https://lemmy.world/c/christians
This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles
Rule 8 of this community is in clear breach of the first goal from the lemmy/mastodon.world code of conduct
https://lemmy.world/c/christians
This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles
Rule 8 of this community is in clear breach of the first goal from the lemmy/mastodon.world code of conduct
To play devil’s advocate (pun not intended), this community poses an interesting quandary.
When seen in context, their rules do clearly prohibit any hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community:
I’d be interested to see the admin’s ruling in this case.
That’s the ol’ “hate the sin love the sinner” shtick. It tries to separate homosexuality (the “sin”) from homosexuals (the “sinner”). If only they could stop sinning (stop being gay) they would of course be welcome!
Its not just excluding them from church/christian communities, its the theological basis for conversion camps and the like.
Mmm aromatic asexual
I would think specifically not allowing “pro-LGBTQ+ content” is being pretty bigoted. Just because it is a religious belief does not mean it can’t also be bigoted.
If this little “loophole” is enough to allow this kind of thing to stay on this instance, I would be worried. But I’ll wait and see what the admins have to say about it.Resolved: https://lemmy.world/comment/1455537I think that would depend on what “Pro-LGBTQ+ content” means. It’s quite a vague term. Does it refer to posts, discussion topics, or what?
They do follow up by saying that serious discussion about LGBTQ+ issues is acceptable, so the fact that are open to discussion, in theory, could be a point in their defense.
Community’s gone now, so it’s a moot point, but:
Assume they allow casual images. Someone posts an image of a pride celebration out front of a church. It’s removed. Is this not obviously bigoted?
Are you giving an example of a real situation or are you just imagining? There is a big difference.
We cannot ban them because you think they would remove a post like that
Why assume anything? To strawman?
No, to brainstorm a point, seeing as the community has now been banned and thus I have no idea what specific content they allowed outside the rule snippets posted here. Problem’s resolved, we’re done.
Thanks for posting their rules. Very helpful and informative
I’m just here to find out what flavour an aromatic-asexual is
Garlic bread, I think
I was going to say something pretty similar to what you were.
I’m the last one to generally defend religious people, but are they actually being bigoted?
There’s a pretty large difference between not affirming something and attacking something and frankly flipping through the community I didn’t see either of those things occurring.
It sounds like the original poster just doesn’t like the rule itself.
What if it was race? What if they said “this community doesn’t affirm black lifestyles.”
It is not like we live in society where everyone is always welcome.
“What if it was Russians?” (aha we forbade them long time ago), Chinese (them too), native Americans (we killed them off), what is they are from some poor country… Some of those russians and Chinese are lgbt+, what about them? Migrants? no way.
There are always limits if you don’t see them you should work on your sensibility (or probably information source)
They have some rules, it is on us all (not only admins) to assess if those rules align with this server or they should make their own instance (or go to known conservative instance).
I don’t even want to look at their community (i am ignorant of all religions) if they just don’t want some content it is ok with me, if they are hateful and share hate content and contet against lgbt people then delete them.
Discrimination against Russians, Chinese, or Native Americans based on their demographic is also unacceptable. That it once was doesn’t make it ok now.
I think against Republicans is fine right?
I mean, we could play the game “what if they set a thing they didn’t say” all day long.
What if they said shoes go on your hands?
Would it be unacceptable if it described another demographic, is what they’re asking.
100% this… race and sexuality are both pretty similar: things that people just are and can’t change about themselves
to say they’re not the same is… well, it’s not wrong, however they’re comparable in this context. if you say it’s not the same thing, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you made the exact point we were trying to: the only reason 1 is acceptable and the other is not doesn’t stand on logical foundations
That sounds pretty intolerant to me. How else do you define a bigot?
I’d say that sounds more like a circlejerk than intolerance but that sounds pretty gay so is probably not allowed there either.
Those things often go hand in hand
An intolerant circlejerk.
A jackass.
Whelp! I am off to post a Christians for LGBTQ+ meme over there…
Putting gay content on a Christian community is like putting a Pitbull in a nursery. It’s done only to cause a problem.
Would you put gay content in a Muslim community?
What are you on about? There are many Christians who have no problem with LGBTQ+, and there are lots of relevant issues about it to discuss, especially in a Christian community.
If it was on topic, yeah sure. It’s on them for having a problem with someone’s identity.
If it was on-topic it was allowed as the other rules clearly stated.
Then why specify at all? Assumedly anything off-topic would be removed.
Well, probably not anymore, since not allowing lgbt discussion is enough to get your community banned without warning. Its always on topic.
“We allow lgbt discussion as long as it’s not positive toward lgbt people.”
Then I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood. If I have a community about baseball, and I don’t allow non-baseball content, I would not have a rule stating “no non-baseball content and no LGBT content”. That doesn’t make any sense, and would only be included if I also wanted to remove baseball-and-lgbt content, which would be bigoted.