Serious LGBT Discussion

So if this is a case, should we return to monkey despite science proving gays can be useful? I'm saying just gays because transgenderism doesn't exist in animals, only humans. It feels like all the world problems could be solved if we never left the stone ages but our domestication prevents us from going back. Why give up luxury in exchange for survival?
 
weirdMcGee said:
despite science proving gays can be useful?
Click to expand...

In what context are gays useful to society?

In what context is their lifestyle actually beneficial to society?

The only one I've heard of is that gays supposedly prevent overpopulation...but isn't that technically true of any disease, physical or mental, that kills the host, sterilizes the host, or otherwise prevents them from breeding?
 
Last edited:
Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:
In what context are gays useful to society?

In what context is their lifestyle actually beneficial to society?

The only one I've heard of is that gays supposedly prevent overpopulation...but isn't that technically true of any disease, physical or mental, that kills the host, sterilizes the host, or otherwise prevents them from breeding?
Click to expand...
The most compelling reasoning I have ever stumbled upon is that gay people (or animals) are some sort of "spare" parents in case something happens to biological parents. But that doesn't really make sense to me anymore because you don't need to be SSA to help with raising someone else's kids.

Other people told me that gay people are more creative and that also is just not true. If anything, considering that creativity is a skill, it all might be a self-fulfilling prophecy where people lean towards specific hobbies and professions based on bland stereotypes assigned to them. But even that is relatively rare I think. Once I broke out pozzed circles online, my recs are full of straight artists who are married with 2-4 kids.

I find it kind of funny that male knitters seem to be gay these days, considering that knitting used to be a male-only thing up until Victorian era, and they even refused women from joining back in medieval times. It became a feminine hobby only relatively recently. But that might be one of those occasions that I described above: a self-fulfilling prophecy in our current cultural reality rather than a genuine "gay thing".
 
weirdMcGee said:
Agreed. Using a faith that ruined people lives to justify being mean to gays is frankly retarded.
Click to expand...


Yes, because only religious people can be morally opposed to something that is clearly pathological and self defeating. Atheists or secular-minded people should be tolerant of degeneracy and mind-sickness because tolerance is such a sacred virtue, you see, so sacred that it must override everything else, including common sense. Or you know, the desire to live in a halfway functional society.

Opposition to pathological behaviors can never be based on observation of real life harms. And the slippery slope is a fallacy, dang it, not a readily observable phenomenon.

It's not that any moron can look at the behavior of the LGBTQ rights movement, the tactics they employed, the people they cancelled, the political polarization they intentionally produce, the families they destroyed, and the ever escalating, ever increasingly degenerate bullshit they're cramming down everyone else's throats after getting everything they could ever reasonably want in 2015, and conclude that the whole thing was probably rotten to the core.

Oh no, it can only ever be based upon those dusty old religious books, and not reason, logic, observable reality, and common sense. They're only opposed to [degenerate behavior that you enjoy or approve of] because they're a bunch of wrinkly old religious poopyheads.

In all seriousness, your attitude does nothing but make the fundies' point that secularism is morally bankrupt and that secularists/atheists are too retarded or too degenerate and coom-brained to tell the difference between right and wrong without God.
 
Last edited:
Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:
the people they cancelled
Click to expand...
I really don't care about your favorite YouTuber being "cancelled". It's always the same shit with you people where you mix in an irrelevant consequence into a list of things that should actually matter. You probably don't even care about families being destroyed or whatever degenerate bullshit that you pretend to be angry about today. That's just cover for what you actually care about and that shit is always stupid and irrelevant. Somehow, any LGBT-related discussion always comes back to some retarded eceleb or just straight up Gamergate.

Edit: Typo
 
BIG SHOT Autos said:
Other people told me that gay people are more creative and that also is just not true. If anything, considering that creativity is a skill, it all might be a self-fulfilling prophecy where people lean towards specific hobbies and professions based on bland stereotypes assigned to them. But even that is relatively rare I think. Once I broke out pozzed circles online, my recs are full of straight artists who are married with 2-4 kids.
Click to expand...
Sadly, reports of the cultured homosexual are grossly exaggerated. Fuck Oscar Wilde and brandy, it's just nonstop Taylor Swift (or whatever blonde woman is popular at the moment) and cum.
 
I'm 10 years late to this thread and I ain't reading all this shit so apologies if I am retreading ground but in the case of same-sex attraction, I see it as a benign abnormality that while not adhering to some sort of categorical imperative, can be accepting in a prosperous society when it understands its place as solely a deviation in one aspect of desire. The existence of Big Gay feels like an unfortunate consequence for this clawing desire for some existential security. In western society they have gone from the 1850s Uranist's "hermaphrodites of the soul" to the modern-day progressive moral relativism in an attempt to find ground as solid as the straights. Many (including myself) would say its no longer necessary since a union between two men or two women isn't inherently detrimental if all else is equal, and that conclusion has come from the collective personal experiences with normal faggots, the ideological battle was effectively only a method to get the door open to allow people to see homosexuality for what it is: a deviation in desire and not much else. Most detrimental aspects and problems found within the gay community don't appear to be inherent[1], but rather cultural and ideological. We know this to be the case because liberal progressive rot is carried out by both faggots and breeders alike.

I can think of two that actually are, but it is as a result of biological realities than anything else and that would be the high levels of sexual promiscuity in Gay men and the high levels of domestic abuse in lesbians. Men think about sex like they do so big whoop there, but for the lesbos I think about that one line from Nietzsche (i think) that goes something like "a common morality can be born from two men's mutual respect of the fact that they could kill each other." And since women be women they exist in a more unstable power dynamic that leads to more abuse.
 
YHWH's Strongest Soldier said:
I really don't care about your favorite YouTuber being "cancelled". It's always the same shit with you people where you mix in an irrelevant consequence into a list of things that should actually matter. You probably don't even care about families being destroyed or whatever degenerate bullshit that you pretend to be angry about today. That's just cover for what you actually care about and that shit is always stupid and irrelevant. Somehow, any LGBT-related discussion always comes back to some retarded eceleb or just straight up Gamergate.

Edit: Typo
Click to expand...
The literal CEO of Firefox was an eceleb?
 
RybenZ999 said:
The literal CEO of Firefox was an eceleb?
Click to expand...
No, a California tech CEO is much worse than any eceleb and it's telling that you couldn't muster a more sympathetic example as a gotcha. I also doubt that @Aero the Alcoholic Bat or anyone else here is even aware that Eich (CEO of Mozilla Corporation) got into trouble for donating money to ban same-sex marriage. Even you can't be bothered to understand the difference between a corporation and its product. There's plenty of other people worth sympathizing with for being cancelled, but none of you actually care about that.

Besides, why should I pity a tech CEO? He resigned despite other board members telling him not to and just launched a new company and cryptocurrency. It was a literal promotion.
 
Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:
but isn't that technically true of any disease, physical or mental
Click to expand...
Humans have eugenics built into them already. It's why China's one child policy is collapsing their population. If everyone only had one child, then the population would shrink exponentially. Unless each person has 2+ children, the population will shrink. The notion that gay people aren't needed because they can't have kids is flawed at the outset.
 
estacks said:
Calhoun spent decades after the Universe 25 experiment replicating it and trying to ameliorate the social breakdowns. He never succeeded.
Click to expand...
They just let rats explore new space with new homes and problem fixed itself.
Rat empire is only problematic if you are a rat.
 
YHWH's Strongest Soldier said:
I really don't care about your favorite YouTuber being "cancelled". It's always the same shit with you people where you mix in an irrelevant consequence into a list of things that should actually matter. You probably don't even care about families being destroyed or whatever degenerate bullshit that you pretend to be angry about today. That's just cover for what you actually care about and that shit is always stupid and irrelevant. Somehow, any LGBT-related discussion always comes back to some retarded eceleb or just straight up Gamergate.
Click to expand...
> magnify the weakest point out of a list of good ones
> accuse him of exclusively caring about that one weaker point (appeal to motivation fallacy)
> add nothing of substance

I'm gonna go ahead and try that:

You don't actually care about gay people as a group. You're just smitten for @Aero the Alcoholic Bat's Sonic OC and want replies from him.

You're right, that is fun.

weirdMcGee said:
So if this is a case, should we return to monkey despite science proving gays can be useful?
Click to expand...
Was that actually proved, or by "proved" do you mean some guy made up fanfiction about cavemen to justify what he already wanted to promote? Many such cases.
 
California Newt said:
> magnify the weakest point out of a list of good ones
> accuse him of exclusively caring about that one weaker point (appeal to motivation fallacy)
> add nothing of substance

I'm gonna go ahead and try that:

You don't actually care about gay people as a group. You're just smitten for @Aero the Alcoholic Bat's Sonic OC and want replies from him.

You're right, that is fun.


Was that actually proved, or by "proved" do you mean some guy made up fanfiction about cavemen to justify what he already wanted to promote? Many such cases.
Click to expand...
If you turn to nature, many same sex pairings adopt young for the betterment of their survival. It then makes sense that childless or same sex couples could aid in childrearering when the mother isn't available or dead. Notice how some gays have a instinct to have a kid? That's not just bullshit, it's simply how nature works and the amount of times people have told me gayness is unnatural in a secular sense, it never really worked. Science time and time again always strives to be objective in it's evidence unlike religion which often arrives on abstract explanations on existence.

So what sense does it make to be homophobic or even conservative if someone identified as atheist? Gays just exist. They weren't groomed into their attraction nor did they choose to like the same sex, they just are. Just as life just is, so are gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals (which I realized I am now after years of being denial). There's no point in trying to overly justify the hate others have for liking who they want to like? Don't straights have no control in their desires? And no, needing some holy book to tell you sex is wrong won't help. People sin anyway so there's no use in bringing that up.
 
weirdMcGee said:
If you turn to nature, many same sex pairings adopt young for the betterment of their survival. It then makes sense that childless or same sex couples could aid in childrearering when the mother isn't available or dead. Notice how some gays have a instinct to have a kid? That's not just bullshit, it's simply how nature works and the amount of times people have told me gayness is unnatural in a secular sense, it never really worked. Science time and time again always strives to be objective in it's evidence unlike religion which often arrives on abstract explanations on existence.

So what sense does it make to be homophobic or even conservative if someone identified as atheist? Gays just exist. They weren't groomed into their attraction nor did they choose to like the same sex, they just are. Just as life just is, so are gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals (which I realized I am now after years of being denial). There's no point in trying to overly justify the hate others have for liking who they want to like? Don't straights have no control in their desires? And no, needing some holy book to tell you sex is wrong won't help. People sin anyway so there's no use in bringing that up.
Click to expand...
I find most of your argument to be begging the question. That is, your argument relies on an answer to the topic currently being debated, i.e., homosexuality is natural and normal. I want to state that I previously echoed many of your sentiments and have been a lifelong supporter of LGB, but am currently rethinking much of what I knew about it.
  • "They weren't groomed into their attraction nor did they choose to like the same sex, they just are."
There is definitely evidence that children who are either, 1) raised by LGB are more likely to be LGB, and 2) molested by same-sex adults are more likely to be LGB.

The idea that babies are born gay or straight is nonsensical to me, though I do believe at some point "sexual orientation" becomes fixed, so to speak. You don't think there's a chance that something sexual done to someone at a young age can affect their sexuality?
  • "People sin anyway so there's no use in bringing that up."
Of course there is. Murder isn't the same as stealing a candy bar. Why would we not discuss sins and their harms to society?
  • "That's not just bullshit, it's simply how nature works and the amount of times people have told me gayness is unnatural in a secular sense, it never really worked."
I would say that your argument here supports the same-sex attraction being a choice or an unnatural proclivity since it's overriding the innate desire to rear young. You also skip past nefarious means as being the reasoning for raising kids. I don't see why gays should need to be married as something more than a flex to be "normal" when there's no precedence for it.

Why would ADHD be a mental disorder but men boning dudes only isn't? It seems politics is the only reason it was removed from the DSM to begin with. I also think the "born this way" argument lends itself to normalizing pedophilia, which seems to be the goal of Queer Theory/gender ideology movements right now. Given they've completely hijacked the LGB altogether, it seems pertinent to discuss this alongside one another.

The more I listen to arguments from gays, the more I kind of think they're mostly a bunch of narcissistic, entitled assholes. I also don't think actual homosexuality is seen in the animal kingdom as much as people pretend. I think it was something only like goats that they'd observed actually having some sort of true gay relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom