What's wrong with being gay?

[Daedalus X]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

[Daedalus X]

I find your understanding of LGBTQ+ people to be tragically ignorant and bigoted.

Yes it is, my understanding and bias of LGBTQ+ people was formed in the early 1980's when my friends and coworkers began dying mysteriously. It was a time of high anxiety, and it did not help when Oprah said that 20% of straight people would be dead in 5 years.

Also, I think the ridiculous think about this "we are becoming feminized" is so subjective. Was David Lee Roth "feminine"? (or any of those 70-80s hair bands)? They were the epitome of a man at one point: Women wanted them, men wanted to be them.
If not, that, then look at the long history of men in powdered wigs, etc. But, I guess some people think Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Ray Comfort are "real men" - or for some reason - some men think that John Wayne, or Connor McGregor, or Ray Lewis are the epitome of being a man. They think warring, violence, muscles, anger, controlling women, lack of artistic talent, lack of education,etc. is what it means to be a "real man".

We live in a competitive world. A toxic masculine male will have a hard time finding success against men but he has a big advantage over women. A feminized man will be at a serious disadvantage aginst both toxic men and women. Good parents will not allow their boys to be feminized. It is like allowing your cat to go outside to play with the stray cats after having his claws clipped.

In reality, those men are toxic and the reason we keep going to war. If anything, we should be celebrating being more feminized. After all, what's wrong with women that we wouldn't want to share some of their qualities?

The world would be substantially better with more LGBTQ+ people and fewer toxic men, ignorant bigots, and rapey priests.

Wars are waged for economic reasons. Why do you think Putin wanted East Ukraine? Energy and minerals. Why did he feel he could get away with it? Because we had a feminized man in the WH, and an actual woman as VP. Biden even said to Putin that a small incursion would be fine.

History tells us that women leaders do not secure peace. https://qz.com/967895/throughout-histor ... r-than-men


Thatcher: "When you've spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment, it's exciting to have a real crisis on your hands." -- commenting on the Falkland Islands war.


Golda Meir: 'We intend to remain alive. Our neighbors want to see us dead. This is not a question that leaves much room for compromise.'


Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"
Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."


And my favorite.

[Miles]

Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

In as much as "contagion" refers to disease that's passed from person to person, and that disease is an illness or sickness, I fail to see how LGTBQIA2S+ as a social contagion could be regarded as "harmless." You may want to rethink your wording. Aside from this, other than physically altered transsexuals, the only serious unintended consequences awaiting LGTBQIA2Ss would be from their nonacceptance by others. And as for going down some road, this implies choosing, which I don't see as an operative factor in the gender identity of LGTBQIA2Ss.

.

[boatsnguitars]

I find your understanding of LGBTQ+ people to be tragically ignorant and bigoted.

Yes it is, my understanding and bias of LGBTQ+ people was formed in the early 1980's when my friends and coworkers began dying mysteriously. It was a time of high anxiety, and it did not help when Oprah said that 20% of straight people would be dead in 5 years.

Also, I think the ridiculous think about this "we are becoming feminized" is so subjective. Was David Lee Roth "feminine"? (or any of those 70-80s hair bands)? They were the epitome of a man at one point: Women wanted them, men wanted to be them.
If not, that, then look at the long history of men in powdered wigs, etc. But, I guess some people think Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Ray Comfort are "real men" - or for some reason - some men think that John Wayne, or Connor McGregor, or Ray Lewis are the epitome of being a man. They think warring, violence, muscles, anger, controlling women, lack of artistic talent, lack of education,etc. is what it means to be a "real man".

We live in a competitive world. A toxic masculine male will have a hard time finding success against men but he has a big advantage over women. A feminized man will be at a serious disadvantage aginst both toxic men and women. Good parents will not allow their boys to be feminized. It is like allowing your cat to go outside to play with the stray cats after having his claws clipped.

In reality, those men are toxic and the reason we keep going to war. If anything, we should be celebrating being more feminized. After all, what's wrong with women that we wouldn't want to share some of their qualities?

The world would be substantially better with more LGBTQ+ people and fewer toxic men, ignorant bigots, and rapey priests.

Wars are waged for economic reasons. Why do you think Putin wanted East Ukraine? Energy and minerals. Why did he feel he could get away with it? Because we had a feminized man in the WH, and an actual woman as VP. Biden even said to Putin that a small incursion would be fine.

History tells us that women leaders do not secure peace. https://qz.com/967895/throughout-histor ... r-than-men


Thatcher: "When you've spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment, it's exciting to have a real crisis on your hands." -- commenting on the Falkland Islands war.


Golda Meir: 'We intend to remain alive. Our neighbors want to see us dead. This is not a question that leaves much room for compromise.'


Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"
Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."


And my favorite.

Your point is that women can be violent, dangerous and toxic - but that feminization make men the opposite. Got it - you're confused.

And, you seem to think that when people mysteriously die from having loads of unprotected sex you blame the gays. Right.

[Daedalus X]

In as much as "contagion" refers to disease that's passed from person to person, and that disease is an illness or sickness, I fail to see how LGTBQIA2S+ as a social contagion could be regarded as "harmless."

A lot of people do see it as harmless. But, it is a new phenomena and we will not know how benign or destructive it is for several generations to come. Mammals are strange creatures, especially humans. We seek paradise but when we find it we develop quirky perversions. And these perversions prevent us from being content to live in our utopia. John Calhoun studied the behavior of mice in an utopia and found that it did not end well for the little creatures, and I wonder if humans will end up in a similar place.

You may want to rethink your wording. Aside from this, other than physically altered transsexuals, the only serious unintended consequences awaiting LGTBQIA2Ss would be from their nonacceptance by others. And as for going down some road, this implies choosing, which I don't see as an operative factor in the gender identity of LGTBQIA2Ss.

Society can choose to resist or affirm the gay trend. I was warned about the PC movement back in the 1990's, and I did not think it was much of a threat. But, now I see the PC movement as one of the biggest threats to our way of life. And homosexuality was on that list of PC things that will only get worse. We have gone down that slippery slope to the point of mutilating our children with chemical and surgical interventions. I think we should have put our foot down earlier, now it is too late, if it were ever possible to stop this tidal wave.

[Daedalus X]

Your point is that women can be violent, dangerous and toxic - but that feminization make men the opposite. Got it - you're confused.

I don't understand your confusion. All that I said was that women in charge, will not decrease our likelihood of going to war, if anything they will increase it. And feminized men are just as much, if not more, likely to get us into WW3.

[boatsnguitars]

Your point is that women can be violent, dangerous and toxic - but that feminization make men the opposite. Got it - you're confused.

I don't understand your confusion. All that I said was that women in charge, will not decrease our likelihood of going to war, if anything they will increase it. And feminized men are just as much, if not more, likely to get us into WW3.

Really? Can you name some prominent feminized men who have gone to war?

Your general hypothesis is: "Forget all the wars you've seen conducted by men - focus on the few examples of women and 'feminized men' going to war. Ignore the violent men in prison, or dominating the violent sports, or majority of domstic violence abusers being men! It's women who are violent - and violence is what we don't want to breed out of Men!

Classic confused bigotry. They don't want men to be "softened" (feminized) - because women are violent...

[Jose Fly]

A lot of people do see it as harmless. But, it is a new phenomena and we will not know how benign or destructive it is for several generations to come.

???? You think LGBTQ people have only recently existed? Really?

Society can choose to resist or affirm the gay trend.

What does that mean? What would "resisting the gay trend" look like?

But, now I see the PC movement as one of the biggest threats to our way of life. And homosexuality was on that list of PC things that will only get worse.

What do you think is going to happen?

We have gone down that slippery slope to the point of mutilating our children with chemical and surgical interventions. I think we should have put our foot down earlier, now it is too late, if it were ever possible to stop this tidal wave.

You need to educate yourself.

https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/resear ... ive-organs

[brunumb]

Society can choose to resist or affirm the gay trend. I was warned about the PC movement back in the 1990's, and I did not think it was much of a threat. But, now I see the PC movement as one of the biggest threats to our way of life. And homosexuality was on that list of PC things that will only get worse. We have gone down that slippery slope to the point of mutilating our children with chemical and surgical interventions. I think we should have put our foot down earlier, now it is too late, if it were ever possible to stop this tidal wave.

Homosexuality is not a 'trend'. It has always existed and will continue to exist. You are conflating two different things. The contagion that I think you are referring to that has sprung up recently is gender ideology. This really has little to do with same sex attraction. It is based on the absurd notion that people can be born in a body of the wrong sex and that they can change their sex by chemical and surgical intervention. It is a dangerous proposition in that it is imposing unnecessary and invasive changes on the majority in order to satisfy the feelings of a small minority. Leaving aside the consequences of mutilating young people in the name of this ideology, we are now being forced to validate false ideas through the surreptitious imposition of allegedly 'inclusive' language under the threat of serious sanctions. The LGB are same sex attracted which is quite different from gender dysphoria and they would do well to distance themselves from the rest of the alphabet. The idea of gender fluidity, being non-binary etc. is even more absurd and equates to nothing more than role play and even kink. You are right to be concerned.

[Miles]

In as much as "contagion" refers to disease that's passed from person to person, and that disease is an illness or sickness, I fail to see how LGTBQIA2S+ as a social contagion could be regarded as "harmless."

A lot of people do see it as harmless.

Ah, the subject here is social contagion and nothing more---"LGTBQIA2S+ as a social contagion"---Do you think a social contagion, any kind of social contagion, should be regarded as harmless? If you have doubts please see my explanation in post #3.

But, it is a new phenomena and we will not know how benign or destructive it is for several generations to come.

And I don't believe it's a "new phenomena" as much as it's a recent recognition of an "old phenomena." Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders, Queers and/or Questionings, Intersexs, Asexuals, Two-Spirits, and the countless affirmative ways in which people choose to self-identify have been with us for eons..

Mammals are strange creatures, especially humans. We seek paradise but when we find it we develop quirky perversions.

Are you saying that these various ways of expressing self-identification amount to paradise? Now that's interesting.

And these perversions prevent us from being content to live in our utopia. John Calhoun studied the behavior of mice in an utopia and found that it did not end well for the little creatures, and I wonder if humans will end up in a similar place.

"Perversions" you say. Hmm, and ones that prevent us from being content to live in our utopia. I wasn't aware that there's a utopia we are living in, even contentedly. And you do realize, do you not, that the study you linked to has nothing to do with gender identification or preference, but was simply "experiments to study the effects of population density on behavior."

You may want to rethink your wording. Aside from this, other than physically altered transsexuals, the only serious unintended consequences awaiting LGTBQIA2Ss would be from their nonacceptance by others. And as for going down some road, this implies choosing, which I don't see as an operative factor in the gender identity of LGTBQIA2Ss.

Society can choose to resist or affirm the gay trend. I was warned about the PC movement back in the 1990's, and I did not think it was much of a threat. But, now I see the PC movement as one of the biggest threats to our way of life.

Exactly how are gays threatening your way of life?

And homosexuality was on that list of PC things that will only get worse.

How would it get worse? Do you see yourself being made to engage in unwanted sex acts with someone of your own gender?

We have gone down that slippery slope to the point of mutilating our children with chemical and surgical interventions.

What mutilations are you talking about, circumcisions? If so, this is nothing new. While female genital cutting goes back to the time of the pharaohs, male circumcision has been pushed by god ever since Genesis 17:10-14 Neither of which have a thing to do with sexual identification,

I think we should have put our foot down earlier, now it is too late, if it were ever possible to stop this tidal wave.

Put our foot down on what, guys being drawn to other guys? Women getting it on with women? Or are you afraid you're developing homosexual yearnings yourself?

.