Help me understand the opposition to the LGBTQ community. Opposition input preferred.

Help me understand the opposition to the LGBTQ community. Opposition input preferred.

Do you believe that exposure to the LGBTQ community turns people gay, bisexual, trans, etc? My view is that I have seen no science that proves exposure turns people gay or such. I myself have had much exposure to the LGBTQ community and have been hit on by men a number of times. Not once was I tempted to try the sausage and see if it is better than the taco. I take this as strong evidence that I am straight. So why should I fear the LGBTQ community?

What is the fear of exposure to the LGBTQ community based upon? Harm? If so what is the harm?

 

It's not a problem of being around homosexuality making people homosexual.

It's the identity movement and their mindset that's more of the issue especially with youth who are very susceptible and going through the typical identity crisis a teen goes through. Trans is much more dangerous in this regard.

The other issue is with the acceptance of sexual promiscuity which the LGBT community pushes in conjunction with homosexuality in the pursuit of complete sexual freedom.

Complete sexual freedom comes with a lot of consequences emotionally, culturally, and physically. I have a lot more respect for conservative gays as they tend to obstain from sexual promiscuity and keep their sexual life private on the same level I'd expect a heterosexual relationship to stay private and not be a public display.

 

Can you define “identity movement” in a way that does not also apply to those that oppose in part or in whole the LGBTQ movement? I am not looking for an example here, just a definition.

Do you believe that trans people are born with a trans psychology or that it is learned or instilled in them later on? If the later do you have a link to scientific literature that supports the conclusion? I have yet to find scientific evidence that says human psychology is a choice. As a teen I was hit on 4 times by boys that I can recall and was not tempted in the least. I needed no education on homosexuality as my lack of desire to be with a male seems innate and absolute. I required no lecture on why I should not be trans as I had no desire to be so anyway. Seems to me that human psychology dictates our sexual desires and how we express ourselves.

As for promiscuity, it’s a free country. Are we to outlaw promiscuity? If so we will need more prisons and they will be filled with many on the left, right and center. I was raised in a conservative family and to this day embraced many of its traditional values. But as we live in a free country I just can’t get behind LGBTQ book bans, making drag shows illegal or saying a drag Queen cannot read to kids. Not without scientific evidence proving that the LGBTQ community is harmful to children. Do you have such scientific evidence? Perhaps your concerns are more biblically based?

Harm is the line in the sand for me. If harm can be proven then this will have an impact upon where I stand on the issue. But I set a high bar as to what constitutes harm. Harm should be qualifiable and quantifiable else it is rendered opinion in my eye. I think child psychologist are best suited to tell what if any harm the LGBTQ community inflicts upon children.

Thanks for your response by the way. I appreciate it.

 

My definition... groups who prioritize or fully encase their identity in immutable characteristics over values, interests, principals, and life choices. Immutable characteristics being things like skin color, biology(sex), etc. They tend to value and group themselves based on these immutable characteristics instead of as complex individuals whoes identity is capable of change and progress through the refinement of their values, principals, morals, choices, and interests.

An example is a white male nationalist who values themselves as a white person instead of priding themselves something like being a hardworking individual who cares for his family. He views the world through the lense of his own identity valuing others by their skin color as well. Had he been and individualist who prided himself by his hard work and caring for his family, he would have valued others more so on those same or similar characteristics.

Prioritizing ones identity based on skin color and sex is not just damaging to society and others, it is damaging to the individual as they fail to see the true self and more importantly the potential self they can choose to grow into. Instead they see only the box they have placed themselves in.

The LGBT movement had a good purpose and was necessary but in the modern age in today's society it is potentially more damaging than good. It has shifted away from ensuring gays are being treated fairly, respectfuly to now a war on identity, to propogate force acceptance of this identity as a group, and to push this toxic mindset on others.

 

We are born with very little brain wiring with most of our brain as a baby being reactive and not unique by any great degree. Our psychology develops while being influenced by many external factors including biology, chemicals hormones, stimuli, upbringing, culture, and interactions with others, food, excersize, patterns, habits etc... It's hard to separate them. Not being interested when a man hits on you ist the best indictor especially for a female. It also doesn't say what your feelings are when a female hits on you. It should also be said that female sexuality has been found to be me dependant on relationship and emotional connections and less visually based like a males and their sexuality being so connected their emotional connection tends to make their sexual attraction more fluid than a males.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...05/the-triggers-of-sexual-desire-men-vs-women

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...t-ways-men-and-women-experience-sexual-desire


But if this is about whether sexual attraction is a choice or not... Does it matter? If I was born with a strong attraction to sweet things, what I should be focused on is how I choose to enjoy sweet things in a healthy and moderate way so as not to damage my long term health. Sex is the same. Be healthy about it and consider the consequence of indulgence.

 

There are different ways individual behavior is regulalated in society when self regulation fails. One is through legal incentives and consequences (tax deductions for married couples/penalties for divorce) Another method is through social incentives and consequences (promoting and praising others for getting married and their success in the marriage/calling out people who act in toxic ways that destroy marriages). Church was a very good regulator for behavior using social incentives and consequences. Unfortunately while the church is being abolished there isn't an adequate regulator to take it's place on the social sphere. While I don't think religion or a particular religious system should be imposed on everyone, I do think we need something to help fill the role of social regulation or we end up relying on legal means.

I believe culture evolved in certain ways to make society more successful. Progressives aim to evolve culture which I don't entirely disagree with and in fact believe it to be a good thing on some level. The problem is that not every evolution is good and functional. I believe that the culture has gone a path that has given us large consequences in increased fatherlessness and divorce, and mental disorders in children. Recently we have even seen more gender dysphoria than any time in history where the lqbtq culture is most prevalent. https://nypost.com/2020/06/27/how-peer-contagion-plays-into-the-rise-of-teens-transitioning/

 

A thoughtful response. Thank you.

 

The first sentence in your last paragraph is of particular interest to me. Can you go further into the damage the LGBTQ community causes today’s society?

 

Want to first address the link you provided. The header is as follows; How ‘peer contagion’ may play into the rise of teen girls transitioning. The problem for me it the use of “may” as it says to me that it is not a fact but instead is a subject in need of further scientific study. I am not comfortable with public policy being based on “may”. The gist of the article is something I have heard before and do think more research needs to be done on the subject. But until science can change the “may” to something more solid like “does”, I will remain undecided.

As for the Church being a good regulator for behavior I have to push back against that. I was born into a Christian conservative family. The reason I am no longer a Christian is that I see way too much talking the talk and too little walking the talk. This led me to take a more critical look at the Church and I was disturbed by what I saw. My loyalty to Christianity hindered my ability to be more realistic about the Church. When we are committed loyal members there is no incentive to look too deeply at our most beloved groups. For if we do we are sure to find that human nature is systemic and that we tend to be guilty of that which we accuse others of. Once my rose colored glasses fell away is when I truly began to grasp the failure of religion to curb our darker nature. When I see Christians defending morally and ethically corrupt politicians I do not see the Church as being a good regulator of behavior. I see it as turning a blind eye to evil for the sake of political advancement. I see Machiavellianism. I believe the Church is on the decline because a growing number of people see what I see. I believe the salvation of the Church is in Christians doing better at walking their talk… sadly that goes against human nature. Hypocrisy and self delusion is our nature when it comes to our tribal loyalties.

I am not against religion and do see its utility in society. But as it is I see religion in America becoming corrupted by political affiliation. Religion and politics are not good bedfellows if morals and ethics matter.

You make an interesting argument about social regulation. Seems to me that it is regulated by whichever group has the most public support in the moment and like an epileptic butterfly is all over the place over a historical timeline. The minority tends to feel threatened by the majority and the majority feel threatened by the minority. Both sides doing all they can to game the system and force their will on those they oppose. The more I look at the political right and left the more I see authoritarian tendencies as opposed to democratic ideals.

 

It is mainly based on tribalism and package-dealing; they regard "gay rights" as an issue of "The Left" so they just conclude "if they are pro, I must be anti" and, of course, a lot of it is just good old Christian contempt for sex.

Of course not.

It is just tribalism, contempt of sex and the wish to turn the Bible into law and the clocks back to the Dark Ages.

 

I am not sure it is that linear. For some, not celebrating the LGBT community is seen as opposing it. For some it may be a religious opposition I suppose. For others it may be more cultural. I have been around LGB people for as long as I can recall in one way or the other. Mostly just normal people going about their normal lives as people do. I am not sure being LGBT made them part of what I would see as the "LGBTQ Community" by today's standards though. They largely haven't been activists or out fighting for some agenda. I don't particularly care for some of the activist types in part because I see their positions as incongruent. I don't think you can champion diversity and inclusion when you are not respectful of your opposition or those who think different than you.

 

Like Trump.

 

I guess you have no children,
The issue is that gays want more and more special privileges Most recent one is to promote child mutilation

 

I m sorry but you not long ago elected a president who notoriously bragged of grabbing women by their privates without consent, has been found to have sexually assaulted at least one women, has been accused by 24 others of assault, was a involved in one of the biggest sexualisations of women - the “beauty pageant” industry, was known to have imported European models to America to work illegally and had a very notorious “bestie”

and you think the gay community is promoting promiscuity!!!???

 

Bulltwang!

 

You people cannot see a world outside of the extremely imperfect Trump? Your obsessions are noted.

 

The identity crisis is the main thing I already addressed. Another issue that arose from it is the progression toward the acceptance of MAP. It is important we continue to regard such attractions as disgusting and publicly label them as such but the LGBQ society is actually working to reverse that opening a dangerous door. Another issue is with the acceptance of sexual freedom where by practicing abstinence and waiting until marriage is no longer promoted as a good thing and in many circles even vilified such as things like the Movie 40 Year old virgin. Finally is the increase acceptance of having children exposed to these things such as Drag shows, and exposing children at even younger and younger ages to sex when they shouldnt even be engaging in these things.

 

A small number of feeble minds may be expressly opposed to the alphabet potpourri. Others are not necessarily "opposed" simply because they refuse to join a mindset.

 

There definitely needs to be a lot more research in regards to transgender issues. There is a lack of evidence and studies all around. I think we agree on that.
What I don't agree with is allowing children to get life altering procedures that prevent them from being being able to have children, not being able to revert back fully, and suffering a number of health issues down the road all based on "may" or little evidence that any of this does them any good in the long term.

There are several things related to this that I have to address. One is that everyone is a sinner and no one you vote for is not a sinner and no christian is not a sinner. the way I was taught is that we are christians not because were are perfect but because we are sinners we need Christ. He is a guide for us to be different and eventually become better, not a badge to be worn to claim we are than everyone else.

As far as voting goes, I and other conservatives I know have viewed it as a position like lets say hiring a manager to run your store. Do you hire a manager based on their good family values and the fact that they don't cheat on their wife, or do you hire someone who will run the store well?
A president is a sinful person and no matter which you pick they will be sinful. When have we ever had a president that was of good character to choose anyway?
I chose the one that will manage the country the best and will implement policies that are not leading to store/country down a path I don't want it to go. The president is not my priest. A priest is the one that is representative of our values and should be removed and placed based on their moral character. For all the talk of the left to keep church and state separate, they tend to do a good job of merging them and making the government their moral compass and spokesman for their internal belief systems.

I agree with this. Freedom is convenient when you are not the one in power and then an obstacle when you regain it. It is an unfortunate situation but I think there are many who still believe in freedom regardless an will support either side when they do the right thing in regards to ensuring we are a free country that values liberty.

 

I think gay sex is a priority for the current government, so it is natural to create an environment that is gay friendly.
Since gays want more lady-boys to be available, government (or whoever behind it) is pushing for more transgenders.

 

My issue with it is how it has changed recently. When I first came out i was really scared and nervous about people knowing this about me but there were older people that sort of mentored me. and explained there is no particular way to be gay. This is not how i am treated by the LGBTQ+ i am told i am a transphobe for being gay exclisivly dating males as in exclusive of trans men. this was exactly how i was treated by religous people. They told me that i must be afraid of women or relate to them poorly it is almost the exact same thing the LGBTQ+ tell me now.

I remember coming out I dated a younger guy and people asked me all the tome if i liked little kids in a sexual way. It took a lot to convince people that I wasn't into kids then the LGBTQ+ came along and said, kids belong at pride kids should be exposed to kink and such. they had that group of guys singing about how they are targeting children to covert them.

 

Gays don't want lady boys, they like men. if they liked ladies they would be straight. I don't think you know much about this topic.

 

People need to be kept in fear, be it commies, muslin terrorists or gays. Politicians use fear to control people, because once fear in installed, they get to present themselves as the knights in shiny armor who is here to fight to protect them. Of course commies and terrorists was far more credible than gays, which is why they keep shrieking "oh, the children, - the innocent children, we must protect the children" as if gays were going to eat the children. Its lame as hell.

 

I do not know how that works real gays, but I saw in Thailand thousands of presumably gays who were dating lady-boys.

 

Many people, like me, are against gay priviliges pushed by the government.
Some people do not know how to explain unfairness of special rights arguments invented by shadow government.