Serious LGBT Discussion

[Abbadon's Gate]

I have no idea what's happening here, but there's really two types of gays.

There's Gays, who are people
And there's Gays, who are only who they have sex with as a political statement.

One, no one has problems with, the other belongs on a sex offender list.
As for civil unions or whatever the fuck else is being talked about on this page:

Why not give it a name other than marriage? In terms of semantics it may seem pointless, but practically it'll make the majority Christian population of the US be way more willing to go along with it, as they won't feel as though their traditions are being trampled on and it gives the gays the protections from corporate systems that might block them arbitrarily from shit.

 

[gang weeder]

Why not give it a name other than marriage? In terms of semantics it may seem pointless, but practically it'll make the majority Christian population of the US be way more willing to go along with it, as they won't feel as though their traditions are being trampled on and it gives the gays the protections from corporate systems that might block them arbitrarily from shit.

The problem with this is you can either:

1. Give it a name other than marriage, and actually have it be something different in substance as well, i.e. there is some kind of actual legal difference besides only the name; gays understandably won't be happy with this and will demand identical legal rights to married people.

or

2. Give it a name other than marriage, but have it be identical in substance; conservatives understandably won't be placated by this, correctly pointing out that it's still marriage in any way that matters, and the pointless lie of calling it something else would quickly collapse (note that this position is so weak that it was never even really attempted in actual politics and the "gay marriage movement" bypassed it and went straight to "marriage equality" with no problems).

Besides that, the truth of the issue is much deeper than mere legal technicalities. The reality is most people that care about gay marriage do not care about it because they want a tax break. They care because they want gay people to be on equal footing with heteros in terms of social status, cultural standing, etc. (or if you're on the other side of the issue, because you want to maintain a distinction between gay and straight and a recognition that they are not the same thing).

Having "gay marriage" be "constitutionally protected" ultimately boils down to clout, and anything about legal specifics is a distraction. Like yeah, gay people do want identical legal protections, but that's a piece of the bigger goal, not the end in and of itself. If gay marriage were recognized in the legal system as identical but gays were being shunned culturally, in the way that conservative viewpoints are legally protected under the 1st amendment but will get you unpersoned out of large segments of public life, they would *not* be happy with this form of "equality."

 

[Mothra1988]

I have no idea what's happening here, but there's really two types of gays.

There's Gays, who are people
And there's Gays, who are only who they have sex with as a political statement.

One, no one has problems with, the other belongs on a sex offender list.
As for civil unions or whatever the fuck else is being talked about on this page:

Why not give it a name other than marriage? In terms of semantics it may seem pointless, but practically it'll make the majority Christian population of the US be way more willing to go along with it, as they won't feel as though their traditions are being trampled on and it gives the gays the protections from corporate systems that might block them arbitrarily from shit.

What is even the point of naming it something else? Are people acting like marriage is only a religious practice? It predates Christianity and was practiced by pagans.

The only thing I will ever agree on is the culture of San Francisco like pride parades is counter-productive to what the goal should have been, integration and de-politicization. People like MLK dressed straight laced in marches, etc. in public for a reason.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

The problem with this is you can either:

1. Give it a name other than marriage, and actually have it be something different in substance as well, i.e. there is some kind of actual legal difference besides only the name; gays understandably won't be happy with this and will demand identical legal rights to married people.

or

2. Give it a name other than marriage, but have it be identical in substance; conservatives understandably won't be placated by this, correctly pointing out that it's still marriage in any way that matters, and the pointless lie of calling it something else would quickly collapse (note that this position is so weak that it was never even really attempted in actual politics and the "gay marriage movement" bypassed it and went straight to "marriage equality" with no problems).

Besides that, the truth of the issue is much deeper than mere legal technicalities. The reality is most people that care about gay marriage do not care about it because they want a tax break. They care because they want gay people to be on equal footing with heteros in terms of social status, cultural standing, etc. (or if you're on the other side of the issue, because you want to maintain a distinction between gay and straight and a recognition that they are not the same thing).

Having "gay marriage" be "constitutionally protected" ultimately boils down to clout, and anything about legal specifics is a distraction. Like yeah, gay people do want identical legal protections, but that's a piece of the bigger goal, not the end in and of itself. If gay marriage were recognized in the legal system as identical but gays were being shunned culturally, in the way that conservative viewpoints are legally protected under the 1st amendment but will get you unpersoned out of large segments of public life, they would *not* be happy with this form of "equality."

You make it out like Conservatives, in general, don't like gay people which is a premise I find to be false. Been conservative my whole life, and I live in the deep south, its less of an active dislike and more of a drawn out system of apathy. Nobody I know ever disliked the gays.

In terms of the Political LGBTQ movement, there's active disdane, but I mean, you get what you pay for. They have, insisted that their civil unions get the same name as our religious ceremonies, and then used a political supreme court to force the issue. Then, once they'd already gotten their way, attempted to do the same thing again, using our religious ceremony as a guise to attack religiously owned businesses, specifically bakeries.

It seems likely to me that for gays who just want to have all the same rights as a married couple, a civil union that protects their rights in the same way marriage does for a normal couple is likely acceptable. However, it will not be enough for the activists in the Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato crowd, because frankly, nothing ever is.

As for the conservative view point, the LGBTQ movement has already made shown itself to be extremely willing to use the institution of marriage as a weapon to attack religious institutions, which is not surprising as they've been a target of the left for a generation. You're not likely going to find many people willing to compromise with them in 2022 as normal gays not standing against radical extremists has poisoned the well, but its disingenuious to claim that prior to the last several years, a majority of Christian Coservatives had anything specifically against the gays.

I don't see this as the issue you seem to think it is.

 

[Mothra1988]

You make it out like Conservatives, in general, don't like gay people which is a premise I find to be false. Been conservative my whole life, and I live in the deep south, its less of an active dislike and more of a drawn out system of apathy. Nobody I know ever disliked the gays.

In terms of the Political LGBTQ movement, there's active disdane, but I mean, you get what you pay for. They have, insisted that their civil unions get the same name as our religious ceremonies, and then used a political supreme court to force the issue. Then, once they'd already gotten their way, attempted to do the same thing again, using our religious ceremony as a guise to attack religiously owned businesses, specifically bakeries.

It seems likely to me that for gays who just want to have all the same rights as a married couple, a civil union that protects their rights in the same way marriage does for a normal couple is likely acceptable. However, it will not be enough for the activists in the Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato crowd, because frankly, nothing ever is.

As for the conservative view point, the LGBTQ movement has already made shown itself to be extremely willing to use the institution of marriage as a weapon to attack religious institutions, which is not surprising as they've been a target of the left for a generation. You're not likely going to find many people willing to compromise with them in 2022 as normal gays not standing against radical extremists has poisoned the well, but its disingenuious to claim that prior to the last several years, a majority of Christian Coservatives had anything specifically against the gays.

I don't see this as the issue you seem to think it is.

Who appointed the SCOTUS justice who decided for gay marriage and what was their political background? How did they lean on most other decisions?

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

Who appointed the SCOTUS justice who decided for gay marriage and what was their political background? How did they lean on most other decisions?

Doesn't really matter. Point is, you can easily tell the Federal Government has no say on marriage one way or the other. When SCOTUS made it a 14th Ammendment thing they were in the wrong, doesn't matter who they were politically, just is what is.

Fact of the matter is, if we had an educated population they'd probably realize that Gay Marriage, is a state's rights thing and if a particular hopsital, or company was dicking them over on the basis of their relationship status, that's for the states to deal with.

Instead we got this ham fisted shit that in theory could get reversed if the right set of Supreme Court justices feels like going back and deciding it was a bad call.

Its my opinion, that the right for gays to marry or whatever always existed regardless of if you agree with it. I am opposed to it as a matter of religion, but I feel they have a right to it. I also think going to the supreme fucking court and trying to make it a civil rights issue was a dumb ass thing to do and I hope Clearance Thomas does get a second shot at it, because I feel it should have always belonged to the states and the people therein to decide.

 

[gang weeder]

You make it out like Conservatives, in general, don't like gay people which is a premise I find to be false. Been conservative my whole life, and I live in the deep south, its less of an active dislike and more of a drawn out system of apathy. Nobody I know ever disliked the gays.

Well yeah, "the right" so-called is very split over this, some of us don't care or feel wishy-washy, some of us actually support the heckin' gay pride, and some of us are actually conservative. I suppose I should have clarified and made it clear I was referring to the latter group who oppose gay marriage, which is indeed much smaller than the broader pool of people who are willing to vote for Donald Trump, unfortunately.

It seems likely to me that for gays who just want to have all the same rights as a married couple, a civil union that protects their rights in the same way marriage does for a normal couple is likely acceptable. However, it will not be enough for the activists in the Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato crowd, because frankly, nothing ever is.

As I said in an earlier post, the uncomfortable reality is you're either throwing your lot in with that activist crowd or you're not, and most "normal gays" are still throwing in with them. It's understandable why, but if they aren't at least willing to vote for Republicans (which is still an extremely weak ask, from my perspective), then there's not really a distinction between a "normal gay" who is somehow opposed to all the activist shit. They are still on the same team as the activists, they're just not as fully invested.

Doesn't really matter. Point is, you can easily tell the Federal Government has no say on marriage one way or the other. When SCOTUS made it a 14th Ammendment thing they were in the wrong, doesn't matter who they were politically, just is what is.

Fact of the matter is, if we had an educated population they'd probably realize that Gay Marriage, is a state's rights thing and if a particular hopsital, or company was dicking them over on the basis of their relationship status, that's for the states to deal with.

Instead we got this ham fisted shit that in theory could get reversed if the right set of Supreme Court justices feels like going back and deciding it was a bad call.

Its my opinion, that the right for gays to marry or whatever always existed regardless of if you agree with it. I am opposed to it as a matter of religion, but I feel they have a right to it. I also think going to the supreme fucking court and trying to make it a civil rights issue was a dumb ass thing to do and I hope Clearance Thomas does get a second shot at it, because I feel it should have always belonged to the states and the people therein to decide.

Another unfortunate reality, the SCOTUS is affected by politics/culture and will rule accordingly if the issue is big enough and important enough. That's why Alito's majority opinion tried to placate the left by spamming over and over "we won't touch gay marriage we promise." Do you think Alito and the other justices don't know that Obergefell is a garbage ruling legally speaking? Of course they know, they just don't have the balls to say it. The fact that even a single justice did is kind of surprising to me, really, but then again I also never expected they would have the guts to overturn Roe either, so what do I know, I'm a pessimist.

But returning to the point, the reason Roe got overturned and Obergefell is safe is that the conservative half of the country is indeed pretty united that abortion is evil, but also very divided on the gay marriage question. If conservatives were as squishy on abortion as they are on gay marriage, this ruling wouldn't have happened.

 

[LurkNoMore]

Let's talk about the LGB. Do you think that exclusive same-sex attraction is a thing?

No. If it was than pedophilia is no longer a choice. Obviously its pretty easy not force yourself on children and so it is with homosexuality. However the "desire" would still be there. If same sex attraction was unmovable than there would be no homosexuals because none would have passed down the characteristics necessary for homosexuality to form. Furthermore a gay can say they have no desire for the other sex and no one will know otherwise because no one can read minds. You see this with straights as well.

What is the difference between a troon saying "i feel like a woman the same way as cis women do" and a fag saying "i am attracted to men in the same way that straight men are attracted to women"?

Nothing. Its all a matter of perception. Obviously a gay guy can say he understands the attraction of straight men to women. However he can't actually know. In the same manner a trans can say they understand a member of the sex they identify as. They cannot properly understand what it feels like to be a man or a woman. (This is of course assuming you actually believe homosexuality to be valid.)

I'm pretty certain that people can acquire a fetish by some kind of pavlovian cooming. And if the propaganda starts early enough, and you just don't feel a connection with the other sex, that might turn into a gay identity.

Hence why so long as homosexuality is tolerated, homosexuals will push to teach children about their practices. They will insist on it. I've yet to meet a homosexual who didn't want to be represented in media. Who didn't want sex education to include their fetishism. That way children can "discover" who they really are. Its no different than trans activtism and the reason the two aren't seen as the same thing is because people want to have "sane" and "reasonable" gays to hold up.

 

[Mothra1988]

Doesn't really matter. Point is, you can easily tell the Federal Government has no say on marriage one way or the other. When SCOTUS made it a 14th Ammendment thing they were in the wrong, doesn't matter who they were politically, just is what is.

Fact of the matter is, if we had an educated population they'd probably realize that Gay Marriage, is a state's rights thing and if a particular hopsital, or company was dicking them over on the basis of their relationship status, that's for the states to deal with.

Instead we got this ham fisted shit that in theory could get reversed if the right set of Supreme Court justices feels like going back and deciding it was a bad call.

Its my opinion, that the right for gays to marry or whatever always existed regardless of if you agree with it. I am opposed to it as a matter of religion, but I feel they have a right to it. I also think going to the supreme fucking court and trying to make it a civil rights issue was a dumb ass thing to do and I hope Clearance Thomas does get a second shot at it, because I feel it should have always belonged to the states and the people therein to decide.

Of course it matters. The argument was that a "political Supreme Court" did this. You can thank Ronald Reagan for the decision.

It is a 14th amendment thing. You're not going to get this unless you repeal the 14th amendment with another amendment, and that's not going to happen. Alito said this is not happening. Thomas Clarence is never going to write a majority opinion on it.

 

[gang weeder]

Of course it matters. The argument was that a "political Supreme Court" did this. You can thank Ronald Reagan for the decision.

It is a 14th amendment thing. You're not going to get this unless you repeal the 14th amendment with another amendment, and that's not going to happen. Alito said this is not happening. Thomas Clarence is never going to write a majority opinion on it.

Oh really? So why didn't gay marriage magically suddenly become a thing when the 14th amendment was actually passed back in, y'know, the 1800s? Why did it take 150 years for the 14th amendment to all of a sudden start meaning that fag marriage is constitutionally protected? Does it actually mean that and is that actually why it was passed, or did cultural/social norms change to such an extent that people simply decided it should be legal and made up an excuse? That can't possibly be what happened, despite that it is exactly what happened with abortion and Roe.

You very much might be right that Obergefell will never be overturned, but let's not pretend that it's because the 14th amendment actually somehow protects gay marriage in any kind of legal sense.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

Of course it matters. The argument was that a "political Supreme Court" did this. You can thank Ronald Reagan for the decision.

It is a 14th amendment thing. You're not going to get this unless you repeal the 14th amendment with another amendment, and that's not going to happen. Alito said this is not happening. Thomas Clarence is never going to write a majority opinion on it.

It actually doesn't. The people and who appointed them doesn't really matter. Results matter. A bad call by a series of good judges doesn't suddenly make them right, likewise a good call by a series of bad judges doesn't make them wrong, further if Adolph Hilter himself appointed the judges it doesn't really matter so long as they rule correctly in defense of the constitution.

And you're not going to get a 14th ammendment repeal. However you can look at case law as it was applied to the 14th Ammendment and determine that it was a bad ruling and have it repealed. IE, finding that Roe V Wade is not an innumerated constitutional right nor an implied one by looking at the text of the 14th, thus ruling it was a bad decision and repealing it. Nobody wants to repeal the 14th ammendment, what people are more inclined to want, is that the 14th Ammendment be treated like what it is.

The 14th Ammendment doesn't give you the right to gay marriage. It doesn't give you reaching vaccine powers, it doesn't mean you can invert a 5 year old's penis and turn him into a girl. It means outside of prisoners of the United States, slaves aren't a thing. If you disagree, refer to the 10th. If you pull out the interstate commerce clause, refer to the last sentence of my previous paragraph and the arguments made in the first.

 

[Astro Loafo]

You guys are retarded.

Muh Rights don't exist. If ppl want gay marriage they will install it, if not they will burn it.

 

[FeatherPlucker]

I kind of doubt that gay marriage will be repealed-- if it is for some reason, that repeal will only be temporary. The reason? So many wealthy men are gay. Money is power. Two male incomes combined in a legal marriage creates MORE gay male power. They want more power. There seems to be a much larger percentage of gay men in wealth-accumulating professions than in other professions.

Issues like abortion are "fishy worthless woman problems", so they aren't going to pour their money into legal advocacy to protect it in the same way they wish to protect their ability to Marry the Lead Concubine of their GayBoy Polycule. The fact that lesbians benefit from legalized same-sex marriage is just a superfluous side effect, the power-gay men are all about amassing more power and privilege for themselves. They will get what they want, because money is what buys justice and representation in the US, and nothing else.

To me it's similar to how some bishops in Catholic Churches in Europe are going against the grain and claiming gay marriages should be blessed-- that's because uber wealthy gay men want their flashy weddings, they want to celebrate their wealth, power, designer baby boys, all within their world-famous flashy famous cathedrals. These uber rich gay men will give the church serious MONEY if they're allowed to have marriages in their church. The Catholic bishops will bend over to please anyone with enough dosh, even if it goes against ancient tenets of their religion. Money is the final word.

Surprising to me, I've learned not long ago that here in the US, many military subcontracting/tech companies seem funded by or headed by troons, sexual deviants, and hardcore rainbow sympathizers-- even more reason the US won't offend the power gay rich men out there, at least in the long term.

I wouldn't be surprised if poly marriages were legalized in no time, as most gay men have group sex--- they rarely have monogamous relationships by their own admission. They undoubtably want the right to have large fancy flamboyant oozing-with-wealthy polycule weddings to splash all over social media, so they'll undoubtably get that right as well. Same for legalizing pedophilia, or at least dropping the age of consent to bare minimum so they can pluck fresh young boys out of middle school.

Off topic, but I feel bad for regular gay dudes who don't have the big bank accounts or the "right looks" to fit in with he power-gay crowd. They're generally just the regular people that don't go out of their way to offend everyone.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

I kind of doubt that gay marriage will be repealed-- if it is for some reason, that repeal will only be temporary.

If gay marriage were repealed, it wouldn't affect gay people nearly as much as the repeal of Roe V Wade is affecting Molech-worshipping women.

Plenty of red states legalized gay marriage without the Supreme Court telling them to do so, it's easier to make a secular case against abortion than a secular case against homosexuality.

 

[cuddle striker]

Why? You’re setting up yourself for a perpetual cultural war.


On the topic of same sex marriage: I think that people would be happier if they accepted homosexual and heterosexual relations are different. My autistic brain doesn't comprehend the culture war over same sex marriage. For one thing, it feels like a popularity contest for acceptance or validation. I always found the topic humiliating whenever it was brought up in high school and college. I don't want tolerance, acceptance, or validation. I prefer the right to self-determination. So knowing that why couldn't people in homosexual relationships create another institution.

because it would take a massive amount of paperwork, law writing and time to establish any "parallel" institution to marriage.

marriage is a contract with the state that two people will be next of kin, it covers, in one piece of paper, inheritance rights, medical decision-making, children's custody, property, taxes, and all.

before it was legalized gay people tried to find ways to legally match being married without the paper from the court. even with custody arrangements, legal wills, medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney- it still none of it ended up being something that couldn't be challenged easily in court by a single random cousin that hates the fags.

then you've got someone dying on a vent, with cousin mcfuckface in the room, telling hospital staff that the person's partner of 20 years isn't allowed in to see them. you've got cousin mcfuckface inheriting a house that a couple built together, after challenging a will in court. and so on.

it's already in law what marriage means and what it covers, any courthouse can do the ceremony and paperwork. it's not religious at all. whether two consenting adults can sign that contract legally, isn't anything churches or other people's feelings have any place in.

to create a parallel legally would mean that congress, state senators, etc would have to spend time and money to create an alternative that's going to do all the same things in one paper or contract. it is a waste of money and time, we have the exact thing needed, marriage already exists legally and doesn't need to be recreated.

it's very much autistic to think marriage is churchy or that other people's religion has any bearing. atheists marry each other, should they not be permitted?

 

[Noir drag freak]

You guys are retarded.

Muh Rights don't exist. If ppl want gay marriage they will install it, if not they will burn it.

The only form of rights is money and power.

You make it out like Conservatives, in general, don't like gay people which is a premise I find to be false. Been conservative my whole life, and I live in the deep south, its less of an active dislike and more of a drawn out system of apathy. Nobody I know ever disliked the gays.

In terms of the Political LGBTQ movement, there's active disdane, but I mean, you get what you pay for. They have, insisted that their civil unions get the same name as our religious ceremonies, and then used a political supreme court to force the issue. Then, once they'd already gotten their way, attempted to do the same thing again, using our religious ceremony as a guise to attack religiously owned businesses, specifically bakeries.

It seems likely to me that for gays who just want to have all the same rights as a married couple, a civil union that protects their rights in the same way marriage does for a normal couple is likely acceptable. However, it will not be enough for the activists in the Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato crowd, because frankly, nothing ever is.

As for the conservative view point, the LGBTQ movement has already made shown itself to be extremely willing to use the institution of marriage as a weapon to attack religious institutions, which is not surprising as they've been a target of the left for a generation. You're not likely going to find many people willing to compromise with them in 2022 as normal gays not standing against radical extremists has poisoned the well, but its disingenuious to claim that prior to the last several years, a majority of Christian Coservatives had anything specifically against the gays.

I don't see this as the issue you seem to think it is.

To be fair, no one can control the activist class. Do you really think that politicians, academics, and activist really care about the thoughts and opinions of the common classes? Besides, there have been tons of critiques from ordinary gays of the LGBT movement.
This statement right here is why feel like ethnonationalism or even gay nationalism. Not every homosexual are after bakeries and children.

because it would take a massive amount of paperwork, law writing and time to establish any "parallel" institution to marriage.

marriage is a contract with the state that two people will be next of kin, it covers, in one piece of paper, inheritance rights, medical decision-making, children's custody, property, taxes, and all.

before it was legalized gay people tried to find ways to legally match being married without the paper from the court. even with custody arrangements, legal wills, medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney- it still none of it ended up being something that couldn't be challenged easily in court by a single random cousin that hates the fags.

then you've got someone dying on a vent, with cousin mcfuckface in the room, telling hospital staff that the person's partner of 20 years isn't allowed in to see them. you've got cousin mcfuckface inheriting a house that a couple built together, after challenging a will in court. and so on.

it's already in law what marriage means and what it covers, any courthouse can do the ceremony and paperwork. it's not religious at all. whether two consenting adults can sign that contract legally, isn't anything churches or other people's feelings have any place in.

to create a parallel legally would mean that congress, state senators, etc would have to spend time and money to create an alternative that's going to do all the same things in one paper or contract. it is a waste of money and time, we have the exact thing needed, marriage already exists legally and doesn't need to be recreated.

it's very much autistic to think marriage is churchy or that other people's religion has any bearing. atheists marry each other, should they not be permitted?

I get what saying and I really sympathize. But I feel that this is the only way forward. Look at the quote above, the term marriage comes with a lot of historical and religious baggage. Besides, if conservatives, especially religious, object it would show the pettiness of the whole debate.

 

[cuddle striker]

The only form of rights is money and power.



To be fair, no one can control the activist class. Do you really think that politicians, academics, and activist really care about the thoughts and opinions of the common classes? Besides, there have been tons of critiques from ordinary gays of the LGBT movement.
This statement right here is why feel like ethnonationalism or even gay nationalism. Not every homosexual are after bakeries and children.



I get what saying and I really sympathize. But I feel that this is the only way forward. Look at the quote above, the term marriage comes with a lot of historical and religious baggage. Besides, if conservatives, especially religious, object it would show the pettiness of the whole debate.

then let "marriage" be the word used for churches, and make every couple go through the alternative process if they want the legal protection from the state. that would be fine. straight couples would have none of those protections then either, unless they want to go through the other paperwork.

if you want to spend the money and time on legislators recreating marriage legally as a brand new thing just to avoid using a word you've gotten emotional about.

edit: regular everyday people can't afford a lawyer to go through volumes of bureaucracy just to protect their car or house for their spouse. gay or straight. marriage at a courthouse covers everything cheaply, it's for regular people.

whatever alternative you are fantasizing about would be costly and only really hurt regular folk.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

To be fair, no one can control the activist class. Do you really think that politicians, academics, and activist really care about the thoughts and opinions of the common classes? Besides, there have been tons of critiques from ordinary gays of the LGBT movement.
This statement right here is why feel like ethnonationalism or even gay nationalism. Not every homosexual are after bakeries and children.

This is a bit naive. You can absolutely control activists. You stop welcoming them to your pride parades. You stop ignoring when they do stupid shit on the internet. You shame them for turning their wedding, which should be one of the biggest, most important days of their life into a political statement. You stop pretending like Gay Marriage is some perfect paradise free of abuse and issues. You root the problem out and burn it in the light of the day.

The issue is, Gay People generally are unwilling to do this. Probably because they're aware that they are not as numerous as the media and activist groups want people to believe they are. The entire Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato population, including the Transfags who are just coopting your "movement" make up less than 5% of the population. Maybe you're afraid if you get rid of the activists, there won't be enough of you left to matter.

Which I guess comes to this point ultimately: Either handle your own house now and get your people in line, or let it drag on long enough that other people are forced to do so instead, bearing in mind that historically, that hasn't exactly gone well for gay people as they're generally viewed as degenerate, which not to be that guy, but your activist populations are really doing an excellent job of portraying you that way regardless of if its true or not.

 

[Noir drag freak]

This is a bit naive. You can absolutely control activists. You stop welcoming them to your pride parades. You stop ignoring when they do stupid shit on the internet. You shame them for turning their wedding, which should be one of the biggest, most important days of their life into a political statement. You stop pretending like Gay Marriage is some perfect paradise free of abuse and issues. You root the problem out and burn it in the light of the day.

The issue is, Gay People generally are unwilling to do this. Probably because they're aware that they are not as numerous as the media and activist groups want people to believe they are. The entire Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato population, including the Transfags who are just coopting your "movement" make up less than 5% of the population. Maybe you're afraid if you get rid of the activists, there won't be enough of you left to matter.

Which I guess comes to this point ultimately: Either handle your own house now and get your people in line, or let it drag on long enough that other people are forced to do so instead, bearing in mind that historically, that hasn't exactly gone well for gay people as they're generally viewed as degenerate, which not to be that guy, but your activist populations are really doing an excellent job of portraying you that way regardless of if its true or not.

Lol. I find this debates tedious. This reminds me of the race problem which American has never been solved. Do you think that blacks and Latinos really agree with the bullshit that their activist class puts out? I don’t go to pride parades or apart of any activist organizations. So I would be wasting my time criticizing them. Heck, the woke group has captured my inner circle so I can’t say shit or call out it for fear of isolating myself.

I don’t care if homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population. Second of all, I don’t believe in self justification or apologetics. That’s why I don’t care if the the pendulum swings or backlash occurs. My arguments were arguing over gay marriage is a waste of time and argue for a parallel structure instead , gays should argue for self determination, and that the homosexual subculture should be based on its own ideals. Not based in ressentiment of heterosexual norms or shame, but what it truly values.

As a non-white homosexual in the Western world, I have enough experience to know that it is a waste of time and energy. The correct choice is let the lower half burn itself and the survivors rebuild.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

Lol. I find this debates tedious. This reminds me of the race problem which American has never been solved. Do you think that blacks and Latinos really agree with the bullshit that their activist class puts out? I don’t go to pride parades or apart of any activist organizations. So I would be wasting my time criticizing them. Heck, the woke group has captured my inner circle so I can’t say shit or call out it for fear of isolating myself.

I don’t care if homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population. Second of all, I don’t believe in self justification or apologetics. That’s why I don’t care if the the pendulum swings or backlash occurs. My arguments were arguing over gay marriage is a waste of time and argue for a parallel structure instead , gays should argue for self determination, and that the homosexual subculture should be based on its own ideals. Not based in ressentiment of heterosexual norms or shame, but what it truly values.

As a non-white homosexual in the Western world, I have enough experience to know that it is a waste of time and energy. The correct choice is let the lower half burn itself and the survivors rebuild.

I find you doding the questions and responsabilities to be annoying. Let me put it to you in another way, separate from any actual politics.

There's a wonderful show on Amazon Prime called "The Expanse". In the third or fourth season of the Expanse, the political powers of Earth, Mars, and the Outer Planet's Alliance (OPA Henceforth) are all at each other's throats. In recent months, humanity has encountered its first contact with anything truly alien, and now that alien has constructed a giant fucking ring in the middle of the solar system and no one knows what's happening.

Earth and Mars, the two super powers in the solar system are there because they don't know what this gate is, and they want to find out and keep people away from it. The OPA is there, becuas they want to be taken seriously as a third super power and have a seat at the table with everyone else.

Shit kinda goes down and the Gunship Rocinante which flies for the OPA seemingly blows up an Earth based ship full of diplomats. Then broadcasts a message claiming that the Ring belongs to The Belt and by virtue of that The OPA.

Meanwhile, on the Behemoth, the flagship of the OPA, command is in crisis because the OPA most certainly did not make that claim, and yet Earth and Mars have now targetted them with Railguns and Torepedos and if they fire on the Behemoth, they will die. They broadcast to the command staff of the OPA that in sixty seconds, they will shoot the Behemoth and kill them all.

The XO of the Behemoth, an experienced Pirate named Ashford tells the Captain, Camina Drumer, that she should target lock the Rocinante, and destroy it. Camina and her head Engineer (the former Engineer of the Rocinante) both protest this, claiming that they didn't send the message and wouldn't.

Ashford wisley responds "That doesn't matter. What matters is they gave us one minue."

How this relates to you is simple:

Like in the example above, it doesn't really matter how "Most Gays" or "Most Blacks" or "Most anything" feel about the situations they find themselves in. The reality is, its their problem to deal with in a certain amount of time, before everyone else decides to open up with Railguns and PDCs.

If gays want to be taken seriously, they need to deal with the activists. If blacks want to be taken seriously, they need to deal with the gang bangers and 70% of their households not having a husband or significant male figure. If Latinos want to be taken seriously, they need to encourage their families in Mexico to stop violating immigration laws.

Because, regardless of how "tedious" you find the argument, every second you spend making excuses as to why not dealing with your own house isn't your problem, and complaining that they don't speak with you, is another second everyone else sees another ship flying your colors blowing up our diplomats, and in sixty seconds, we're gonna be in Hammerlock range and then, it'll be too late.