So LGBT is a personal life style choice — so what?

So you've been criminalize?
What was your crime?

 

Uh, excuse me, "cisgender" is a highly offensive term. Like anyone else, we get to decide the name by which other people call us, and we never agreed to that word.

We prefer the term "normal people".

 

Many want to do that to Islam. But they let the christians on TV and some even give them money. Hypocrites some are.

- - - Updated - - -

There are many heteros that are clearly not normal.

 

Much to your chagrin, apparently.

The conflict here is obviously that opposing viewpoints can't always be equally afforded special protection. Some would attempt to have you believe that it's just a little foible in the paradigm of moral relativity.

That is of course unless they're on the short end of the stick.

If that's the case, then it's the worst type of prejudice that has ever existed in the history of man.

 

Didn't say (*)(*)(*)(*) about sexual orientation. But since you bring it up, "hetero" is also an offensive term. Since "homo" is.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you think they are "not normal". I don't think there's anything "gay" about homosexuality, but they still get to dictate the term by which they are referred. So do we.

 

Are you from the future? We're discussing policy here. Just because a movement has certain motives & demands, that does not mean those demands are currently being met. Why would they make those demands if they were?

 

Can't even make a joke around here. That's okay; I don't mind the criticism.

It's something I've often pondered myself, but I don't believe it can't be done; I just haven't figured out the best way to do it.

 

What policy has made being hetero a crime? Or what are you specifically referring to?
Discrimination policy?
It's been wrong to discriminate for 50-60 yrs now. I don't, and I'd guess many blacks, don't care for discrimination. Perhaps many women also.

 

How about I put it this way,

The demand is to cater to special sections of society that have been deemed to be unable to self regulate emotion. These negative emotions are so unmanageable that they are equivalent to violence. This violence cannot be tolerated and as such the prevention of negative emotions is the responsibility of society. It's society's job to protect these special classes from those negative emotions. Society's security blanket (government) must be used to force individuals to change their behavior, their language, and relinquish their property to prevent damage to these special snowflakes.

Example: I feel uncomfortable in the men's bathroom. My feelings are more important than cis gendered woman's feelings therefore government should force the owners of woman's bathrooms to allow me to use the bathroom that allows me to feel comfortable. Anyone that disagrees with me is clearly afraid of me, and therefore can have their opinion discounted as invalid.

 

And yet it's all centered around discrimination. Each and every special victim class is a personal declaration of intentional segregation. We wouldn't be here discussing this if it wasn't about discriminating the differences between these genders, sexes, and preferences. They've invented new pronouns for Christ's sake to ensure they are viewed as unique segregated population and they take offense if you refuse to cede to these differences. They aren't against discrimination. They are only against the negative consequences of discrimination.

 

Homosexuality has been in existence for ages, but so have many other abnormal behaviors. The historical existence of a trait does not make it acceptable, natural, or normal.

And homosexuality has varied dramatically over time based on the culture. Homosexuality and pedophilia was practiced extensively during certain times of the Roman empire, ancient Greek Sparta seems to have had an acceptance of male homosexuality, but after those empires ended homosexuality was not nearly as accepted or prominent. Look at the USA, 50 years ago homosexuality was uncommon, not socially acceptable, and actively discouraged, yet today it is acceptable to the point of absurdity.

History certainly implies homosexuality has a learned culturally based aspect.

"Proof" of homosexual or gay behavior in animals is not so solid as you might think. Some use the Laysan Albatross nesting site on Oahu as an example of gay activity in birds because about 30% of "pairs" of nesting birds consist of 2 females, many of these nests have 2 eggs (meaning both females mated with males). But there are twice as many female Laysan as males at the Oahu site, and since 2 parents are better then 1 (one goes and eats, the other sits on the nest protecting and warming the eggs) it only makes sense that 2 "single" females work together - that's not a sign of being gay or of homosexual behavior, that's just co-operation.

Most examples of "gay" animals are along the lines of the Laysan, and not similar to what people think of as gay/homosexual partnership.

 

Fair enough. At least it's an honest answer.

The most rational answer in my view is to leave it up to individual choice. The government should always provide its services blindly, but I don't think that individuals can be held to that standard. Individuals at least have less individual power to wipe out those on the other end of the stick. (see every genocide ever)

 

Society has become obsessed with arbitrary conflicts of diversity. Why is it that some folks obsess over a gender wage gap, or a racial wage gap, but would never for one second think to apply that same logic to a study of blue eye vs brown eye wages, or 6 foot tall vs 5 foot tall wages, or blond vs brunette wages?

These self imposed points of discrimination are matters of pride, that's why. And how dare you not be just as proud of my differences as I am? How dare you make me feel like these differences are holding me back?

 

Not true at all we need only look at certain statistical dependencies to see that homosexuality is a product of nurture not nature. The most obvious example is that gay men are far more likely to have been molested as children than the general population. This is called statistical dependency.

If the probability of X given Y does not equal the probability of X for rhe general population then X and Y are statistically dependent. If homosexuality were natural then there would be no such statistical dependencies. The LGBT love knows this too so their argument against the dependency on molestation is that those children were always gay and were subconsciously flirting with their rapists which triggered the molestation. I (*)(*)(*)(*) you not that is their argument.

But there are other obvious cases. If you are familiar with the Fa'afafine of Samoa then you would know that they are boys raised as girls. When a family has only boys they will raise the youngest as a girl to do the house chores of a daughter. Fa'afafine grow up believing themselves to be women and have sexual relationships with men. This is entirely learned and not genetic.

 

Well, to bad. I don't have an answer to your worries that people don't want to be discriminated against and you don't seem to care if they're discriminated against. Would not just about anyone be against being discriminated against?
Seems to be a very weak argument.

I don't see it as segregation, but labeling. If anything they want to be included in society, not segregated from it. And they want to be included as the person they are, not the person society wants them to be.

 

I am confused as to your position.
You want people to be proud of you as you are even with your differences. But you don't want the LGBT crowd, who has been beaten, killed, denigrated to the point of suicide afforded the same?
Because the gov't came in and made society stop treating them with abuse?

 

Next time I read an article from professors in biology/anthropology, etc, I will tell that that they should contact you for an exspurt opinion.

You are of course gay and are not just speculating on something you have no first hand knowledge about, right?

 

We can only hope that is the case, and your country has the most, or at least your neighborhood.

 

This is the same old "correlation proves causation" fallacy. Correlation does not prove causation.

Here's a site that shows just how hilarious your logic is:
http://twentytwowords.com/funny-gra...etween-completely-unrelated-stats-9-pictures/

Statistics can show us where we might look for causation. So, now you still face the problem of actually showing causation.


Plus, showing that it is possible for extreme circumstances to cause acceptance of same sex behavior certainly does not suggest that same sex orientation in our population is mostly natural.

That is also a fallacious form of argument.

 

No matter how much fake sciences blather math is math.

 

Ah the far left had no trouble when statistical dependency proved that the tobacco companies were spiking their cigarettes with nicotine but when those same tests prove something they don't like statistics is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Hypocrites all.

 

only for the moment, only for the moment.

 

Your "defense" here suggests you know full well that your argument was false.

So, I'll ignore your nonsense about those poor, poor cigarette companies who ended up having their products proven to be poisonous.

 

That's stupid.

Get educated.

Bye.

 

Its not false statements all if it were genetic there would be no dependency. You are confusing statistical tests.