare. And your made-up scenario is doubly refuted by the fact that Medicare doesn't cover wellness services that would improve the probability of early detection of cancer.

and I'm just quoting a friend of mine who buried a daughter because of brain cancer while the state kept footing the bill for top surgery..

she blames trans people for the death of her kid and yknow? She is 20% right. The rest of the blame goes to government for funding that monstrosity.

Your friend is completely and entirely wrong, because again, HRT and SRS are not covered by Medicare in that manner. But good on you for waving the red herring some more. Try arguing from facts and evidence, not emotional appeals.

 

[King Arts]

I disagree entirely. The Israeli way completely stomps over both freedom of religion *and* equality.

No it doesn’t it allows serious religions respect and let’s them handle marriage of their people.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

No it doesn’t it allows serious religions respect and let’s them handle marriage of their people.

When the government literally gets to decide which religions are valid and even which denominations count, that is not "respect", that is literally government dictated religion.

That is literally the opposite of the United States, where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion means that the government does not get to autocratically dictate which religions are 'real' or 'valid'.

 

[LordsFire]

When the government literally gets to decide which religions are valid and even which denominations count, that is not "respect", that is literally government dictated religion.

That is literally the opposite of the United States, where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion means that the government does not get to autocratically dictate which religions are 'real' or 'valid'.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. This absolutely happens in the USA, but pretty nearly exclusively against Christians.

I suppose you never heard of the children who were banned from praying in school, or got in trouble for having a Bible with them?

Or the oft-repeated refrain that religion should be kept out of politics, except that it's almost exclusively directed towards Christians?

 

[King Arts]

When the government literally gets to decide which religions are valid and even which denominations count, that is not "respect", that is literally government dictated religion.

That is literally the opposite of the United States, where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion means that the government does not get to autocratically dictate which religions are 'real' or 'valid'.

I don’t give a damn about how you interpret a piece of paper written by a bunch of non Christian Freemasons. Religion needs central control the church has to be organized if any random asshat can make his own church that is just legitimizing cults. That is why the Protestant way is wrong.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I think Shadow is slightly off base in regards to the effectiveness of SRS as a long term treatment for people with gender dysphoria, as far as I'm aware it has a negligible impact on reducing the suicide rate in trans people, which is the main argument I've seen pushed in it's favor and for why funding for it is required. The research I've seen suggest it's main effect is quality of life improvement, which is valuable but perhaps not something that should be state funded as a priority.

That said, color me unconvinced that if a state does decide to fund SRS, it must be taking money away from other people in order to do it. No government on earth has the resources to treat and cure every single person that needs medical aid, there will always be people left out, no matter how you distribute what resources we have. IWD's position would effectively shut down a huge range of public health measures that have a significant positive effect on people's lives, in favor of funding only emergency life saving care and treatment. That's not exactly an immoral position, but it's also not really a practical one, and at some point it becomes defensible for the state to say "yes, we'd rather provide hundreds of people cheaper medicine then fund one expensive surgery, it's better for the state to get those people back to work then it is to maybe save one kind".

Let alone the flatly immoral policy of not funding HIV treatment because "ew, teh gays".

Your friend is completely and entirely wrong, because HRT and SRS are not covered by Medicare. But good on you for waving the red herring some more.

Also, conducting top surgery and conducting brain surgery are two radically different skillsets, and they're both very busy fields as well. It's not like that brain surgeon was just sitting around, not doing anything because no one was paying him, he would have just been treating someone else.

When the government literally gets to decide which religions are valid and even which denominations count, that is not "respect", that is literally government dictated religion.

That is literally the opposite of the United States, where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion means that the government does not get to autocratically dictate which religions are 'real' or 'valid'.

I don't think that's quite true. Even the US sets guidelines (very loose, very abusable guidelines, but guidelines nonetheless) that a religion must meet in order to qualify for tax exempt status and other benefits. Israel is stricter than the US, yes, but they are not fundamentally different.

Furthermore, freedom of religion means the government cannot stop you from practicing your faith (within limits. I'm pretty sure bring back the Aztec faith would not fly), it does not mean that the government must support you in doing so.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. This absolutely happens in the USA, but pretty nearly exclusively against Christians.

That only shows that freedom of religion in the United States isn't absolutely absolute. While people can and do disagree where the boundaries should lie, that doesn't change the fact that freedom of religion is applied on a vastly more sweeping legal and social basis in the United States than it is in Israel.

I suppose you never heard of the children who were banned from praying in school, or got in trouble for having a Bible with them?

And in Israel that wouldn't be an issue, because children would not have a protected right to do those things unless they are recognized as formally established religious practices of a recognized denomination of a recognized religion.

(i.e., you would only have a right to have a Bible with you in school if you were a registered member of a denomination that established as a matter of doctrine that believers should carry a Bible at all times, *and* that denomination was recognized by the Israeli government as a valid denomination of a valid Abrahamic religion; you could not do so on your own.)

Or the oft-repeated refrain that religion should be kept out of politics, except that it's almost exclusively directed towards Christians?

That's some people's opinion, just as it is some people's opinion that freedom of religion in America is meant exclusively for Christians and that no other religion should be permitted. I don't see how that refutes my actual argument that the Israeli model is much, much more restrictive of religion than the American model.

 

[LordsFire]

That's some people's opinion, just as it is some people's opinion that freedom of religion in America is meant exclusively for Christians and that no other religion should be permitted. I don't see how that refutes my actual argument that the Israeli model is much, much more restrictive of religion than the American model.

If this is your only point, I would agree. America has more religious freedom than most parts of the world.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some religious persecution by the government though, which is what I was saying. The two points do not contradict each other though.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

That doesn't mean that there isn't some religious persecution by the government though, which is what I was saying. The two points do not contradict each other though.

I never claimed so, though?

I was fairly specifically pushing back against King Arts' claim that the Israeli system is better specifically because it only recognizes the "big" centralized denominations out of the four Abrahamic faiths, something he himself framed as his opinion because he's a member of one of those favored denominations and wants rival denominations suppressed due to his religious belief that they are invalid. That's a position that is absolutely against freedom of religion.

That said, I would also point out that there are valid differences of opinion on where the lines get drawn regarding legitimate, bona fide religious practices versus the equal application of civil law. I would say that the U.S. generally falls very, very far towards the pro-religion side of this balance, with the courts deciding that religious faiths are allowed to override secular law in matters like drug use, medical care, and basic educational requirements.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Which is a red herring, because Medicare doesn't cover HRT or SRS in the manner you claim. HRT is covered under some Medicare Advantage and Part D supplementary plans. . . but those are supplementary plans that people have to pay for themselves as an adjunct to government sponsored Medicare, and more to the point, that's the exact same coverage as post-menopausal hormone therapy for cis women.

Ah yes, retirees can't get HRT....Who was talking about retirees again?

Again, this is refuted by the fact that HRT and SRS are not covered by Medicare. And your made-up scenario is doubly refuted by the fact that Medicare doesn't cover wellness services that would improve the probability of early detection of cancer.

You just panicked so hard that you started discussing shit that has nothing to do with what I said.

And you were so blatant about it, you should be thread banned for it.

Your friend is completely and entirely wrong, because again, HRT and SRS are not covered by Medicare in that manner. But good on you for waving the red herring some more. Try arguing from facts and evidence, not emotional appeals.

Says the person having an absolute meltdown because of the truth?

....Meanwhile medicaid in plenty of states covers SRS and that is a crime against humanity.

I swear I'm so tempted to just spam okay groomer at you...its only my respect for the owner's dislike of channish behavior that's stopping me.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. This absolutely happens in the USA, but pretty nearly exclusively against Christians.

I suppose you never heard of the children who were banned from praying in school, or got in trouble for having a Bible with them?

Or the oft-repeated refrain that religion should be kept out of politics, except that it's almost exclusively directed towards Christians?

>Baker act kid because of schizophrenia

>Turns out it was because the kid was praying

Yeah, that was apparently a thing in Florida Schools

That said, color me unconvinced that if a state does decide to fund SRS, it must be taking money away from other people in order to do it. No government on earth has the resources to treat and cure every single person that needs medical aid, there will always be people left out, no matter how you distribute what resources we have. IWD's position would effectively shut down a huge range of public health measures that have a significant positive effect on people's lives, in favor of funding only emergency life saving care and treatment. That's not exactly an immoral position, but it's also not really a practical one, and at some point it becomes defensible for the state to say "yes, we'd rather provide hundreds of people cheaper medicine then fund one expensive surgery, it's better for the state to get those people back to work then it is to maybe save one kind".

If Government employees are too stupid to relegate restrictions solely to enabling butchery and self destructive behavior, then you completely clear out the health ministry, fire everyone and replace them with people who have a functioning brain and a healthy sense of restraint and the basic understanding that laws have a starting and stopping point.

You don't just not enact a law because "muh slippery slope".

We're passed that, children are being mutilated because C average psychology students with multi colored hair say so...We've fallen well off the slope and we're off the cliff dangling over the abyss.

Let alone the flatly immoral policy of not funding HIV treatment because "ew, teh gays".

Ah yes, that's totally what I said..oh wait no it isn't

Government healthcare shouldn't be covering self destructive behavior of any sort.

 

[strunkenwhite]

HRT is a human rights atrocity

Call it a human rights travesty: that way the initials still work.

 

[DarthOne]

QUEER WARS 2

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Non binary doesn't exist, it's something invented by young adults with arrested development issues who want attention.

Trans people are either severely mentally ill or grossly deformed in a neurological sense and I can see why old school gays want nothing to do with either.