The politicization of gender, sexual orientation play a role in dividing a population.

Well you have multiple topics mixed together, it seems, so it's difficult to give a response that covers them all at once, since I perceive the different topics in different ways.

I think "disorder" and "illness" should refer to conditions that cause suffering and/or an inability to function in life. I think most can agree that homosexuality is an abnormality, but it also doesn't inherently cause the person to suffer, doesn't cause the people around said-person to suffer, and doesn't cause an inability for the person to function. There is also no delusion, cognitive dissonance, thought disorder, etc involved, and so on. Which makes it a non-issue, unless the person feels that their homosexuality was caused by some sort of trauma, in which case the person is suffering and should seek out therapeutic treatment to resolve any unresolved trauma they might have. But in that case, the trauma itself is the underlying, actual problem.

Then it's impossible to conclude whether higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, etc are symptoms of the abnormality that causes homosexuality, or if they are the effects of living in a society that can be very harsh towards people who are homosexual. So this topic becomes a clash of perceptions without the ability to prove/disprove one way or the other. So there isn't much point in focusing on it, since the debates could never lead anywhere conclusive or productive.

Then as a final topic, I do think that government/political powers have been taking advantage of the homosexual community, as far as using them as political pawns to further an irrelevant agenda. Mainly by using shaming and virtue-signaling in an attempt to snuff out critical thinking and free speech. Obviously this is detrimental to society. However, the culprit is not homosexual people, themselves, but rather the puppet masters pulling people's strings. Most people are very vulnerable to being manipulated, homosexual people are no different in this regard. The manipulators deserve our ire, not their manipulated targets.

And if people did apply critical thought to the topic, then again it is as straightforward as I explained above. Pedophiles who act on their urges hurt children, for example. It is not a matter of no harm to self, no harm to others and no loss of ability to function, because the harming others factor is involved.

Applying even more critical thought, since homosexuals are to be considered equals along with everyone else, that means equal responsibility and equal application of the law, not special protection.

So yes obviously there is an agenda at work, but remember that it comes from the puppet masters in all levels of government, not from the clueless puppets, themselves.

A bad personal experience with some horrible members of the LGBT community doesn't justify your rejection towards all of them.

Solid research? I guess our definition of that term may vary quite a bit. Saying that kids in the EU aren´t "allowed" to use the words mom and dad anymore, being forced to replace that with a "genderneutral" term is just outright bogus and made up by you. Such a law exists nowhere in the EU. So much for the "solid research"...

I´d take your opinion more seriously if you managed to stick to proveable facts, not some BS you read "somewhere in the internet"...you´re basically sabotaging your own arguments by using these "facts".

See, that link of yours is exactly what I meant. You´re mistaking an opinion published by a site that is obviously leaning to the right/conservative/negative bias side and mistake anything you read for the truth. A classical echo chamber scenario....you only read what suits your own mind and prejudices.

Your original statement tried to tell us that this "parents/mom and dad" thing is a LAW, now you´re backpedaling right after you provided us with some random link and not the link to some European state´s law books with a paragraph explicitly saying that calling mom and dad mom and dad is punishable under the law. Exactly that kind of reality bending is what will fuck up our world.

To escape filter bubbles, here´s what I propose: Make it a habit to study an opinion, an author or a point of view you totally and completely disagree with. Under all circumstances, refrain from drawing quick conclusions and dismissing the other reality tunnel offered by the first disagreement you run into. And don´t "search" for things confirming your point of view, just work through it with an open mind...you can draw your conclusions afterwards.

You should also get rid of that tin foil hat. There´s no "conspiracy", no secret gay group trying to turn the planet into a giant dark room. Learn the usage of the word "sombunall" (some, but not all"). Let´s see where this little word will lead us:

Instead of the fearmongering "Gays try to homosexualize the entire world", "sombunall homosexuals overdo it with pushing their agenda into society" still accurately describes the situation, but will not build up the angst ridden scenario that obviously is your agenda. Another thing to mention: groups are fiction. Only persons are real. There is no "THE gays", "THE neo-liberals", "THE whatever"....the only thing there is are persons...individuals.

To abbreviate it, here´s my recommendation for you: study Robert Anton Wilson´s books. "Cosmic trigger" is a good start for you, I believe.Read it and try to learn something from it...

Again: I, too, am criticising homosexuality, but there´s one wee thing that you do what I don´t...I don´t live in the illusion that I hold the absolute truth. Nobody knows everything, nobody can know everything. As Wilson has written: "Convictions cause convicts". Once you´re buying your own shit too much, you have fallen into a trap you cannot escape from without a maximum of effort. I do, for example, criticise the transgender thing and wonder why there still are large suicidal tendencies among those with a sex change surgery, although these transpeople should be in perfect unison after that; to me, it seems that the issues of such people lay deeper and the surgery only cures the symptoms of that and don´t solve the actual issue. I don´t go digging up obscure websites confirming my prejudices, no, quite the opposite, I confront myself intentionally with opinions located on the diametral side of the spectrum because I actually want to know what the fuck is going on in our society, on this planet. I don´t expect a certain outcome of my research, I suck up all relevant articles from BOTH sides and try to make sense out of that bulk of opposing data. Just like a scientist doing an experiment, I am open for ANY result, even if this result opposes my own reality tunnel.

The most easy thing to do is identifying a bias in others, but the hardest thing to do is identifying your own bias. Remember: "Convictions cause convicts" ..."He who understands too quick understands nothing". Please, get out of your filter bubble. I´ve no problem discussing homosexuality and how it has changed our society since it became tolerable/acceptable. But please don´t undermine every legit criticism by using these vile alt right tactics. Keep it real, scientific and based on hard facts.

P.S.: You definitely will like R.A. Wilson as he uses the same strategy as you...intentionally mixing actual facts with completely made up bogus bullshit. But Wilson did this to teach his readers his credo of "Think for yourself, fool!", not using it for the opposite as you...

I'd like to make a long comment where I can tell you my opinion about the topics you mention in detail. I'll do when I have time. At least you are open to discussion, and in my opinion so do I, which isn't something very frequent in the Internet.

Funny how someone just downvoted you instead of trying to present reasonable arguments like you did. They probably didn't even care to read all your comment.

Why do you tell me that? I didn't say anything to you. I just pointed out that OP presented reasonable arguments and someone downvoted without even trying to refute him.

To me the issue is that it should never have been made a thing to be "straight". Normal should be default and standard. To introduce a new normal implying that the choice to be straight or gay is somehow a totally innocuous choice that we can just arbitrarily choose violates some very fundamental ethical principles. For instance, if all members of society were to choose to be gay, the end result would not be desirable. We would likely have serious issues with reproduction. This fundamental biological reality cannot be overlooked and certainly isn't something that society should dismiss without a lot more public debate.

What we have basically done is introduce something like religious freedom but then mandate that we teach every religion to the kids as if they are all equal. That fundamentally violates the principles of virtually every religion. So this situation was not tenable.

I completely disagree with the concept of imposing normative social behavior through the medical community so I'm just not even going to go there and address that. But there is a reason that the LGBT agenda has hit a wall and they are going to have to turn on their senses of empathy that are so over-developed and understand that.

Who the fuck chooses to be gay?

I'm actually talking about the choice of embracing your urges or denying them. We all have urges to do lots of things that we don't act on every day. I realize that attraction is rarely a choice, but the act of teaching the next generation that it doesn't matter who our sexual partners are seems a) to possibly be a subversive attempt at population control or b) lack any understanding of how impressionable children are. Telling someone that the choice of sexual partners has no consequences seems to be a bit far fetched.

What consequences does that have? For centuries homosexuality has been persecuted in the West and yet homosexuals have still existed. Meanwhile, in more historically accenting societies like pre-Western influenced China homosexuality never stopped to be a minority. Telling children that homosexuality has no consequences is only meant to reduce bullying and intolerance. Besides, you may choose your partners but you can't choose your preferences. If you are gay you can't just choose to be with someone of the opposite sex without forcing yourself and causing yourself psychological problems.

Yeah I very specifically have an issue with what I believe is an impressionable socialization period in a child's life. I do not feel that teaching the child that there are no consequences is a fair way to treat the child. I mean what you have just said by itself is a huge issue for gay people, let alone the fact that as a parent and human I want my genes to be passed on into the future. So at a basic level we are to impress upon small children info about something that is misleading according to current environment? You just got a bunch of people to barely accept gay marriage and you saw the resistance to that and now you think you are going to get them to accept teaching their kids that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I mean in a lot of cases religions specifically forbid it. It's a HUGE uphill battle that resulted in galvanizing support for its opposition.

Another consequence of all this is that you are having sexual conversations with kids that are much younger than I was when I had talked about it. In TV shows that never really spoke about this type of thing before, we are seeing explicit conversations that far more blatantly discuss sex because well the details here lead to questions for kids now. I have a lot of compassion and for the gay people that want to just be accepted by everyone. But I also have empathy for those that are concerned for the effects that changing sexual socialization might have on our children and families.

I get what you mean. I don't think talking about sex with children is the tight thing to do. We should limit ourselves to tell children that it's ok if a boy likes other boy or a girl likes other girl and that the rest shouldn't treat them like if they were different.

hard to imagine cuz yeah why would you want a dirty hairy butthole rather than a hot pair of tits

but brain chemistry gets out of wack

Ethnocide.

All that you said is true AND let me add this: all the arguments that a gay can use to defend homosexuality can also be used by a pedophile or a zoophile.

P.S. : Why is polygamy illegal if everyone in the couple is consenting?

P.S. : Why is polygamy illegal if everyone in the couple is consenting?

That's an excellent question, but perhaps not in the rhetorical way you intended it.

It's also interesting that you brought up consent, since that is one of the main reasons that arguments in defense of homosexuality do not apply to pedophilia and zoophilia.

Well, applying the consent argument on animals is hypocryte, because we do not have their consent to kill them when we want to eat either, plus i am sure you have already seen videos of dogs trying to "fuck" someone's leg because they are horny, so what if someone fucks with his dog when his dog is in that stage, he in a way has the consent of the animal no? 2nd thing, i do not want to sound weird, but, according to science AND nature itself, it isnt pedophilia if the child has started its puberty (sperm production for boys around 10 years old) and menstruations for girls (around 9) i know it sounds creepy but menstruations mean she is ready to have children. Why do you think girls were getting married at such a low age until late 1700's.

applying the consent argument on animals is hypocryte, because we do not have their consent to kill them when we want to eat either

I pretty much agree. So if you want to be consistent, you have to either decide between "prohibit killing animals" or "allow sex with animals". Which way you want to go on that is up to you. I think we should prohibit both, but I think it will take a long time to get there. But yes, we're in agreement that it is crazy hypocritical to say "oh sure, you can slaughter animals and eat their flesh, but fucking them is a bridge too far".

plus i am sure you have already seen videos of dogs trying to "fuck" someone's leg because they are horny, so what if someone fucks with his dog when his dog is in that stage, he in a way has the consent of the animal no?

Sort of, but not really. I don't want to get too far into the zoophilia part of this argument, since I think we both agree that it shouldn't be allowed. But the long and short of it is that animals don't have the language and understanding necessary to give consent, and humans are generally not able to tell with any degree of certainty whether or not an animal is consenting.

One more note: if a human is dancing and grinding with you, that is not the same as consent. It is not the same thing as permission to grope them or fuck them.

2nd thing, i do not want to sound weird, but, according to science AND nature itself, it isnt pedophilia if the child has started its puberty (sperm production for boys around 10 years old) and menstruations for girls (around 9) i know it sounds creepy but menstruations mean she is ready to have children. Why do you think girls were getting married at such a low age until late 1700's.

You're right that precision of terms is important. We can talk about statutory rape instead of pedophilia if you want. The arguments about consent and power dynamics are pretty much the same though.

The thing is that even very young children are developing sexually. We like to think of them as asexual, but that's actually not the case. This is most obvious with teenagers, but it's true even of much younger children. But this does not mean that it is OK to have sexual contact with them. There are a lot of reasons for this, although we could put them all under the umbrella of "it causes a lot of psychological harm, and it's our job as adults to protect children from psychological harm". If we want to get more specific, we can talk, as I said, about consent and power dynamics.

This is often simplified to "children are unable to give consent", and while that's a useful shorthand, I think it causes some problems because it opens the door for arguments like "Oh, but she's a really mature 14-year-old". Those arguments are bullshit, but I can see how someone might think they're reasonable given the "children are unable to consent" argument combined with the fact that psychological development is not uniform amongst kids. This is why looking at power dynamics, the craving that children have for adult approval, and their desire to be "grown up" can be more useful. Those are (some of the) reasons that a child may endure abuse and appear to consent, even though they're experiencing trauma. And they're some of the major reasons that it's important to prohibit adult/child sexual contact.

Your comment looks like a longer version followed with different words but has the same meaning as mine lol.

OK, but it seems that there is a point of disagreement, since you said that the same arguments that work in defense of homosexuality can be used to defend pedophilia and zoophilia. What do you think that difference is?

No i just wanted to say that the author of the post is right.

Okay, I'm going to answer this as best I can, no insults, though I feel you will dismiss anything I say.

I will just say that scientific declarations have often been founded on pandering since ancient days. Eugenics was because racists wanted a reason to be racist. And loads of other malarkey throughout time. Science is done by people and people will skew results for their own end.

Also: You act like wide acceptance of homosexuality is a new thing. During Samurai Japan; people debated hotly whether loving a man or a woman was better, and felt loving women made you more feminine. It was genuinely weird not to have ever had a same sex lover.

The ancient Greeks; the so called fathers of scientific thought trumpeted same sex preferences, as did the Persians and even the Middle East had several famous gay men.

In medieval America; people who would be labeled Trans today were common as was homosexual practice in many tribes/cultures from the Aztecs to the Algonquin

There are several Myths all over the world of Men turning into women and Vice Versa that they are too many to count. Along with myths of homosexual gods.

So this has been around for a long time and rather like race; fluctuates a lot in acceptance or not. We went through a long period in this culture of not accepting it. Now we do. So things change. Very likely in a few hundred years things will switch again.

Now you get to the science aspect. There are animals that only engage in same sex coupling across the board. Even in monogamous or mate for life species. Some of this can be called aggressive domination, but that doesn't explain say, Duds which are rams that only mate with other male rams. Or Swans that will deliberately trick a female swan so they can raise children together. Fact is homosexuality is part of nature. We don't know why; but it is and exists in most animals on the planet. It may be a failsafe that those with unsuitable genes won't mate, a way to prevent overpopulation, it could be like some species and allow bisexuals to attract more of the opposite sex; it could be a mutation like heterochromatic eyes, but it exists in enormous amounts in the natural world.

You also seem to have a misunderstanding of Evolution having a sort of divine will. Sometimes evolution actually leads to a species downfall and doesn't necessarily produce something better. This is a common misunderstanding outside actual scientific study, but I highly suggest you read up on it, as it is fascinating stuff and can put an end to much of the pseudoscience we tend to assign to evolution.

The basics: homosexuality itself does not harm either party unless other issues exist. Something that must exist to be a mental illness. None of the issues mentioned are universally part of homosexuality and differ a great deal on the individual. Ergo not mental illness. Does Homosexual behavior make one more susceptible to these issues? That is a different case entirely. But so does being poor; and last I checked, being poor is not a mental illness.

I think we can figure out where the normalisation process is taking us. Everywhere. Everywhere you never wanted to be and never thought we'd go.

this is off topic and only about normalisation. I am old and remember the first fake boobs, shaven privates, facelifts, bleached hair and teeth. First sights was, what is that, that is just weird ? Now it is everywhere and made normal.

Yea, everything in society trends towards something just a little more shallow or a little more fake or makes something that isn't normal into something that we either have to call normal (against our instincts) or be seen as a hater. I don't think any of this ever organic. There are people that set these trends that society adopts. We really are headed somewhere we don't want to go.

It's in the Protocols. Fwiw.

Edit: Downvotes? Go fuck yourself. Whether or not you like it, it's in the God-damned Protocols.

[deleted]

Yes i agree. Anal sex is not natural at all. And i understand the whole point of humans freedom of choice and we grow and evolve blah blah blah, but its really starting to remind me of the movie Caligula out there.

The amount of blatant sexual propaganda and normalisation within hollywood and other industries is fucked up.

Destruction of the family unit is marxism 101

You obviously never read Marx´ "Das Kapital" or "Das kommunistische Manifest if you say that..."post factual", as it is called now.

Although I agree on some parts of this text, it is stuffed with half-truths, blatant lies and prejudices presented as facts. I´m not a friend of homosexuality myself, but I can smell bullshit from quite a distance.

Why is everyone always bringing up Germany as an example when it comes to refugees (a.k.a. muslims)? As far as I know, you people should be in perfect unison with the radical branch of Islam, they "cure" homosexuality in a way that you sad persons wish you could "apply" to gays yourselves subconsciously....with a nice sword strike, right? So, the "Islamisation of Germany" that I seem to be completely missing out on although I actually LIVE in Germany is just the usual fear mongering from people who only parrot what their filter bubble is amplifying, with the typical lack of actual knowledge.

I repeat: I do agree on some of your criticism. I, too, think that the LGBT has lost its core ideas and even some of the Stonewall riot veterans are ashamed what their movement has become. I absolutely support people going out into the streets demonstrating because the only reason of being thrown in jail is their sexual orientation. Locking up the "unnormal" won´t solve any problems, folks; plus it´s not very far away from what the radical muslims do. The old and worn out "Out of sight, out of mind" attitude won´t do shit...

Nonetheless some of the criticism is valid. I can understand all the people feeling "rushed" by the LGBT agenda, I too have my experiences with criticising homosexuals, breaking a new taboo; I too feel that the original LGBT goal of equality does not play the main role anymore.

BTW: When the first few refugees arrived in Germany, one case of a German (!) abducting a refugee boy (!!), raping and killing him was in the news. That case is factchecked and true....the case of a refugee raping a German kid is NOT! I don´t know where you have your info from, but I can almost predict that the website you got it from starts with a "b"....and continues "...reitbart".

Calling the media "Lügenpresse", but instrumentalizing exactly those "post factual" disinformation tactics you accuse the media of is just plain pathetic and speaks volumes, my friend...

I´m totally open to discuss all the issues involved in homosexuality, but I´d like to keep it real and factual. And you should , too if you really want to find out the truth and not just confirming your own prejudices. Trying to undo some lies with even bigger lies is what 8-year olds would do...are you one?

[deleted]

Well, anal sex isn't something particular of homosexuals and male homosexuality isn't necessarily tied to anal sex. So I don't really get your point. Anyways, how is the anus not "designed" to sexual intercourse when the male G-spot is accessible precisely through the anus?

Anal sex is tied to homosexuality in particular male homosexuality. Why? Because you cant have vaginal sex. What would be the point of not ass fucking? Just to suck each others cocks? I would assume that a larger percentage of male homosexuals perform assplay to not performing assplay. Thsts kind of the point to sexuality, is to have sex. Gay men can only have oral and anal.

And just because weve found a "g-spot" in our assholes doesnt mean it was created for gay men to have more pleasurable anal sex.

If you think that sex is just penetration and oral then I'm sorry for your sexual partners, man. Lesbians cam have sex without the need of any penetration at all, for example. The thing is that there's this false believe that it's only sex if there's penetration. That's why gay men perform anal and why heterosexual couples have vaginal sex most of the time. Humans (just like other animals) have many ways of getting sexual pleasure and all of them are completely natural. Anyways, what's so wrong about anal? I mean, yes, it can cause serious issues if you don't do things properly, but if you do both the penetrator and the penetrated satisfy themselves. What's wrong with that? It doesn't affect anyone.

Well i wasnt talking about lesbians munching each others carpets.

The point im trying to make simply is that gay men can not bear children. You can not impregnate someone via anal. The natural reasoning for sex, and why it feels really good for any human or animal, is reproduction. Gay men can not reproduce. And by hollywood and the Entertainment industry normalizing not just gay sex but a whole swath of very uncommon sexual acts, could be detrimental to society. Similar to Rome or something, thats why i originally said it reminds me of Caligula.

Now this is not to say that gay marriage shouldnt be legal, because honestly i could gove two fucks. No pun intended

It's a common misconception to think that sex is only meant to be for reproduction. Otherwise, animals wouldn't have that many ways of getting sexual pleasure different from penis-vagina penetration, as I already said before. And if homosexuals are abnormal just because they can't reproduce, most people are abnormal as well because they don't have sex to reproduce as well. That's, by the way, a very Christian morality. Christianity considers that the only sex act that isn't a perversion is the one whose only objective is to have children. I hope you agree that we can't expect everyone to follow some religion's values.

I understand that humans have grown into beings that like pleasure. The point of sex IS reproduction. Sex feels good, so the species wants to reproduce.

And i have to say that most animals in the world, more than likely, only have sexual pleasure via vaginal intercourse. Ive never seen a dog fuck another dog in its ass. Never saw any animals screw the same gender. Not to say that doesnt happen, but if it does, its not common at all.

This is the point im trying to make. The more and more humans "normalize" not just gay sex but extremely wierd fetishes like incest or even pedophilia(yes, just read Salon) can be extremely harmful to our society.

I know this is not the exact same but its somewhat similar. China enacts a one child policy, now they dont have enough children and young workers to pay the elders social security. If we normalize sexual acts that confuse people and really distance people from reproducing and the want to reproduce, we could all be fucked.

And i remember a douchey liberal on Bill Mahers douchey liberal show one time said that he wants people to not have children for the next 30 years because of "over population". This is the type of thinking thats dangerous.

Same-sex sexual relations are documented in more than a thousand species. And sex has way more natural functions in animals: relieving stress, establishing social roles and ties, creating emotional bonds, etc. Some species of animals like bonobos (apes considered to be the most genetically similar animals to humans) are known to be organised around sex and the emotional bonds it creates.

And, well, homosexual population doesn't magically grow just because we accept them. If we have to blame someone for the aging and decrease of the population of developed countries is heterosexual people who don't have children or, if they have them, they have one or two and when they're in their late 30s or early 40s. I mean, this problem is also happening in countries like South Korea and Japan where homosexuality is far from being accepted.

I met a gay guy he said he never did anal sex but just like oral sex. at least that made sense

Yeah I very specifically have an issue with what I believe is an impressionable socialization period in a child's life. I do not feel that teaching the child that there are no consequences is a fair way to treat the child. I mean what you have just said by itself is a huge issue for gay people, let alone the fact that as a parent and human I want my genes to be passed on into the future. So at a basic level we are to impress upon small children info about something that is misleading according to current environment? You just got a bunch of people to barely accept gay marriage and you saw the resistance to that and now you think you are going to get them to accept teaching their kids that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I mean in a lot of cases religions specifically forbid it. It's a HUGE uphill battle that resulted in galvanizing support for its opposition.

Another consequence of all this is that you are having sexual conversations with kids that are much younger than I was when I had talked about it. In TV shows that never really spoke about this type of thing before, we are seeing explicit conversations that far more blatantly discuss sex because well the details here lead to questions for kids now. I have a lot of compassion and for the gay people that want to just be accepted by everyone. But I also have empathy for those that are concerned for the effects that changing sexual socialization might have on our children and families.