LGBT Poll - Page 3

I think you guys are conflating LGTB with SJW... being gay doesnt mean you are an activist 3rd wave femninist progressive, so be sure to direct your anger apropiatly.


I'm with Eri that gays are treated equally in young modern cities, but for example here in Mexico certanly not

Wobbly even if they fare worse compared to straight adoptions dont you think its an improvement over some government facility? If so, single mothers do worse than gay couples, so we should take children away from single moms to institutions? (I wouldnt be surprised if you said yes lol)

On October 20 2017 17:32 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On October 20 2017 09:34 Baalim wrote: I wonder what is the % of asexual ppl I refuse to believe this exists. I can accept some people have a really low libido but to me claiming asexuality without some kind of clear hormonal disorder or medications just seems like a cop-out or otherwise saying "I don't get laid and don't plan on going out of my way to try" - which is fine but I don't buy that it can be a default setting for anyone.

Why do you refuse I mean, what if you have such a low libido that you genuinelly have no interest for anybody not women nor men, I mean I dont know if its a thing or not and I think most who claim they are are just being edgy but theres a gap between that and it literally not being a psychological condition like homosexuality

On October 21 2017 06:43 wobbly_au wrote: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-...dy-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/ But hush we can't talk about it, they are being oppressed.

theres nothing wrong with talking about it. having read through the actual study a bit - it seems they are including children who were born into a biological family, had their parents divorce and had one of those parents remarry/join into a same-sex relationship later as children raised by same-sex couples (i think this actually constituted the majority of children included in this group). that seems like a pretty serious methodological oversight (one of a few i think actually)

link to 79 papers, yours included, on the subject nicely laid out (75/4 finding that children fare no worse being raised by same-sex parents [no study among them being perfect])
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/to...children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

its far from proof but i think the research is promising and given the longitudinal nature of these studies and society gradually becoming accepting of lgbt couples it seems likely the data will continue to move favorably in this direction as time goes on. i guess you could argue that there is some biological preference in children that would make a man and a woman parental unit stronger than male/male female/female but i dont think even the papers that say that children fare worse in same-sex couples are espousing that (not even a fraction of enough data to even try currently)

On October 21 2017 06:26 Trav94 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 21 2017 01:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: Spitfire, how are homosexuals asking to be treated as something special? They're asking to be treated as if they are normal. Do you live 30 years in the past? In what world are gays not treated as normal? In fact, worst case scenario gays get treated as normal. Average gays are treated much better than your average straight person. Society just fucking panders to any minority group that screams about how oppressed they are these days.

I live in a region where gays are 'completely accepted', a university town in liberal Norway. Even then, in Norway, 'homo' (Norwegian for 'gay') is the most frequently used insult among guys in junior high schools. I'd be surprised if 'gay' or 'fag' aren't up there in the US, although there might have been enough awareness efforts the past 5-10 years for it to have dropped. Stuff like this actually is consequential - guys growing up finding out that they are gay end up feeling like they are hated because everyone keeps using them as an insult. It's kinda like if I started calling out stupidity on this forum by saying 'man, you're such a fucking trav94 right now', you'd actually be right to feel insulted by that.

Also, this very thread imo counts as evidence that gays are not treated normally. A bunch of you guys saw a thread about homosexuality and immediately took the chance to complain about how gay people are whining and screaming about how oppressed they are. Personally, that's something I don't see at all.

Holy shit at the amount of ignorance in here. It hurts to read. Site was better when it was dead with 5 people posting.

On October 21 2017 09:33 Loco wrote: Holy shit at the amount of ignorance in here. It hurts to read. Site was better when it was dead with 5 people posting.

Totally agree with you.

On October 21 2017 03:59 wobbly_au wrote: Nothing personal but my view is that a traditional unit with a father and a mother is better than having two mothers or two fathers. When both parents arent genetically connected to their offspring there are negative consequences.

How about abused adopted children growing up with loving parents? Btw, are you religious?

I agree that two gay parents are better than one, I was personally raised by a single mom. That said taking away a child from a parent and adopting a new child into the family is completely different.

I’m atheist. Not religious at all, but I think family unit is critical to society.

Site is better when it’s echo chamber?

Was agreeing more to the "Holy shit at the amount of ignorance in here. It hurts to read" aspect.

I don't know what sort of lgbt heaven you people live in but here in greece things are not at all so shiny
lol @ the guy talking about lp SJW leftists. I bet that it's so relaxing to preemptively put everyone that disagrees with you in the same "evil" group of people. Later of course you'll QQ when someone calls you a nazi

I also didn't expect Spitfire to make the standard ignorant "unnatural" comment, I'm still waiting to see what he or anyone who agreed replies to PoorUser
While he commented on the use of the word "abnormal" I think the use of "unnatural" makes even less sense. Just check out what happens in nature man, not that it has any relevance whatsoever with what people should be doing

to be fair being a nazi is objectively worse than even the worst parodies of SJW leftists, and it takes a pretty damn shitty person to not see that. ;p

I'm not commenting at all on the qualities of nazis or SJWs tbh. It's the polarizing "us and them" mentality and the cheap trick of generalizing one's specific argument (so that they belong to a group that's trendy to hate) that tilts me. Shitty thing is that it's the bread and butter technique of most people actively involved with politics

Agreed. I think the use of the SJW term is ridiculous in general, and I think leftists who describe people as nazis for being (even extremely) opposed to immigration have a very flawed understanding of how bad the nazis actually were. Godwining is a good way to end a debate, little more.

On October 21 2017 01:18 PoorUser wrote: Show nested quote + On October 21 2017 00:01 Spitfiree wrote:   On October 20 2017 22:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Not being mistreated lol? It's true that they have high suicide rates. That's a direct consequence of bullying.. Yes they are far more accepted than they were even a decade ago, but this is far from universal. Average high schooler in a liberal coastal city, sure, they accept gays. Average 50 year old in rural midwest, nope. I also don't think gay people are whining and being loud asking for needless attention on matters that don't mean shit, I feel you making that claim is basically you mistreating them. Also, there's nobody "born like that" ... there have been plenty of genetic studies showing that nobody's born homosexual. Which means that its something abnormal, which means that there could be a solution. And my main issue is that people would instantly bash me for calling it "abnormal" or a "problem", considering its something unnatural. Now obviously the research funds distributed to such a cause which finds a solution would be nonexistent since the same SJW will bash on them. im curious what studies you are reading. it was my understanding that most of the recent literature favors a biological/genetic component in sexuality i should also point out that the word abnormal, at least in psychology (since you are eschewing biological causes), tends to only be applied to behavior that is considered maladaptive. it feels to me like you are using "abnormal" to mean "different", and if thats so - i dont think arguing that point of view as something that needs to be fixed will get very far. if you meant "abnormal" to mean maladaptive, then i suppose you mean it only in the sense that it's maladaptive mostly because society isnt all that onboard with it yet (i didnt think you meant it this way since you talked about not caring what people do in their own bedroom which means it wouldnt be a problem socially for you which means it wouldnt need fixing). i think a look back at history makes this argument not go very far either. i guess you could argue homosexuality being maladaptive for different reasons but i dont really see it.

I'm kind of between the two "lines". Just because its not genetical, doesn't mean it cant be a biological problem e.g. hormone imbalances leading to it etc... Once its actually proven why are people homosexual then you could classify it either as a health problem/mental problem or something purely natural. At this point neither of those has enough data to prove it as a fact.

So what my problem is that the simple idea of homosexuality possibly being a "disease" would be completely unacceptable which is hilarious. As if it possibly being a disease, yet treating each homosexual as a normal fucking person is something completely unacceptable - this kind of mentality is why the whole LGBT movement is a joke as well. I like to think of myself as a rational person, yet the rationality behind their beliefs is simply non-existent.

You can't claim something which has not been proven. That doesn't mean that we should swing between extremes.

On October 21 2017 11:51 lebowski wrote: I also didn't expect Spitfire to make the standard ignorant "unnatural" comment, I'm still waiting to see what he or anyone who agreed replies to PoorUser While he commented on the use of the word "abnormal" I think the use of "unnatural" makes even less sense. Just check out what happens in nature man, not that it has any relevance whatsoever with what people should be doing

The thing is, I've got as much right calling it unnatural as people calling it natural. There's no evidence proving either. I'm all for actually finding out what the source is. That doesn't mean we should mistreat people though.

@ Baal

I agree, there s plenty of countries that the homosexuals arent accepted. Eastern Europe is a good example, football fans were beating people in the parades until like 3-4 years ago, obviously thats unacceptable, however the LGBT movement tries to "standardize" their methods into seeking acceptance. You won't get acceptance of idiots by publicly demonstrating yourself. What you will do is piss them off even more. What you should be aiming for instead is purely legal and political actions - raise awareness in youth bla bla. All of the shit that has been proven to work with other topics.

And on another note:



I don't like being censored either. It's completely unacceptable to not be able to use certain words because a group of people is not okay with that. Fuck that shit. And believe me I don't only think about the LGBT demands here, they're probably at the bottom of the list of "importance", but still there.


edit:

I actually think I contradict myself a bit, as heterosexuals are taken as a "standard" for normality. Obviously that whole idea/view could be changed on an empirical level.

I never forget a person who uses the "f" word.

On October 21 2017 15:42 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is, I've got as much right calling it unnatural as people calling it natural. There's no evidence proving either. I'm all for actually finding out what the source is. That doesn't mean we should mistreat people though.

obviously we're not debating if you are free to use the words you like. With what definition of "natural" is homosexuality is unnatural though and how is it relevant? Because this smells like naturalistic fallacy to me.
If homosexuality was in some way to be considered a disease, it would only be because it really sucks to be a homosexual in terms of society accepting you (which was worse in the past admittedly). If it causes no harm to a person otherwise, why would you choose calling it that?

LGBT poles

+ Show Spoiler +

On October 21 2017 18:06 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 21 2017 15:42 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is, I've got as much right calling it unnatural as people calling it natural. There's no evidence proving either. I'm all for actually finding out what the source is. That doesn't mean we should mistreat people though. obviously we're not debating if you are free to use the words you like. With what definition of "natural" is homosexuality is unnatural though and how is it relevant? Because this smells like naturalistic fallacy to me. If homosexuality was in some way to be considered a disease, it would only be because it really sucks to be a homosexual in terms of society accepting you (which was worse in the past admittedly). If it causes no harm to a person otherwise, why would you choose calling it that?

First, yeah you and me both live on the Balkans and political correctness doesn't really exist here, at least not on that level as in Western EU/ USA/Canada etc. - so we're able to express ourselves freely without looking like bigots - thats not the case in the countries that I've listed.

In terms of social acceptance, I believe people that don't accept homosexuals to be simply ignorant or dumb for reasons I don't believe necessary to explain here. However what IF .. just IF homosexuality is actually a disease cause by something? The political correctness simply limits society to explore that possibility to begin with.

^ You went from saying that it's "illogical to [not] treat it as a problem" to saying "what IF.. IF it's a disease?". As if you had only merely suggested from the beginning that we can't ever rule something out 100%. You were much more explicit than that.

In any sensible discussion, what you're saying here is completely ungrounded and irrelevant. It's like if I said, what if.. just WHAT IF we are all actually mentally ill, living in a simulation that has us think we are not mentally ill!? The only difference between my hypothesis and yours is that I'm very unlikely to hurt someone by presenting mine (maybe just the rare person with severe OCD who freaks out because he can't get the simulation idea out of his head). If you think what you've said here is grounded in anything it's a really dodgy Darwinism and you're not just at the fringe of anti-PC outrage, you've fallen off.

Let me point out the obviously relevant here, the position of the APA on homosexuality:

No credible evidence exists that any mental health intervention can reliably and safely change sexual orientation; nor, from a mental health perspective does sexual orientation need to be changed.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

It's exactly your type of mentality that bothers me on this topic. Allowing the possibility of it being a disease doesn't mean you treat it as a disease/problem until its actually proven.

Science s built upon logical beliefs and theoretically allowing them to be possible, they are only taken as a fact after enough evidence is given though. It's the exact same situation. I'm completely ignoring the social side of the question at this point... If I have to think about hurting someone's feelings everytime I propose an idea then we get to the same situation that came with the SJW in the USA.