The GOP's proposed national platform is extremely transphobic - LGBTQ Nation
www.lgbtqnation.com
It also promises to protect Christians who discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.
  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    13·
    5 months ago

    That’s just because they still feel safe in public bigotry against trans folks. They still have all the old bigotries too; Muslims, atheists, gays, non protestant/evangelical Christians, black people, etc they just know if they come out publically against those demographics they’ll never win an election. So they use coded language, instead of the n word in public they say DEI, diversity, urban, etc. When ranting against trans folks in public they try to equivocate how people dress with being overtly sexual because that’s the same bs their pastor or political leader told them to think. The reason they scapegoat trans folks is because they are rare so most people especially in low population rural areas don’t have any trans friends or interact with trans folks on a regular basis to correct the isolationist demonization pushed by many churches and political conservatives.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    5 months ago

    They are coming for the majority of America, too. One way or another, most people will fall outside the narrow inner circle that is considered a “real” Merrikan.

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      5 months ago

      I’m definitely not white or straight enough for Project 2025.

      It reminds me of a certain country in the 1920s that had chosen a small segment of the population as superior…hmmm…which country was that again? Dutchland?

      /s, kinda

    • PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com
      41·
      5 months ago

      This meme is going to hit a lot harder a couple years from now when they’re sending everyone that Trump and his doners hate to concentration camps.

    • Steven SausEnglish
      531·
      5 months ago

      You are making a false equivalency between “being Christian” and “being a bigot”. While there is a high correlation, particularly with some denominations of Christianity, they are not synonymous. (Heck, I’ve seen some religious groups at my local Pride celebrations for years.)

      Presumably you’re aware of this.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          6·
          5 months ago

          When your ‘proof’ for them hating queer folk only applies to politicians who dont lie to their constituents, im gonna have to call that out. You find me one politician that doesn’t lie and we’ll test your hypothesis on them.

        • teft@lemmy.world
          42·
          5 months ago

          Where in the bible does it say homosexuality is a sin? It doesn’t which is why some religious folk are cool with LGBT.

            • teft@lemmy.world
              82·
              5 months ago

              Neither of those verses reference homosexuality. Try again.

              I’ll give you a hint: you’ll never find an anti homosexual verse in the bible because they don’t exist. Misreadings and incorrect translations have given rise to that belief.

              • chaonaut@lemmy.world
                2·
                5 months ago

                Sorry, but it’s actually pretty hard to dismiss the Romans passage, but it is something that can be chalked up to Paul being sex negative, going so far as to exhort people to be chaste or get married if they can’t control their passion if, as he noted, they were not free from such passion as he claimed to be. The other passages commonly cited don’t reference homosexuality nearly as directly, but it would not be a difficult argument to make that the word choices were specifically defaming homosexuality (especially given how common it is for people to use the same sort of defamation). Which isn’t to say that every denomination adheres to the same interpretation of these passages, but they aren’t on as theologically shaky ground as we might hope.

        • chaonaut@lemmy.world
          21·
          5 months ago

          Expecting Christians to follow a given text to the letter will always be setting yourself up for failure. Not only do people pick and choose the doctrine they follow (or more often have it picked and chosen for them by their spiritual leader), different traditions have different emphasis and even different texts they’re operating off of. Expecting an legalistic following of a specific interpretation will leave you expecting far different behavior that most of your observations will show.

            • chaonaut@lemmy.world
              21·
              5 months ago

              Not my point. You absolutely can point to homophobic passages of the Bible. You can also point to passages of the Bible that are not talking about homosexuality in specific, but that are commonly interpreted as such. My point is that expecting even Christians to agree with other Christians about what texta constitute the Bible let alone what those specific texts actually say is an exercise in futility.

              This is the why of the existence of all the various sects and denominations of Christianity. There are theologians who have done lots of academic work to show how the Bible does not need to be homophobic. There are others who have worked just as hard to justify doing grievous harm to homosexuals. Trying to explain both of those with the One True Reading of the Bible is committing the same error they do.

              For my queer ass, if Christians all spontaneously decided to follow the theology of Rev. Fred Rodgers tomorrow, I’m gonna breathe a sigh of relief and leave them alone to be just the nicest people and hope they stay that way.