LGBT Community Rights

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose now I'll have to endure the condemnations and accusations instead of productive dialogue.

It sounds like you are used to having your opinions disagreed with in this area and don't like it. It goes with the territory when you choose to express your opinions.

whether I can be empathetic

Are you capable of empathy? Many are not. They are called sociopaths or afflicted with antisocial personality disorder. I doubt that's you, so I'll assume that you do sometimes feel empathy ("feel sorry for," "heart breaks for"). If so, why not the LGBTQ+ community? Why don't they deserve your compassion and well-wishes? I'm not looking for your answer, just for you to ask yourself those questions of yourself and to try to determine accurate answers.

whether my own feelings should also be legitimized

That's for you to decide. A better question is whether you should express them. Why would you? I have an aversion to Brussels sprouts. Yucch! Is that a legitimate feeling? I'd say yes. Do I need to express it? No, never. If you ask me if I'd like some, my answer is, "No, thank you." If you ask why, my answer is that I don't like them.

who's right, whose wrong

The kind people are right and those who can't or won't be kind are wrong.

I currently think that LGBQ...yada yada represents a fragmenting of normalcy in civil society.

Fragmenting? It's allowing more people to live as they prefer and retain all of the social opportunity other good citizens enjoy.

Whether science should classify what being male or female means

That's not an issue. Biology defines male and female in the way you prefer. The social aspects of gender identity are for the rest of us to sort out.

My own experience has been that when I share my feelings - Instinct? - about these things I'm labeled in a kind of reverse hypocrisy as a ____fill in the blank phobic, hate mongering, bigoted, monster instead of having legitimate/instinctual and perhaps justifiable to some extent feelings concerning these things.

Why can't they both be true? Your opinions and concerns are legitimate to you, but your views may be regressive and harmful to others.

Why is it that LGBTQ++ pride parades always seem to have an almost cartoonish emphasis on sexuality?

Why does that bother you? I find it entertaining. It's also entertaining in the straight community, like at awards ceremonies, fashion shows, or on reality TV.

Why is it that when someone voices a legitimate concern such as exposing young children to drag shows - a traditionally adult form of entertainment - that the concern is turned into a hyperbolic joke like "LGTBQ++ people just want to 'gobble up your children'..."?

Your fears about children seeing people in drag are misplaced.

I think its a bad thing to take understandable, well defined words like male and female and personal pronouns and render them informationally meaningless.

But that hasn't happened, at least not for me.

I think its a bad thing to justify personal behavior by personal preference.

Are you sure that's how you feel? Is the lawful pursuit of happiness as one understands it a bad thing? I justify all of my behavior by preference. I do what I prefer to do, even when that's subordinating myself to the will of another. Isn't that what you do? Isn't that what you're doing now?

I think its a bad thing to sacrifice foundational normalcy to the alter of personal desire

Same answer. And look at your emotive, tendentious language there. Sacrifice normalcy to the altar of personal desire? That's sounding pretty Abrahamic there in its morality and outlook, where personal desire and even the pursuit of happiness are disparaged as selfish hedonism, or in your words, are sacrificed to the altar of conformity and submission.

I think its a good thing to address the victimization of LGBQ....persons, but not through beautifying a discordant sexuality by marginalizing all other opinions for the sake of promoting a deterioration of a foundation of acceptable norms .

I don't find you credible there. Your tone is similar to "I'm all for science, but not when it contradicts my faith." I don't believe that you really care about the feelings or well-being of such people. You've yet to mention their concerns, fears, and desires except to say why you disapprove and what a threat you see there, and that fine that you think so, but that's for you to grapple with. Be kind. If you can't, be silent.

rendering normalcy meaningless promotes chaos which promotes chaotic responses such as violence, indifference, and emotional desensitization and the eventual demise of civil society.

More slippery slope, doomsday depiction of social evolution. Your normal is not mine. Your chaos is not mine.

 

[England my lionheart]

What exactly does the community want, what are the goals.

To go into ladies spaces,it’s not what you think,I mean toilets sport or dressing rooms,winning an mma fight by beating the crap out of a woman and pretending to be a woman and feeling it’s ok imo.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There's a backlash here because a lot of the activists have lost their minds, divorced themselves from reality and are pushing it on everyone, including preschool and elementary school children (and not just teaching them that LGBT people exist; that's not what I'm talking about). So a lot of people are fed up with it.

The sad thing is that this is the 25th anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. I listened to his parents this morning on the subject of all the (almost exclusively red) states actively working on, or already passed, legislation to make life harder for LGBTQ+ people. Matt's mother, when ask what she thinks about that, said, "This battle is just the last, most vicious attack on the community. They're fighting a losing battle."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my opinion....and I struggle a lot with this to understand my own feelings towards LGBTQ++ etc. etc. persons; whether I can be empathetic, whether my own feelings should also be legitimized, who's right, whose wrong, my motivations, my fears, my hatreds, my own desires, etc.,...I currently think that LGBQ...yada yada represents a fragmenting of normalcy in civil society. The arguments I've been hearing are questioning what normalcy IS, or should be, or if it even exists. Whether science should classify what being male or female means or whether personal opinion should determine that reality? Whether mental attitude should supersede physical reality? Whether anything can be considered obscene? Whether words like obscenity, perversion, degeneracy, disease, or abnormality even have meaning anymore or can be legitimately assigned as descriptors to anything anymore.
My own experience has been that when I share my feelings - Instinct? - about these things I'm labeled in a kind of reverse hypocrisy as a ____fill in the blank phobic, hate mongering, bigoted, monster instead of having legitimate/instinctual and perhaps justifiable to some extent feelings concerning these things.
Why is it that LGBTQ++ pride parades always seem to have an almost cartoonish emphasis on sexuality?
Why is it that when someone voices a legitimate concern such as exposing young children to drag shows - a traditionally adult form of entertainment - that the concern is turned into a hyperbolic joke like "LGTBQ++ people just want to 'gobble up your children'..."?
I think its a bad thing to take understandable, well defined words like male and female and personal pronouns and render them informationally meaningless. I think its a bad thing to justify personal behavior by personal preference. I think its a bad thing to sacrifice foundational normalcy to the alter of personal desire and I think its a bad thing to normalize and even promote as good, chaos, from what may be an expression of disease whose foundations are born from that chaos.
I think its a good thing to address the victimization of LGBQ....persons, but not through beautifying a discordant sexuality by marginalizing all other opinions for the sake of promoting a deterioration of a foundation of acceptable norms .

Mark my words....rendering normalcy meaningless promotes chaos which promotes chaotic responses such as violence, indifference, and emotional desensitization and the eventual demise of civil society.
I suppose now I'll have to endure the condemnations and accusations instead of productive dialogue.

You seem to be arguing for some kind of notion of "this is what the normal human being is, does, wants, dislikes, looks like, etc." And that being outside of that "normalcy," as you call it, makes you somehow "other," not a real part of the "community."

Well, the average height of human males in 5'9", females 5'4". How short should we allow somebody to be, or how tall, and still consider them "human," and viable members of our communities? The average IQ of humans in in th 90-109 range. How far below that would you insist on removing people form the community? How far above? Would you have excluded Einstein?

You ask about "cartoonish emphasis" at pride parades -- but have you noticed that virtually all other celebratory or cultural parades also express a lot of "cartoonish emphasis?" Santa Claus parades with elves and fairies and flying reindeer -- none of which exist. St. Patrick's Day parades and all sorts of Irish myths, or Mardi Gras with over-sexualized men and women in too much glitter and feathers? It's not just gays, you know. Why don't you see all the rest of them?

At the end of the day, I have to ask anyone, anywhere, "why is it you think that there is something wrong with a person whose sexual orienatation is different from yours?" What role do you have to play in how other people feel? What do you care about what they are doing in the privacy of their own homes? Do you invite your neighbours over to observe you and your partner doing whatever you do, just so they can be sure you are doing it "normally?" Are you obsessed with thinking about what two men, or two women might be doing, because you don't do it yourself?

You see, I don't care in the least what you and partner are doing, or what anybody else is doing, when what they may or may not be doing is private to themselves.

It drives me crazy that people suppose sex is all about babies. If that were the case, no couple should do anything in private that doesn't lead to that, and when they want no more children they should want no more sexual intimacy. Why would they? It's not going be about babies!

"Mark my words....rendering normalcy meaningless promotes chaos which promotes chaotic responses such as violence, indifference, and emotional desensitization and the eventual demise of civil society." That's what you said.

My response is..."failing to appreciate the individuality and uniqueness of every human beings will result in universal ennui and a drab, colourless world filled with miserable human beings with little to really live for."

 

[Father Heathen]

There literally are many conservatives who make comments along the lines of LGBT people being "groomers," "dangerous to children," etc.

Which is ironic considering that whenever a child predator case makes the news, it's usually a religious right-winger, such a youth pastor, politician, LEO, etc. but never any actual drag queens, trans, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

Or you could just stop turning up at LBGTQ events because it sounds like it really bothers you. Problem solved.

Makes you wonder though why they're showing up at at pride events and setting their enthralled, prolonged gaze upon the bare flesh and lewd performances.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Makes you wonder though why they're showing up at at pride events and setting their enthralled, prolonged gaze upon the bare flesh and lewd performances.

I don't go to Pride events anymore, though I used to. Toronto has among the largest events in the world, and I have to tell everybody something (though I think you already know it) -- when you get half a million people out celebrating in the streets, and 12 of them are showing their genitals, that's not really an expression of what the other 499,988 are doing.

And yet, the press -- and the straight world -- see only those 12!

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't go to Pride events anymore, though I used to. Toronto has among the largest events in the world, and I have to tell everybody something (though I think you already know it) -- when you get half a million people out celebrating in the streets, and 12 of them are showing their genitals, that's not really an expression of what the other 499,988 are doing.

And yet, the press -- and the straight world -- see only those 12!

I think a lot of people approach the "other" like so. When it comes to politics, each side points to the other's radical fringe kooks as reflecting the entirely of that side (while ignoring their own). When it comes to religion, detractors will point out the fundamentalist extremist kooks as being representative of that religion as a whole, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You seem to be arguing for some kind of notion of "this is what the normal human being is, does, wants, dislikes, looks like, etc." And that being outside of that "normalcy," as you call it, makes you somehow "other," not a real part of the "community."

Lately it's been reminding me white people who say they don't have a problem with black people, they just don't like it when they act black and rather prefer the ones who act white.

 

[setarcos]

Mainly because our sexuality is precisely what is treated as taboo by social conservatives. It's a way of having fun and showing the world that we are not dangerous.

Depends on what you mean by dangerous I suppose. But I would have to ask who your target audience is supposed to be? If it is supposed to be social conservatives then I would say it would behoove you t0 emphasize your humanity rather than oversexualizing your identity. How is turning your "message" into a sexual cartoon going to get the opposition to take you seriously? The only thing your achieving is an impression that your sexual preferences and pleasures are more important than your moral and ethical boundaries.
Though I've never heard nor seen a specifically heterosexual parade whatever that would entail I personally would expect the same
from it that we should expect from any public displays of opinion or position.
Should the LGBTQ ++ community be exempt from public standards of ethics?
I guess I should ask where do you draw the line? Should our children be allowed into adult venues? Should we scrap the movie rating system? Should public displays of nudity and sexual acts be made legal and commonplace? Should all and any forms of sexual pleasure be allowed? Bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, acrotomophilia, apotemnophilia,...just the a's, there's a whole dictionaries worth of fetishistic desires and a case can be made that in certain circumstances each one of them has no victims only desires to be fulfilled.
Should any philia be allowed as long as there are only willing participants? Should we have a celebratory parade for all these desires?

Moreover, the double standards of straight people regarding outward displays of sexuality are relevant here. Public heterosexual behavior is almost never denounced (certainly not as loudly or consistently) by the same people who shame gays for walking around in a thong during a parade.

How can I agree with this if it hasn't been my experience? Then again how can I disagree since....it hasn't been my experience.
How much of your opinion here is a result of confirmation bias? And how much mine?
I would go out on a limb here and say that there are probably more heterosexual people in the world defending LGBTQ++ rights than there are LGBTQ++ people.
I will say that I believe that public displays of affection between couples should be okay. Displays of lust should not be. And of course in moderation. There is a line where affection crosses over into looking like lust. For the most part common sense should win the day.
Why would you wish to lick your partners tonsils in a kiss while in a public restaurant for instance? In my opinion those kinds of aggressive sexual displays only indicate a lack of control or a message of disrespectful defiance. Neither of which produce good fruit.

Because that is not hyperbolic, frankly. There literally are many conservatives who make comments along the lines of LGBT people being "groomers," "dangerous to children," etc.

If your saying the joke isn't hyperbolae then that is concerning.
If your saying the conservatives are serious about their concerns then how does turning there concerns into a joke help them understand your position? It comes off as disrespectful defiance. Like I said above, that can produce no good fruit.
As I've asked above, do you believe then that all forms of adult entertainment should be open to children? Perhaps just the ones you deem okay for children? What's your criteria for determining what's okay and what's not?
What do you think they mean by "grooming"? I'm a little vague on what people mean by this.

So if you want LGBT people to stop reacting to things like that, advise your fellow conservatives Christians to stop making those kinds of comments.

Um...okay. My fellow conservative Christians? Didn't know I had any, let alone was one. But do you think if someone tells you you're dangerous and your come back is "Yeah I'm gonna kill you and yours some day!" that that is the best way to evolve the relationship?

There's a difference between sex and gender. This has been explained....so. many. Times.

Please refrain from insulting my intelligence. Perhaps you didn't get what I was saying?
From the beginning the terms male and female referred to the physical characteristics of the organism and to a lesser extent the mental disposition of that organism since the mental qualities of maleness and femaleness is on an overlapping spectrum. Insistence on being referred to as what you are definitionally not renders the terms equivocally nebulous.

Altering ones appearance through surgery, artificial hormone treatments, or other artificial means does not render an equivalent physical characteristic change from one gender to the other. DNA remains the same, ability to get pregnant remains the same, other respective fundamental physical characteristics remain the same.
This begs the question...Is this a physical abnormality or a mental one? And why treat the body to align with the mind instead of the mind with the body? Also, with transsexuals, since the mind and body cannot be wholly integrated or aligned if you will, how do they know what its like to be a male or a female that was born in alignment to begin with?
As far as gender identification regardless of physical alignment the use of preferred gender pronouns in a contradictive and equivocating way such as preferring to be called we, they, or them when addressing a single individual devolves the communicative ability of language. Better to invent a new word to address the condition of the individual than use a word with clearly established informational content to identify the individual in an informationally contradictive way.

Slavery used to be normal. Women being treated as second class citizens used to be normal.

Hmmm...I wonder at this comparison but I think we can both agree that we shouldn't replace what was bad with something worse.
I'm not talking about the how the person identifies themselves, I'm talking about the resultant behavior of that identity. If the results are chaos and devolution then I think its a bad thing. Let me clarify though, I'm not saying LGBTQ ++ persons are devolved. Its more complicated for me than that. I separate the person from the condition. Of course if the person becomes the condition or vice versa....ahh jeez, its a never ending parade of thoughts about these things.
What I will say though, is that some LGBTQ++ identifiers seem devolved in their behavior. Not that non - identifiers don't...oh man here we go again.

It has to be rooted in a deeper moral foundation than just, "this is what we've always done."

I agree.
But I think morality is rendered impotent when society gets to a point where anything goes and identity means nothing because meaning itself has been lost.

This is one of the key conservative reasons to support same sex marriage. If you want gay people to create stable, "normal" relationships and families, promote that stability with civil institutions.

I don't know. I mean what's the point? I understand the symbology of the thing but originally the marriage ritual was symbolic of fertility and a mutual commitment to cooperation in ensuring a continuance of life through ones lineage. That's kind of a mute point with gay couples unless you consider committing to continuing someone else's lineage I guess.
I know of no long
studies that have indicated getting married generally creates a more stable relationship or family. I'm aware of some anecdotal evidence but nothing formal and peer reviewed. Of course there may be some I'm not aware of but be that as it may being married or not as a gay couple is for the most part not an issue with me.
I will say that there is in my opinion a missing element of complementarity in gay families that you find in traditional heterosexual family units.

Furthermore, being LGBT is not a "disease."

Now how does one address this without offence? I would ask you how we determine what is a normal healthy person. And what might be considered a disease and what isn't?
I mean some people thing humanity in general is a disease.

"Discordant" how? Rarity is not evidence of immorality. Lack of fertility is not evidence of immorality. So how?

Discordance is neither immoral nor evidence of immorality although deliberate intention to be discordant may be.
Any misalignment with the relationship between the mind and body or organs of sexuality with their natural intended reproductive or pleasure stimulating complement would be a discordance.

My feelings on these matters are still evolving. I understand that like any organism will do...LGBTQ++ persons have a right to exist and fight for that existence. I have to accept that. How I feel about the lifestyles are a continuing struggle though.

 

[setarcos]

It sounds like you are used to having your opinions disagreed with in this area and don't like it. It goes with the territory when you choose to express your opinions.

No...I'm used to having a lot of my opinions disagreed with. That alone doesn't make me wrong. Then again if I am wrong I don't enjoy that feeling either but I realized along time ago that one has to deal with that if progress is to be made. Wouldn't you agree that goes for both sides of an issue?

Are you capable of empathy?

I believe I am.

If so, why not the LGBTQ+ community?

?? Who says I don't feel empathy for that community?

Why don't they deserve your compassion and well-wishes? I'm not looking for your answer, just for you to ask yourself those questions of yourself and to try to determine accurate answers.

Well your getting my answer and that is that I think that they do deserve compassion and well-wishes. However simply because they deserve those things shouldn't bar them from needing to behave rationally or compassionately or constructively within civil society when able.

A better question is whether you should express them. Why would you? I have an aversion to Brussels sprouts. Yucch! Is that a legitimate feeling? I'd say yes. Do I need to express it? No, never. If you ask me if I'd like some, my answer is, "No, thank you." If you ask why, my answer is that I don't like them.

You answered your own question. That is, there are occasions when your feelings should be expressed lest we all continue to live in relational darkness and no empathetic progress with each other is ever made. How long would it take for you to get tired of being served Brussel sprouts if your host kept serving them to you because no one communicated their feelings? That would, it seems to me, be a waste of your time and theirs. Not to mention food. But what if you knew expressing your feelings would offend the host? Would you still express your feelings? Or would you continue to waste food, your time, and theirs?
Or how about if your host is serving something that you think is actually poisonous? It's a slow acting poison but tastes wonderful so your host enjoys eating it and serving it. Would you feel compelled to speak up then?
There's myriads of reasons one should express ones feelings. Especially if one relies on a social cohesive and civil society and is concerned about the health of such a society.
One shouldn't ignore the neighbors situation if the husband beats the wife every night simply because its not "your" problem. Or should one?
If I think the LGBTQ++ community threatens the health of society or even themselves why shouldn't I express those feelings. Even if only to be proven wrong.

Fragmenting? It's allowing more people to live as they prefer and retain all of the social opportunity other good citizens enjoy.

I don't see it that way. One doesn't have to go far to see civil society fragmenting. I think its mostly because we talk at each other instead of to each other. LGBTQ++ liberation hasn't gotten any closer to the goals of a better society. If anything society is getting progressively uncivilized.
Our morals are deteriorating, our empathy is deteriorating, our trust is deteriorating, our sense of cohesive purpose is deteriorating. All these things are collectively eroding the amount of progressive good mankind has made and is making. We're going 3 steps backwards for every 1 step forwards. Half the reason is the arguments we make and the debates we have aren't even relevant to the problems to begin with.
Now I'm not saying the LGBTQ++ community is the reason for these things. What I'm saying is the acceptance and liberation of LGBTQ++ community to live as they wish hasn't contributed to making a better society except "maybe" for the LGBTQ++ community and that's a qualified maybe. But again it's the wrong argument to be focusing on. All persons should be allowed to have a healthy, happy, productive life. But not every persons idea of what makes them happy is healthy or productive to society or even themselves individually.
Just a few decades ago the total number of known gender identities was less than half a dozen. Now its more than a hundred and counting. And some of those are mere personal opinion and logically meaningless. If that isn't fragmentation then how do you define it? Progress? Its made more people more confused than ever before about what being human means.
I don't know why we run from calling these things mental diseases? What good comes from attempting to normalize abnormality?

I'd be willing to bet that half those that march, riot, and otherwise rally in some fashion for support of the LGBTQ++ community could care less either way about that community. It was simply a non - issue to them simply unthought of. But once an issue reaches a critical mass people use these things as a surrogate outlet to express their rage at all the other crap going on in their personal lives.
Its a road rage issue. A guy got served divorce papers earlier in the day and now someone accidentally cut him off. Now all of a sudden that guy has what he sees as a justifiable outlet for all the rage he has pent up, most of which has nothing to do with the person that cut him off in traffic.
So...we get all these people rallying support for LGBTQ++ persons but none of the underlying issues ever get addressed. We don't talk to each other, we talk at each other. Or yell, or hurt, or kill each other.
We think its progress while the wounds keep suppurating beneath the surface.
I see a lot of people in the various medias not really understanding what their arguing about or they start arguing about something that wasn't an argument to begin with. Its just a desperate desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves which can support the anger they personally have for everything else happening in their lives.

The social aspects of gender identity are for the rest of us to sort out.

Depends on which made up gender identity your speaking of.
Society shouldn't have to throw out logic and comprehensive meaning for the sake of an individuals personal preference or mental
aberration.
Why should I be forced to call a transsexuals' something they logically can't be? Why should I be forced to endorse an untruth?
Why should I have to call an individual a them which is illogical or someone a non - binary which is informationally meaningless?
Why should I be forced to accept allowing a physical male who says they are a female to be allowed to enter the bathroom with my daughter?
I have no way of knowing if the man is just a pedophile pretending or what. And that my friend is a demonstration of the fragmentation of civil society.
And yes, it is an issue. We are literally determining that science hasn't a say in determining what is means to be male or female.
Just ask any transsexual.

our opinions and concerns are legitimate to you, but your views may be regressive and harmful to others.

Don't you think that if they are it would behoove myself and others to discuss such things, god willing, instead of trying to derail that discussion from the get go by trying to color those opinions as vile or unworthy of consideration? That's usually done from a position of fear.

Why does that bother you? I find it entertaining. It's also entertaining in the straight community, like at awards ceremonies, fashion shows, or on reality TV.

You risk defining yourself by sexuality - little more than an animal driven by sexual instinct - rather than a creature capable of moral and ethical contributions to society which I rather think that most LGBTQ++ persons would like to be thought as.
As one person of that community has said on here, pride parades are meant to show that we as a community are harmless and like to have fun. Overt sexualization of their parades hardly promotes anything beyond an impression of how much fun they are having promoting their kind of sexual fetishes and which is how they define themselves as a human being. How is a overly abundant person in a way too small thong, twerking at the audience -kids included- supposed to be good for society? Or help society accept LGBQ++ persons as normal and harmless?
As far as the straight community goes...I've seen over the years a deterioration of acceptable decency in that community as well. Nearly all the major entertainers are actively promoting the "shock factor" of how close they can come to total nudity onstage or how realistically they can simulate sexual acts or violence during their shows even in front of children still in grade school.
Awards ceremonies have been rendered meaningless through all the behind the scenes bigotry, racial hatred, and social parasites whose only accepted entertainment value has been reduced to the expectation of the disruption of social norms by such things as Will Smith slapping Chris Rock or the "good natured" ribbing the host gives to those recipients of perverse jokes.
Fashion shows have become little more than pornographic displays of how impractical we can make clothing and reality TV shows can only get the ratings by showing the absolute worst in humanity. So why would the LBGTQ++ community wish to join that party?
I will not apologize for being very bothered and concerned by these trends. Mark my words, no good will come from it. No good has come of it.
Where do we draw the line? Where do you?

 

[setarcos]

Your fears about children seeing people in drag are misplaced.

Are they? How so? Again where do you draw the line? Should we just eliminate the label adult entertainment all together?
Perhaps there's nothing "adult" about a drag show?

But that hasn't happened, at least not for me.

Not sure how this is relevant? The argument is that taking well defined words and rendering them meaningless in conversation is a bad thing.
Do you disagree?

Is the lawful pursuit of happiness as one understands it a bad thing?

I noticed you qualified that with "lawful". So, I think we can agree the pursuit of happiness should be lawful? Shouldn't it also be healthy? Shouldn't it be a bad thing if one's pursuit of happiness is lawful but unhealthy, negating the very thing you’re in pursuit of?
And of course ones unhealthy pursuit of happiness skirts a fine line between lawful and becoming unlawful.
There are many factors involved; whether your happiness is indeed lawful. Whether your happiness is actually healthy, Whether your happiness is at the expense of others happiness etc..

I justify all of my behavior by preference.

Of course you do. But do others justify your behavior by the same? Should they?

I do what I prefer to do, even when that's subordinating myself to the will of another.

That is arguable. Surely not all that you do is what you prefer doing?
And obviously not all that we are made to do from force or out of necessity is what we would prefer doing.
I have to wonder what you mean by subordinating? Surely the preference of a normal healthy human being would be equality not subordination among ones fellow beings.
Allowing another's will to dominate is cooperation not subordination.
If personal behavior is justified simply by personal preference then civil society would become impossible. Civilization would go he way of the dodo.

Sacrifice normalcy to the altar of personal desire? That's sounding pretty Abrahamic there in its morality and outlook, where personal desire and even the pursuit of happiness are disparaged as selfish hedonism, or in your words, are sacrificed to the altar of conformity and submission.

What that is is hope for the future of human civilization. If you call that Abrahamic in nature then so be it.
You twist my words to the point of reversal to conform to your point.
Me "I think its a bad thing to sacrifice foundational normalcy to the alter of personal desire"
You "...personal desire and even the pursuit of happiness are disparaged...or in your words, are sacrificed to the altar of conformity and submission."
Can you see what I mean?
I consider Foundational normalcy the commonly accepted morality and ethics that have allowed for and allows the existence of civil society.
If what you desire requires sacrificing those precepts then I think its a bad thing.
You make it sound as if I think we should behave as if we all live in a beehive and should be content to be as automatons performing only the allowed necessities.
I do decry hedonism or pursuit of pleasure for its own sake. That can lead down terrible roads for civil society.
And why can't one pursuit happiness even while ones personal desires must be constrained?
I think in this world, there is no such thing as sustainable happiness. I think happiness is in the pursuit, not in achieving our every desire. And we are happiest when that pursuit of what we desire is most aligned with the health of our society.

I don't find you credible there. Your tone is similar to "I'm all for science, but not when it contradicts my faith."

This is an interesting tell. How did faith find its way into this discussion? Unless you mean by worldview which is necessarily colored by my faith? But so is yours. So is everyone's. I've purposely tried to avoid using expressions of my faith here. I've mentioned science, logic, and perhaps a touch of philosophical rumination but not ideas specific to my faith.
Even though you may have strong feelings of angst against faith that doesn't mean the argument falls or stands by the faith of the arguer.
Since when have I been against science? Since when have I been shown it contradicts my faith? And if it was shown to what makes you think I would simply ignore that as a non issue? Your stereotyping me with your experience of others.

I don't believe that you really care about the feelings or well-being of such people.

Why is that? Because I bring my feelings, opinions, and thoughts to the table seeking dialogue?

You've yet to mention their concerns, fears, and desires except to say why you disapprove and what a threat you see there,

Its not my place to mention their concerns, fears, and desires. I'm not one of their community. It's my place to mention mine and then listen to theirs and have dialogue with them instead of blindly acting upon my opinions.

but that's for you to grapple with. Be kind. If you can't, be silent.

Silence does not address the underlying issues. A lack of productive dialogue and a fear of being wrong on both sides is what keeps these things unresolved underlying issues with no healthy outlet often resulting in violence and persecution.
Yes, one should be kind. But that is hard to do when obviously emotional issues dictate what is kind and what is not. And what is not is often necessary to resolve the issues. Is it kind to show me I'm wrong? Should you not show me I'm wrong because there's no kind way to do it even though not showing me only continues the animosity between people?
These things aren't just for me to grapple with. These things are for societies to grapple with. And society is. Just look how we treat each other. I don't think silence will resolve that. I don't think that if the LGBTQ++ community was just silent it would resolve much in the way of their acceptance and happiness in society. And LGBTQ++ persons are just as capable and have been unkind and violent.
But You are right....we should be as kind in our not being silent as possible. We will never be able to not offend. But paradoxically we can try to be kind in our doing so.

More slippery slope, doomsday depiction of social evolution. Your normal is not mine. Your chaos is not mine.

I agree. It is a slippery slope. But I look at my community, the media, and what's being said on social networks, and it seems to me that whatever you mean specifically by "doomsday depiction of social evolution" and my chaos its rapidly becoming all of ours and not just mine.
Perhaps you think you are an island unto yourself? Good for you. Hopefully the tsunami won't catch you unawares.

Please forgive my typos and half thought out ideas. I had to write in a hurry and haven't time to edit before posting.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No...I'm used to having a lot of my opinions disagreed with. That alone doesn't make me wrong. Then again if I am wrong I don't enjoy that feeling either but I realized along time ago that one has to deal with that if progress is to be made. Wouldn't you agree that goes for both sides of an issue?

I believe I am.

?? Who says I don't feel empathy for that community?

Well your getting my answer and that is that I think that they do deserve compassion and well-wishes. However simply because they deserve those things shouldn't bar them from needing to behave rationally or compassionately or constructively within civil society when able.

You answered your own question. That is, there are occasions when your feelings should be expressed lest we all continue to live in relational darkness and no empathetic progress with each other is ever made. How long would it take for you to get tired of being served Brussel sprouts if your host kept serving them to you because no one communicated their feelings? That would, it seems to me, be a waste of your time and theirs. Not to mention food. But what if you knew expressing your feelings would offend the host? Would you still express your feelings? Or would you continue to waste food, your time, and theirs?
Or how about if your host is serving something that you think is actually poisonous? It's a slow acting poison but tastes wonderful so your host enjoys eating it and serving it. Would you feel compelled to speak up then?
There's myriads of reasons one should express ones feelings. Especially if one relies on a social cohesive and civil society and is concerned about the health of such a society.
One shouldn't ignore the neighbors situation if the husband beats the wife every night simply because its not "your" problem. Or should one?
If I think the LGBTQ++ community threatens the health of society or even themselves why shouldn't I express those feelings. Even if only to be proven wrong.

I don't see it that way. One doesn't have to go far to see civil society fragmenting. I think its mostly because we talk at each other instead of to each other. LGBTQ++ liberation hasn't gotten any closer to the goals of a better society. If anything society is getting progressively uncivilized.
Our morals are deteriorating, our empathy is deteriorating, our trust is deteriorating, our sense of cohesive purpose is deteriorating. All these things are collectively eroding the amount of progressive good mankind has made and is making. We're going 3 steps backwards for every 1 step forwards. Half the reason is the arguments we make and the debates we have aren't even relevant to the problems to begin with.
Now I'm not saying the LGBTQ++ community is the reason for these things. What I'm saying is the acceptance and liberation of LGBTQ++ community to live as they wish hasn't contributed to making a better society except "maybe" for the LGBTQ++ community and that's a qualified maybe. But again it's the wrong argument to be focusing on. All persons should be allowed to have a healthy, happy, productive life. But not every persons idea of what makes them happy is healthy or productive to society or even themselves individually.
Just a few decades ago the total number of known gender identities was less than half a dozen. Now its more than a hundred and counting. And some of those are mere personal opinion and logically meaningless. If that isn't fragmentation then how do you define it? Progress? Its made more people more confused than ever before about what being human means.
I don't know why we run from calling these things mental diseases? What good comes from attempting to normalize abnormality?

I'd be willing to bet that half those that march, riot, and otherwise rally in some fashion for support of the LGBTQ++ community could care less either way about that community. It was simply a non - issue to them simply unthought of. But once an issue reaches a critical mass people use these things as a surrogate outlet to express their rage at all the other crap going on in their personal lives.
Its a road rage issue. A guy got served divorce papers earlier in the day and now someone accidentally cut him off. Now all of a sudden that guy has what he sees as a justifiable outlet for all the rage he has pent up, most of which has nothing to do with the person that cut him off in traffic.
So...we get all these people rallying support for LGBTQ++ persons but none of the underlying issues ever get addressed. We don't talk to each other, we talk at each other. Or yell, or hurt, or kill each other.
We think its progress while the wounds keep suppurating beneath the surface.
I see a lot of people in the various medias not really understanding what their arguing about or they start arguing about something that wasn't an argument to begin with. Its just a desperate desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves which can support the anger they personally have for everything else happening in their lives.

Depends on which made up gender identity your speaking of.
Society shouldn't have to throw out logic and comprehensive meaning for the sake of an individuals personal preference or mental
aberration.
Why should I be forced to call a transsexuals' something they logically can't be? Why should I be forced to endorse an untruth?
Why should I have to call an individual a them which is illogical or someone a non - binary which is informationally meaningless?
Why should I be forced to accept allowing a physical male who says they are a female to be allowed to enter the bathroom with my daughter?
I have no way of knowing if the man is just a pedophile pretending or what. And that my friend is a demonstration of the fragmentation of civil society.
And yes, it is an issue. We are literally determining that science hasn't a say in determining what is means to be male or female.
Just ask any transsexual.

Don't you think that if they are it would behoove myself and others to discuss such things, god willing, instead of trying to derail that discussion from the get go by trying to color those opinions as vile or unworthy of consideration? That's usually done from a position of fear.

You risk defining yourself by sexuality - little more than an animal driven by sexual instinct - rather than a creature capable of moral and ethical contributions to society which I rather think that most LGBTQ++ persons would like to be thought as.
As one person of that community has said on here, pride parades are meant to show that we as a community are harmless and like to have fun. Overt sexualization of their parades hardly promotes anything beyond an impression of how much fun they are having promoting their kind of sexual fetishes and which is how they define themselves as a human being. How is a overly abundant person in a way too small thong, twerking at the audience -kids included- supposed to be good for society? Or help society accept LGBQ++ persons as normal and harmless?
As far as the straight community goes...I've seen over the years a deterioration of acceptable decency in that community as well. Nearly all the major entertainers are actively promoting the "shock factor" of how close they can come to total nudity onstage or how realistically they can simulate sexual acts or violence during their shows even in front of children still in grade school.
Awards ceremonies have been rendered meaningless through all the behind the scenes bigotry, racial hatred, and social parasites whose only accepted entertainment value has been reduced to the expectation of the disruption of social norms by such things as Will Smith slapping Chris Rock or the "good natured" ribbing the host gives to those recipients of perverse jokes.
Fashion shows have become little more than pornographic displays of how impractical we can make clothing and reality TV shows can only get the ratings by showing the absolute worst in humanity. So why would the LBGTQ++ community wish to join that party?
I will not apologize for being very bothered and concerned by these trends. Mark my words, no good will come from it. No good has come of it.
Where do we draw the line? Where do you?

Wow, where do I even start? Well, perhaps with the notion of being disagreed with: certainly being disagreed with doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong -- but the more people that disagree with you, and for the more reasons, I think it might be wise to consider why you are opposed to so many, and for so many reasons.

Your whole screed is predicated on this notion you have that acceptance of LGBTQ+ people is the underlying cause of every trend you disapprove of, in entertainment, fashion, and God knows what else.

Explain this, in simple terms, please: I have been a faithful partner to my lover for over 30 years -- how has our life together contributed to the downfall fo the fashion industry? How many straight, married people, realizing that there were married same-sex couples out there, decided that would cause them to terminate their relationship and sell the kids? The fact that the US Secretary of Transportation is gay and married to his partner and bringing up two children is not in any way contributing to bigotry, racial hatred, social parisitism -- nor was it the cause of Will Smith's ludicrous outburst over a tasteless joke.

You don't like those things? Go after them. But don't flippin' try blaming them on me, or Pete Buttigieg. You are shooting wide of the mark, and it's time you corrected your aim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why should I be forced to call a transsexuals' something they logically can't be? Why should I be forced to endorse an untruth? Why should I have to call an individual a them which is illogical or someone a non - binary which is informationally meaningless?

You're not being forced to do any of those things.

Why should I be forced to accept allowing a physical male who says they are a female to be allowed to enter the bathroom with my daughter?

Because you live in a pluralistic, democratic society - the same reason I have to accept the right's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the decision to give churches a walk regarding taxes. You can't always get what you want.

I will not apologize for being very bothered and concerned by these trends.

Nor need you. Nor do others need to apologize for supporting them.

Mark my words, no good will come from it. No good has come of it. Where do we draw the line? Where do you?

Me? It's not an issue in my world. If I know any transexuals, I'm unaware of that fact. But if it comes up, I will be kind, polite, tolerant, and inclusive.

The argument is that taking well defined words and rendering them meaningless in conversation is a bad thing. Do you disagree?

I disagree that that is what is happening.

I do decry hedonism or pursuit of pleasure for its own sake.

Really? I'm all for the pursuit of happiness, although we probably have different ideas of what happiness is. It's the purpose of life as I understand it. Wisdom is the knowledge that facilitates that and prevents us from ending up broke, alone, or with alcoholic cirrhosis, which is unhappiness. That guy pursued happiness as well, but foolishly, and found misery instead.

My wife and I have been spending evenings out on our terraza watching the sun go down and listening to Grateful Dead concerts by candlelight with our dogs and a glass of wine. That's hedonism. Do you decry that, too?

How did faith find its way into this discussion?

It appeared in an analogy, just like science did.

 

[setarcos]

Wow, where do I even start?

And here we go...this tells me your about to talk at me instead of to me.

Well, perhaps with the notion of being disagreed with: certainly being disagreed with doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong -- but the more people that disagree with you, and for the more reasons, I think it might be wise to consider why you are opposed to so many, and for so many reasons.

"I suppose now I'll have to endure the condemnations and accusations instead of productive dialogue."
Of course being disagreed with doesn't mean I'm wrong but that's not the point. And your argument here is misplaced. The point is to have productive dialogue in which two opposing viewpoints might be able to reach a mutually acceptable and productive agreement and or understanding.
I'm not arguing the exacting results of a mathematical formula here. I'm discussing personal perspective in order to understand others.
Besides, I don't know how well versed you are in history -Social movements, scientific paradigm shifts etc. - but typically, progress hasn't been made by simply going with majority opinion. The majority crowd typically catches up with the truth, if at all, not the other way around. Especially when dealing with human behavior with a strong emotional element involved.

Your whole screed is predicated on this notion you have that acceptance of LGBTQ+ people is the underlying cause of every trend you disapprove of, in entertainment, fashion, and God knows what else.

Is it? You could at least give me the respect I've afforded the LGBTQ++ community by posting here with my honest feelings by paying attention to and actually thinking about what I've posted...

"Now I'm not saying the LGBTQ++ community is the reason for these things. What I'm saying is the acceptance and liberation of LGBTQ++ community to live as they wish hasn't contributed to making a better society except "maybe" for the LGBTQ++ community and that's a qualified maybe. But again it's the wrong argument to be focusing on. All persons should be allowed to have a healthy, happy, productive life. But not every persons idea of what makes them happy is healthy or productive to society or even themselves individually."

Notice the first sentence? This paragraph was a response to another poster implying that there is a correlation between past society being worse and present society being better as society increases its respect and acceptance of the LGBTQ++ community.
I don't think that's true and I think its the wrong argument to be focusing on as I've said above.

Your doing exactly what I said would happen in my first post. Your trying to color my arguments as having no foundation other than those based in hatred and bigotry.

This is what I said about entertainment, fashion, and etc...

"As far as the straight community goes...I've seen over the years a deterioration of acceptable decency in that community as well. Nearly all the major entertainers are actively promoting the "shock factor" of how close they can come to total nudity onstage or how realistically they can simulate sexual acts or violence during their shows even in front of children still in grade school.
Awards ceremonies have been rendered meaningless through all the behind the scenes bigotry, racial hatred, and social parasites whose only accepted entertainment value has been reduced to the expectation of the disruption of social norms by such things as Will Smith slapping Chris Rock or the "good natured" ribbing the host gives to those recipients of perverse jokes.
Fashion shows have become little more than pornographic displays of how impractical we can make clothing and reality TV shows can only get the ratings by showing the absolute worst in humanity. So why would the LBGTQ++ community wish to join that party?"

Notice how I excluded the LGBTQ++ community in that little "screed". Except at the end where I questioned why they would want to contribute to societies deterioration with that kind of behavior.

Hmmm...whos being hateful and biased here? You or me?

Explain this, in simple terms, please: I have been a faithful partner to my lover for over 30 years -- how has our life together contributed to the downfall fo the fashion industry?

I never said it or any other person in the LGBTQ++ community specifically has. Though some individuals - straight, gay, whatever - have probably committed what I think we'd both agree on as fashion crimes.

How many straight, married people, realizing that there were married same-sex couples out there, decided that would cause them to terminate their relationship and sell the kids?

I'm having trouble parsing what you mean here. You'll have to dumb it down for me.

The fact that the US Secretary of Transportation is gay and married to his partner and bringing up two children is not in any way contributing to bigotry, racial hatred, social parisitism -- nor was it the cause of Will Smith's ludicrous outburst over a tasteless joke.

None of this is what I said or otherwise implied. Your obvious emotional reading of my post must have colored what you thought I was implying.
Perhaps your trying to argue your experience with others with me?

You don't like those things? Go after them. But don't flippin' try blaming them on me, or Pete Buttigieg. You are shotting wide of the mark, and it's time you corrected your aim.

Listen...I see you as a person. I hear your emotions in what your saying. I can be empathetic with your frustrations at the world. But your arguments are misplaced with me. I've not singled out any individual for blame. And I've not specifically singled out the LGBTQ++ community for the causes of the worlds civilized deterioration. Take a breath, reread my posts and lets have a discussion not an accusatory argument.
What I have done is express my feelings on the matter in hopes of making myself more understanding and a better person.
If you expect me to respect and legitimize your thoughts and feelings on the matter I would hope you would extend the same curtesy to me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is it? You could at least give me the respect I've afforded the LGBTQ++ community by posting here with my honest feelings by paying attention to and actually thinking about what I've posted...

"Now I'm not saying the LGBTQ++ community is the reason for these things. What I'm saying is the acceptance and liberation of LGBTQ++ community to live as they wish hasn't contributed to making a better society except "maybe" for the LGBTQ++ community and that's a qualified maybe. But again it's the wrong argument to be focusing on. All persons should be allowed to have a healthy, happy, productive life. But not every persons idea of what makes them happy is healthy or productive to society or even themselves individually."

Notice the first sentence? This paragraph was a response to another poster implying that there is a correlation between past society being worse and present society being better as society increases its respect and acceptance of the LGBTQ++ community.
I don't think that's true and I think its the wrong argument to be focusing on as I've said above.

These get too long to respond to in a way that is readable by the members. So let's just take a look at the above.

Yes, I note the first sentence -- and then I note the second! That maybe "the acceptance and liberation of LGBTQ++ community...hasn't contributed to making a better society except 'maybe' for the LGBTQ++ community." Well, if it has made life better for a part of society, while not making it worse for any other part of society (which nobody has ever shown), then if LGBTQ++ are part of society, then society over all has been made better. That is simply by definition.

Remember the parable of the sheep and the goats:

31When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on His glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will place the sheep on His right and the goats on His left.

34Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, 36I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.’

37Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’

40And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’

41Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44And they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

45Then the King will answer, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Listen...I see you as a person. I hear your emotions in what your saying. I can be empathetic with your frustrations at the world. But your arguments are misplaced with me. I've not singled out any individual for blame. And I've not specifically singled out the LGBTQ++ community for the causes of the worlds civilized deterioration. Take a breath, reread my posts and lets have a discussion not an accusatory argument.
What I have done is express my feelings on the matter in hopes of making myself more understanding and a better person.
If you expect me to respect and legitimize your thoughts and feelings on the matter I would hope you would extend the same curtesy to me.

I'm trying to get you to see that when you make life easier, better or less perilous for any part of society, so long as you do no actual harm to any other part, this must be a good thing. Being lesbian or gay, bisexual or transgendered, are not in themselves moral or immoral, any more than being heterosexual or cis-gender -- they are simply part of who each of us is. If you are heterosexual, I put it to you that it would make your life more difficult if acting on your orientation could land you in prison -- or dead, would it not?

But how about, if you managed to get away with secretly (as in the closet) living with your loved partner of the opposite sex, who then one day got ill -- and you, by nature of the pretended "wrongness" of your situation were severed from said partner, unable to assist in their care, unable to make choices. This really was how it was for many, many people. I knew, back in the 1970s, a most loving lesbian couple, and when one of them got cancer, her partner cared for her through all the pain and mess until her partner had to go to palliative care. The partner's family, who always hated the relationship, came and took their sick family member away, and her lover never got to see her again, wasn't with her when she died, and was not invited to the funeral. You might imagine that could hurt a little, even if she was an evil lesbian!

Now, my partner and I can marry. We're so old, we've chosen not to bother, but we are legally recognized as "equivalent to married," or "common law" spouses in Canada -- and when my partner fell ill with a particularly serious Guillaine-Barre Syndrome, paralyzed from the neck down, in hospital for 8 1/2 months, it was me who was there every lunch and dinner to feed him (running back and forth to work!). When he could finally come home, it is me who for the past 5 years has been caregiver -- and thus, here in Canada where we can get paid help for free, we haven't needed it. We haven't cost the state, and we have therefore benefitted the state.

Look, I don't approve of stupid people being naked on the public streets during Pride. And by the way, it's illegal for them to do so. But if the police don't care to arrest them, what should I do? And I don't care whether they're straight or gay, by the way, and would feel the same if it happened during Mardi Gras. But it's a tiny minority, so why do they get all the attention? They don't "represent the whole gay community," and most of the gay community, like me, wish they would just get over themselvers and behave. But nakedness is just not all that horrifying -- or if it is, I suggest you keep you and your family well away from every art gallery in the world! Having a little maturity about these things can make a lot of "great evil" seem pretty petty. In other words, don't get distracted by outlying nonsense. I know a lot of gay people and a lot more straight people, and my experience is that they are mostly all concerned about the same things -- taking care of family, affording the bills, trying to get some enjoyment out of life that sometimes seems a bit tedious. That's what we're about. We are not about our sexuality.

On Sunday, I was at the Opera in Toronto (Le Boheme), and at the half, I used the washroom. Now, you may never have noticed, but in all such venues, the queues for the ladies' facilities are often horrible, while the gents' are usually much less so. As it happened, as I was zipping up at the urinal, I noticed a woman coming out of one of the stalls. It ocurred to me that she probably couldn't hold it in the ladies line, and took such refuge as she could. Know what? I wasn't in the slightest fussed by it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you have have such strong feelings about other people's identity?

I don't. But I do have strong feelings about basic facts.

A woman is an adult female with an XX chromosome and the potential to bear children.
If a transwoman dies and 200 years from now we dig up the remains and investigate the bones, the conclusion is going to be that this was a male. Not a woman.

I have no issues at all with people who, for whatever reason, undergo sex changes and what-have-you.
They are free to do what they want with their bodies and live life as they see fit.

But the facts remain the facts.
If they are so offended to be in the category of "male", then invent a new word. But "woman" is already taken.

Anything else just opens a can of worms imo.
And it does a disservice to actual women and women rights in general imo.

I loath all this "woke" nonsense. Imo it's just hysteria and utterly irrational.

Sure, fight discrimination and all that. I'm game.
But let's stay reasonable and rational in the process please.

 

[Left Coast]

Split into two due to space contraints:

Depends on what you mean by dangerous I suppose. But I would have to ask who your target audience is supposed to be? If it is supposed to be social conservatives then I would say it would behoove you t0 emphasize your humanity rather than oversexualizing your identity.

First: pride parades aren't primarily for you. They're for us. They're a public expression of freedom and removing the shame placed on us for simply being us.

Secondly, it's interesting that you framed humanity at odds with sexuality there. Ponder that for a moment. Sex is very human. It's normal. It's a near universal human experience. Humans are sexual. So sexuality is part of our identity.

How is turning your "message" into a sexual cartoon going to get the opposition to take you seriously? The only thing your achieving is an impression that your sexual preferences and pleasures are more important than your moral and ethical boundaries.

If the last 15 years of history are any indication, that is not the only impression we have left. The West's opinions of us have swung strongly in favor of our rights and freedoms. So whatever we're doing seems to be working.

Though I've never heard nor seen a specifically heterosexual parade whatever that would entail

That's because you've never needed one. Heterosexuality is ubiquitous.

Should the LGBTQ ++ community be exempt from public standards of ethics?

Do you really expect an answer here?

I guess I should ask where do you draw the line? Should our children be allowed into adult venues? Should we scrap the movie rating system? Should public displays of nudity and sexual acts be made legal and commonplace? Should all and any forms of sexual pleasure be allowed? Bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, acrotomophilia, apotemnophilia,...just the a's, there's a whole dictionaries worth of fetishistic desires and a case can be made that in certain circumstances each one of them has no victims only desires to be fulfilled.
Should any philia be allowed as long as there are only willing participants? Should we have a celebratory parade for all these desires?

Imagine for a minute that you and I work at a company together. And you come to me and say, "You know, this certain policy X doesn't make sense. It's unfair, it's outdated, yada yada. We should change it to Y for these reasons." Now imagine that I reply to you by saying, "Well what, should we just change ALL the policies then?? Should we have NO POLICIES AT ALL? THE MADNESS!!!"

Is my reply to you there reasonable? Is it a rational response to your proposal? I do hope your answer is no. The fact that you support one change doesn't mean you have to defend any conceivable change, or that you're endorsing anarchy. So similarly, my support for, say, same sex marriage doesn't mean I need to defend sex with gerbils or whatever other zany stuff you come up with. Let's be serious.

How much of your opinion here is a result of confirmation bias? And how much mine?
I would go out on a limb here and say that there are probably more heterosexual people in the world defending LGBTQ++ rights than there are LGBTQ++ people.

In the world? I don't know. In the West, yeah, that's probably true. It's been an extremely recent shift in public opinion. You must know this.

I will say that I believe that public displays of affection between couples should be okay. Displays of lust should not be. And of course in moderation. There is a line where affection crosses over into looking like lust. For the most part common sense should win the day.
Why would you wish to lick your partners tonsils in a kiss while in a public restaurant for instance? In my opinion those kinds of aggressive sexual displays only indicate a lack of control or a message of disrespectful defiance. Neither of which produce good fruit.

I'm not a huge fan of excessive random PDA either. Context is revelant.

If your saying the joke isn't hyperbolae then that is concerning.

You're right, it is concerning that gay people are routinely called groomers in some corners of the Right.

If your saying the conservatives are serious about their concerns then how does turning there concerns into a joke help them understand your position? It comes off as disrespectful defiance. Like I said above, that can produce no good fruit.

It isn't a joke. Calling me a sexual predator because I'm gay isn't funny. But at some point, if someone with a laughable position insults me, I'm likely to respond.

As I've asked above, do you believe then that all forms of adult entertainment should be open to children? Perhaps just the ones you deem okay for children? What's your criteria for determining what's okay and what's not?

In the West we already have standards of what's publicly appropriate and what isn't. I have no issue with those basics. If parents want to take their kids to see an R rated movie, or a show that would be R rated if it were on a screen, I think that's up to their discretion.

What do you think they mean by "grooming"?

In general it refers to sexual abuse of children.

Um...okay. My fellow conservative Christians? Didn't know I had any, let alone was one.

Oh which one aren't you? You're not a Christian? Or you're not a social conservative?

But do you think if someone tells you you're dangerous and your come back is "Yeah I'm gonna kill you and yours some day!" that that is the best way to evolve the relationship?

Who in the world says that?

 

[Left Coast]

Part two:

Please refrain from insulting my intelligence. Perhaps you didn't get what I was saying?
From the beginning the terms male and female referred to the physical characteristics of the organism and to a lesser extent the mental disposition of that organism since the mental qualities of maleness and femaleness is on an overlapping spectrum. Insistence on being referred to as what you are definitionally not renders the terms equivocally nebulous.

If you don't want me to insult your intelligence by pointing out the difference between sex and gender, your reply here is odd. We're all aware that male and female are terms referring to a person's anatomy/physiology. The terms "man" and "woman" incorporate more than biology; they incorporate psychology and culture. Anyone who ever heard Shania Twain sing, "Man, I Feel Like a Woman" and understood what she meant should not have a quibble here.

You just said that the "mental qualities" of male and female exist in an "overlapping spectrum." So it shouldn't shock you if people who are biologically male have the mental qualities of a woman, or vice versa. And thus, they accurately mentally identify as a woman despite having male genitals. If you don't want me to insult your intelligence by pointing this out to you, then why in the world did you bring up biology?

Altering ones appearance through surgery, artificial hormone treatments, or other artificial means does not render an equivalent physical characteristic change from one gender to the other. DNA remains the same, ability to get pregnant remains the same, other respective fundamental physical characteristics remain the same.

No one denies this.

This begs the question...Is this a physical abnormality or a mental one? And why treat the body to align with the mind instead of the mind with the body?

Trans people's minds have been treated to attempt to get them to align with their bodies for many decades. Therapy remains first line treatment for gender dysphoria. Yet the actual doctors and medical professionals who treat these patients every day have also seen that people have good outcomes when we align their bodies with their minds. I defer to their expertise in general.

Also, with transsexuals, since the mind and body cannot be wholly integrated or aligned if you will, how do they know what its like to be a male or a female that was born in alignment to begin with?

I trust trans people who repeatedly confirm the same feeling of not belonging in their own body, and feeling more at home in their own body following gender-affirming care. How that exactly works neurologically is an interesting question but honestly I find it to be secondary to my basic view that we ought to defer to believing people when they tell us about their own honest experiences of their own minds.

As far as gender identification regardless of physical alignment the use of preferred gender pronouns in a contradictive and equivocating way such as preferring to be called we, they, or them when addressing a single individual devolves the communicative ability of language.

Nah. My bet is that you've used a singular "they" many times in your life and you were understood just fine.

Hmmm...I wonder at this comparison ...oh man here we go again.

You seem conflicted about these things. Which honestly, I think is a good thing. You're willing to challenge your assumptions and think through your beliefs. Many people never do. So kudos for that.

I agree.
But I think morality is rendered impotent when society gets to a point where anything goes and identity means nothing because meaning itself has been lost.

I hope we've sufficiently covered that we're not saying "anything goes."

I don't know. I mean what's the point?

To encourage and support stable relationships and families.

I understand the symbology of the thing but originally the marriage ritual was symbolic of fertility and a mutual commitment to cooperation in ensuring a continuance of life through ones lineage. That's kind of a mute point with gay couples unless you consider committing to continuing someone else's lineage I guess.

Marriage is about more than having babies. Are you against the legality of marriages of people who are infertile?

I know of no long
studies that have indicated getting married generally creates a more stable relationship or family.

...You need a study to tell you that marriages generally last longer than non-married sexual relationships?

Now how does one address this without offence?

Oh that's easy. By saying, "Of course not, gayness is not a disease."

I would ask you how we determine what is a normal healthy person.

I defer to doctors and psychologists for the technical criteria there.

Discordance is neither immoral nor evidence of immorality although deliberate intention to be discordant may be.

If discordance has nothing to do with whether behavior is immoral then I don't really understand why we're talking about it.

Any misalignment with the relationship between the mind and body or organs of sexuality with their natural intended reproductive or pleasure stimulating complement would be a discordance.

LGBT people have plenty of pleasure when they have sex. So we tick that box. If you think sex has to be reproductive to be moral, that would render quite a lot of straight sex, including all sex any postmenopausal woman ever has, immoral. If you don't mean that, then I hope we agree that the fact that gays can't make babies is irrelevant to the morality of their sex lives.

My feelings on these matters are still evolving. I understand that like any organism will do...LGBTQ++ persons have a right to exist and fight for that existence. I have to accept that. How I feel about the lifestyles are a continuing struggle though.

I appreciate your honesty.