LGBT Poll - Page 4

Being homosexual is not something that can be cured, even though many over the ages claimed as such and tried to do so. Therefore it's not a disease. Really not that hard to understand, unless you don't want to, tbh.

On October 22 2017 14:15 Naib wrote: Being homosexual is not something that can be cured, even though many over the ages claimed as such and tried to do so. Therefore it's not a disease. Really not that hard to understand, unless you don't want to, tbh.

similarly multiple sclerosis can't be cured so it's not a disease

No, the attempted "cures" you are referring to are absurd. Just because someone tried to attempt to "cure" it doesn't mean it made any sense. People were walking in shit in France for decades and that's why the high heels were invented. Yet the much simpler solution was to improve the fucking infrastructure.

Homosexuality isn't understood how the fuck would you have any steps afterward. The propaganda went from "hate the gays" to "love the gays" in the past hundred years yet nobody actually managed to understand it. That's the absurd part. It's the same with depression, for example, even though there's much more data on how to handle that, yet its still ignored ( obviously thats a whole other topic and not an example to be taken literally as it is a mental problem)

On October 22 2017 17:23 Spitfiree wrote: People were walking in shit in France for decades and that's why the high heels were invented. Yet the much simpler solution was to improve the fucking infrastructure.

how is it simpler though? i think almost anyone who's capable of walking could learn to walk in high heels. but how many people are capable of improving an entire country's infrastructure? that sounds pretty complicated tbh.

What are you even getting at Spitfiree? It isn't "understood" therefore...? Are you proposing something? Spend a bunch of resources to understand and possibly "fix" those "abnormal" people? Surely not.

You know what else isn't understood? The fact that you exist, the fact that all of this exists and how it came to be. And pretty much everything afterward. So what you meant to say is, "the Big Bang and abiogenesis isn't understood therefore how the fuck would you have any steps afterward. Or again, "We don't understand consciousness so therefore you might be thinking you are not mentally ill when in fact you are a diseased and deluded brain in a vat!"

The question is not about openmindedness but about relevance. Is it a relevant question to ask in the first place? We can ask silly, irrelevant questions all day. Why is it relevant to consider homosexuality as a possible illness? I'd argue that it's relevant only if you have some evidence that it's a problem, and you're planning to act upon it. Is it fair to you to say that those who have acted upon it, rather than accepted it for what it is, have not done a lot of good? And what is the evidence that suggests it might be a problem?
Why should we take the idea seriously that homosexuality is a problem? Why should we take it more seriously than the simulation idea I presented?

On October 23 2017 09:06 Loco wrote: What are you even getting at Spitfiree? It isn't "understood" therefore...? Are you proposing something? Spend a bunch of resources to understand and possibly "fix" those "abnormal" people? Surely not. You know what else isn't understood? The fact that you exist, the fact that all of this exists and how it came to be. And pretty much everything afterward. So what you meant to say is, "the Big Bang and abiogenesis isn't understood therefore how the fuck would you have any steps afterward. Or again, "We don't understand consciousness so therefore you might be thinking you are not mentally ill when in fact you are a diseased and deluded brain in a vat!" The question is not about openmindedness but about relevance. Is it a relevant question to ask in the first place? We can ask silly, irrelevant questions all day. Why is it relevant to consider homosexuality as a possible illness? I'd argue that it's relevant only if you have some evidence that it's a problem, and you're planning to act upon it. Is it fair to you to say that those who have acted upon it, rather than accepted it for what it is, have not done a lot of good? And what is the evidence that suggests it might be a problem? Why should we take the idea seriously that homosexuality is a problem? Why should we take it more seriously than the simulation idea I presented?

Because the promotion of the LGBT agenda is costing tax payers money.

I don't know if the LGBT agenda is costing people money, as there would be too many passive factors to evaluate e.g. unrealized profits due to employees not accepting homosexual workforce etc. and it would be an unrealistic and irrelevant opinion without those. What I do know is that you can't also measure the relevance on a topic, which we don't even understand.

And on another note society doesn't really work on relevance, that s a utopia, I agree with you Loco but who is it to say that a certain topic is irrelevant exactly? Considering this is a major topic for decades now, it surely doesn't really strike me as irrelevant either.

I didn't claim that the topic was irrelevant. I specifically asked how you believe it's relevant to consider homosexuality a possible problem ipso facto. It's not the same thing at all. It just seems clear to me like there's no cause for concern (unless they are being harmed, of course).

On October 23 2017 09:19 wobbly_au wrote: Show nested quote + On October 23 2017 09:06 Loco wrote: What are you even getting at Spitfiree? It isn't "understood" therefore...? Are you proposing something? Spend a bunch of resources to understand and possibly "fix" those "abnormal" people? Surely not. You know what else isn't understood? The fact that you exist, the fact that all of this exists and how it came to be. And pretty much everything afterward. So what you meant to say is, "the Big Bang and abiogenesis isn't understood therefore how the fuck would you have any steps afterward. Or again, "We don't understand consciousness so therefore you might be thinking you are not mentally ill when in fact you are a diseased and deluded brain in a vat!" The question is not about openmindedness but about relevance. Is it a relevant question to ask in the first place? We can ask silly, irrelevant questions all day. Why is it relevant to consider homosexuality as a possible illness? I'd argue that it's relevant only if you have some evidence that it's a problem, and you're planning to act upon it. Is it fair to you to say that those who have acted upon it, rather than accepted it for what it is, have not done a lot of good? And what is the evidence that suggests it might be a problem? Why should we take the idea seriously that homosexuality is a problem? Why should we take it more seriously than the simulation idea I presented? Because the promotion of the LGBT agenda is costing tax payers money.

Is that supposed to be an argument? It's just a descriptive statement. What do you suggest? So what if they do? Anti-bullying campaigns cost tax payers money too, do you want them gone everywhere including the schools you'll be sending your children to? I mean, they probably won't need it right? Because their dad is such a tough guy and they're going to be just like daddy. No chance your kids might be LGBT either, you got it all under control I bet.

trying not to get dragged into this thread because it's such a waste of time heh.

I think it is a good thing that tax money is spent on any sort of LGBT agenda. The money is minimal, and they make up something like 4-5% of the population, i guess. 30 years ago homosexuality was decriminalised in my country. if a tiny % of tax money is spent so that 4% of people (who are taxpayers themselves) can freely pursue a significant part of their life, with criminal charges or harassment, or discrimination, then i think that is a very efficient way to spend money. I thought that homosexuals had basically achieved their rights at this point, but if there are still wobblies and spitfires, then i guess i there is still some progress to be made.

ideally we should try to live in a society that maximizes liberty. (not going to get into a political philosophy discussion questioning assumptions on this), and tax money being spent on that is a good thing, and it seems like a very efficient uses of resources because the money spent is insignificant compared to the liberty gained.

Its funny how you managed to insult me and confirm my exact point of view both in the same post.

On October 23 2017 14:29 Loco wrote: I didn't claim that the topic was irrelevant. I specifically asked how you believe it's relevant to consider homosexuality a possible problem ipso facto. It's not the same thing at all. It just seems clear to me like there's no cause for concern (unless they are being harmed, of course). Show nested quote + On October 23 2017 09:19 wobbly_au wrote:   On October 23 2017 09:06 Loco wrote: What are you even getting at Spitfiree? It isn't "understood" therefore...? Are you proposing something? Spend a bunch of resources to understand and possibly "fix" those "abnormal" people? Surely not. You know what else isn't understood? The fact that you exist, the fact that all of this exists and how it came to be. And pretty much everything afterward. So what you meant to say is, "the Big Bang and abiogenesis isn't understood therefore how the fuck would you have any steps afterward. Or again, "We don't understand consciousness so therefore you might be thinking you are not mentally ill when in fact you are a diseased and deluded brain in a vat!" The question is not about openmindedness but about relevance. Is it a relevant question to ask in the first place? We can ask silly, irrelevant questions all day. Why is it relevant to consider homosexuality as a possible illness? I'd argue that it's relevant only if you have some evidence that it's a problem, and you're planning to act upon it. Is it fair to you to say that those who have acted upon it, rather than accepted it for what it is, have not done a lot of good? And what is the evidence that suggests it might be a problem? Why should we take the idea seriously that homosexuality is a problem? Why should we take it more seriously than the simulation idea I presented? Because the promotion of the LGBT agenda is costing tax payers money. Is that supposed to be an argument? It's just a descriptive statement. What do you suggest? So what if they do? Anti-bullying campaigns cost tax payers money too, do you want them gone everywhere including the schools you'll be sending your children to? I mean, they probably won't need it right? Because their dad is such a tough guy and they're going to be just like daddy. No chance your kids might be LGBT either, you got it all under control I bet.

Lol what’s my kids got to do with this? I don’t want my tax money going to trans toilets or gay rights marches or gay parades. So now you are comparing that to basic need such as schooling?

Hard to take your views seriously after this one

On October 23 2017 18:32 Stroggoz wrote: trying not to get dragged into this thread because it's such a waste of time heh. I think it is a good thing that tax money is spent on any sort of LGBT agenda. The money is minimal, and they make up something like 4-5% of the population, i guess. 30 years ago homosexuality was decriminalised in my country. if a tiny % of tax money is spent so that 4% of people (who are taxpayers themselves) can freely pursue a significant part of their life, with criminal charges or harassment, or discrimination, then i think that is a very efficient way to spend money. I thought that homosexuals had basically achieved their rights at this point, but if there are still wobblies and spitfires, then i guess i there is still some progress to be made. ideally we should try to live in a society that maximizes liberty. (not going to get into a political philosophy discussion questioning assumptions on this), and tax money being spent on that is a good thing, and it seems like a very efficient uses of resources because the money spent is insignificant compared to the liberty gained.

I’m all for libertys. Governments should stay out of my life and stop slamming me with lgbt and stop promoting their way of life. Everyone can do as they please if it doesn’t hurt each other but don’t pretend being lgbt is the superior or even normal way to live.

Also just because we were headed in the right direct for the last 30 years doesn’t mean we haven’t done all we can and now gone way too extreme. Proposing trans toilets or decriminalizing the intentional spreading of hiv. Same issue as modern feminists as compared to the much needed movement of the first wave feminists.

You are making this issue personal, my views are so disgusting and different to yours that you feel compelled to insult it. Just because I don’t want my tax money spent on lgbt or female rights or refugees doesn’t mean I don’t like all gays women or Muslims. I’m fine with you not wanting to spend more tax money on things I think are more important.

I especially don’t want lgbt bullshit genders taught in public school which they currently are.

The left are using the cover of being progressive to normalize degenerate and harmful views.

On October 24 2017 00:55 wobbly_au wrote: I especially don’t want lgbt bullshit genders taught in public school which they currently are. The left are using the cover f progressive views to normalize degenerate and harmful views.

Being gay or transgender is not harmful or degenerate.
What bullshit genders are you talking about?

I say it is you say it isn't. (Infinite loop, but I'm okay with that)

Im talking about the nonsense with gender fluidity and how it is being taught in sexed classes. Im talking about Bill Nye representing science education to kids teaching it on netflix. Im talking about parents giving their child and teens hormone therapy. Im talking about the public promotion and normalizing of LGBT.

You all seem to think you're so fucking smart and enlightened.

None of you will sway your views.

What's the fucking point of you guys discussing?

Sounds like a bunch of fucking pots banging against each other to be honest.

On October 21 2017 12:11 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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

we are discussing shit here but I've seen many SJW openly support hard communism, gulags and stuff like that and its arguably an even worse ideology

I'm curious wobbly why do you think gays shouldnt marry?

I mean I disagree but understand the argument about adoption, but mariage? I simply cannot fathom a logical argument that isnt based in crooked morality.

Homosexuality is so facinating from the evolutionary point of view, I've seen Richard Dawkins saying that the theory comes from usually manlier men going hunting and stuff like that while the less masculine men kept more around women and in this way they kept spreading a gene that theoreticallly should dissapear, but that doesnt sound like a solid theory and the incidence is soooo high, it puzzles me.

On October 24 2017 05:15 Baalim wrote: I'm curious wobbly why do you think gays shouldnt marry? I mean I disagree but understand the argument about adoption, but mariage? I simply cannot fathom a logical argument that isnt based in crooked morality.

I think state shouldnt have a say as to who should marry or who shouldn't its the private decision between two consenting people. That said I was connecting marriage with family, if gays marry and dont adopt or do IVF then im all fine for that.