(Part 2) Top products from r/ainbow

You knew what it meant. ;) Descriptive grammar is a bitch, ain't it?

For one, I can make sure that your reputation among this subreddit's user base is trash. But you're already doing a fine job of that. For another, I can ride every comment you make in this thread until you get positively sick of dealing with me. Neither of us seems to want that.

Let me tell you why you're a fucking moron in the terms that the academics use though, since you want so badly to be schooled. What you posit is that orthodoxy is problematic, and then you make a huge leap of logic by applying orthodoxy to all religion. However, all religion is not orthodoxic, only the dominant religions of western culture. So right off the bat, half the globe doesn't prescribe to your naive take on religion.

Let me familiarize you with orthopraxy, since your Dunning Kruger is showing. The difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is that orthodoxy describes a religion as "having proper belief", while orthopraxy describes a religion as "having proper practice". Furthermore, there is the additional component of whether any faith is dogmatic or non-dogmatic. There are orthodoxic and orthopraxic religions that are dogmatic, but many more orthopraxic religions are non-dogmatic.

So what does that look like? A good example of a dogmatic, orthodoxic religion is Christianity (and really any Abrahamic faith). Even Confucianism is arguably some degree of orthodoxic, however the teachings of Confucius have much more to do with how one lives, so it would fall under orthopraxy. You can be a great Buddhist without ever believing in Buddha, as well. There are Hindu sects that don't dogmatically believe in the gods, but they do place emphasis on "right practice".

Most, if not all, pagan faiths (allowing for marginal ones with which I haven't yet become acquainted; there are hundreds if not thousands of ancient world cultures and attempts to reconstruct their faiths start every day it seems) have no doctrine, and what's more, many of them de-emphasize the divine or even don't believe in them at all. What is common among most, if not all pagan faiths is do ut des, or "I give so that you may give". For some this is a direct exchange with the gods - myself, for example. For others this is a means of connecting with a higher consciousness. This forms the basis of ritual, offering, and sacrifice. Before you foolishly squall "herp derp nobody sacrifices in the modern day", yes they fucking do, it is legal to kill livestock in many parts of the world, even the US, and furthermore sacrifice has expanded to encompass giving up anything of value, not just life.

>You can't hold all pagan beliefs simultaneously, so please if you really had that much research on the topic it would show.

In point of fucking fact, yes I can. I don't personally - I primarily practice Norse heathenry. This is another piece of evidence of your perception of world religions through a Christian lens, that to worship divinities outside of one's religion is blasphemy. Very few pagan religions have any concept of blasphemy. Roman and Greek civic cultus focused primarily on "what was good for society", which is why the Jewish diaspora was possible, while Rome had a big problem with Christianity. Because, and only because, Christians were a threat to the civic cultus of the society in ways that Judaism was not.

This concept, the admittance of syncretism and the worship of many - even all - pantheons, is called "pluralism", and it is almost universal to paganism. There is no doctrine (see that word again?) or dogma (oh and that one) that demands or demanded historically that pagans only worship one pantheon. In fact, to think that pantheons existed discreetly from nation to nation in the first place is reductive and downright foolish, especially among tribal cultures. There is documented evidence that the Suebi in Germany for example worshipped Isis. Possibly interpretatio romana, but this is one of many examples. Another would be the similarities between Frigg and Freyja, between Ingvi and Freyr, and the many syncretisms between Greek and Roman gods. No one would have any reason to object to a person making cult offerings to another god, so long as that other god didn't demand exclusivity (like the Christian god).

So shut the fuck up.

Edit:

Reference Materials:

• Marcel Mauss - The Gift
  
  
• Paul C Bauschatz - The Well and the Tree
  
  
• Mircea Eliade - The Sacred and the Profane
  
  
• M. Avrum Ehrlich - Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora
  
  
• Tacitus - Agricola and Germania

How I learned to Snap is a rather fun read, and much more positive. A lot of fun lines like "My father never spanked me, which is probably why today nothing hits the spot like a good over-the-knee paddling."

Check out a book called Living in Sin? by John Shelby Spong, an Episcopalian bishop. It takes a look at the passages in the Bible that seem to go against homosexuality and women in authority/power and discusses the historical contexts of why they're in the Bible and why Christians now cling to them. Lots to think about. Lots to make your family think about too.

Check out Metropolitan Community Churches. I attended a few when I was a believer. MCC is considered a "gay church" in that they serve a primarily LGBT population. They are generally positive, affirming places. I was an enthusiastic member of a couple of them and enjoyed them quite a lot.

Good luck!

Those kinds of studies are really interesting. But I still think everyone should read this little book, particularly the part about chocolate.

Suppose, to paraphrase, that you were studying my experience of gender. If you could study and understand every neuron in my brain perfectly, that wouldn't tell you anything about my experience of gender, because my experiences are inside me and yours are inside you. Even if you opened up my skull and found that my brain tasted like sugar, spice and everything nice, it would just mean I have a delicious brain, not a female mind.

Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate.

Also God Believes in Love: Straight Talk about Gay Marriage.

Sorry. That took me a minute. I see you deleted the post and idk if you still see the comments but I'll leave this here just in case. I haven't read them all. Also, Dan Savage gives lots of book recommendations on his podcast. Good luck!

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Revolution-Story-Struggle/dp/1451694121

https://www.amazon.com/Mayor-Castro-Street-Stonewall-Editions/dp/0312019009/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=the+mayor+of+castro+street&qid=1565617125&s=gateway&sr=8-3

amazon.com/Stonewall-Revival-Christopher-Theatrical-Adventures/dp/0999863703/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

https://www.amazon.com/Gets-Better-Overcoming-Bullying-Creating/dp/0452297613/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=it+gets+better&qid=1565617218&s=books&sr=1-2

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-History-second-Todays-Revolution/dp/158005689X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1565617239&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Band-Played-Politics-People-Epidemic/dp/B002L7KS2K/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=history+of+aids&qid=1565617261&s=books&sr=1-1 (maybe)

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Pride-LGBTQ-Heroes-Changed/dp/0062571702/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

It's obvious she's not dealing with it very well, so I'd recommend getting her a book like this (it should be on the US or other Amazon sites if you're not from the UK). The main thing would be the struggle to get her to read it in the first place.

Another movie you could have suggested would be Latter Days. It's quite powerful, even if it is only about one sect of Christianity. Another book that I found helpful in explaining things to other Christians (I am in fact a queer Christian) is Sins of Scripture by John Shelby Spong.

All in all, it was a well thought out response. Although, I also disagree with you about addiction, depression and self harm, but such is the nature of religion. How boring we would all be if we agreed about everything. Disagreement is healthy, as long as it is done in a respectful manner.

I’m not Catholic (I’m Jewish). And I’m not gay (I’m bisexual).

But this decently long essay (a touch over 7,500 words) got me to immediately buy a copy of Martel’s book.

I suspect the book will be a more important an artefact in the global civil GSM rights movement than Martel’s last book to be translated into English: Global Gay, How gay culture is changing the world.

Global Gay is an anthropologically rigorous survey of the GSM rights revolution rolling out across the world. But it is a clean and well-done survey and report of how things are on the ground now, or the now of a few years ago (that said, the English translation is also an update of the 2012 French-language original)

In the closet of the Vatican (which I’ve just started as I post this) is no less anthropologically rigorous. But it also a work of equally vigorous investigative journalism. The sort of journalism that changes things. Including enormously powerful and influential institutions.

And, even given the Catholic Church’s power and influence is not what it once was, it is is still a powerful institution.

And it’s power to harm GSM folk is, in some places, still enormous.

If Global Gay was a report from the field, In the closet of the Vatican is a vital exposition on how and why the principal institutional obstacle to LGBT rights at the worldwide level appears itself to be massively staffed by gay men.

This institution will not be able to continue being what it is. And I believe Martel’s book will be part of why that is so.

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398/

Many, many animals engage in behavior that is divergent from "standard" heterosexual interactions.

It used to be. The Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality before the West did and Europeans often wonder why Muslims were tolerant of homosexuals. Early Islamic poetry contained homosexual themes, and there were gay caliphs.

Recommended reading

Here is a link to purchase the book. All proceeds go to The Trevor Project and AIDS United, so that $12 is worth it if you can afford it.

Very dangerous to apply modern definitions of homosexuality to the Ancients. In fact, the word "homosexuality" wasn't even coined until late 18th C, a couple of years before the word "heterosexuality" was coined!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred_Years_of_Homosexuality

Generally-speaking, the Ancients often defined themselves as "Tops" and "Bottoms," and again--generally-speaking--sometimes thought it was unbecoming for a guy to bottom into adulthood. "Tops" --as usual--bore no stigma and felt comfortable penetrating either sex, and "Bottoms" -- as usual-- were stigmatized. Ancient "tops" would laugh at today's idea that they were "gay."

Back to Trump: modern men often confuse modern attitudes towards the homosexual act with ancient ones.

https://www.amazon.com/Construction-Homosexuality-David-F-Greenberg/dp/0226306283

I did provide you the book author and title, I'm not sure what exactly else you'd want. But here's the amazon page and page number that the stats are stated on:

http://www.amazon.ca/Gay-Straight-Reason-Why-Orientation/dp/0199737673

Page 13 of the kindle edition (assuming the page numbers are the same across the board)



An interest point to note:

"studies that have pains particular attention to confidentiality and anonymity, or that have been conduct more recently (and thus in more gay-positive times), or in more gay-friendly countries than the United States, have mostly failed to come up with higher numbers of non-heterosexual people."

I'd add the books:

Making Gay History

Out of the Past

The Men With the Pink Triangle

And the documentaries:

The Times of Harvey Milk

The Celluloid Closet

I’m a native English speaker and those constructions simply do not carry a negative connotation to me.


If anything you seem to be making my point that the construction itself is neutral, and any connotations attached to it are arbitrary. I’m not excusing the use of an offensive term. I’m saying it’s not offensive because it has an article in front of it that ‘otherizes’, but because of its historical use.

Consider for example this book called The English by an English man.