But could it shape our sexuality?

9 year old drag kids

I think that should answer it...

Shitty parents will do anything for attention.

"Too young to choose bedtime, old enough to choose gender"

Another question: Couldnt someone who has had a rough past stumble into the LGBT community and find solace in their acceptance and then have their sexuality become a product of their environment?

I'll answer this one because I can share the personal experience of a good friend who had a traumatic sexual experience with a man, very early on in her life.

She partially attributes being a lesbian, to the incident.

She has also confirmed that there are quite a few (she reckons at least 5%) in the LGBT community with similar circumstances.

Every lesbian I know has told me they experienced traumatic sexual experiences with men in their past. Every one of them.

Gay male here, no traumatic childhood experiences here...

Yeah, my experience is a lot different from some others posted here. I always knew something was off (like, as a kid you see a straight couple kiss on tv or wherever, it never felt "right" to me if that makes sense) by about 7th grade I realized this is who I am and just hid it from friends and family. When I was 17 I came out (to almost everyone's surprise), everyone's supportive. I don't make my sexual identity a huge part of my overall identity, after all, its just who I like to fuck.

I think that there are many people (not just lgbt) that have their sexual identity at the core of their identity, which is why we see all the crazy regressive left stuff coming out now.

My experience is likely pretty different from a lot of gay men. In my day to day life I think most people assume I'm straight. I wasn't bullied heavily and haven't experienced any discrimination (other than Mormons at my high school, but nothing of value was lost there)

Same.

Good. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Same.

Every straight woman I personally know has told me they experienced traumatic sexual experiences with men in their past. Every one of them.

I mean...

Well, I imagine you hang around with a ton of liberals, so I am not surprised.

And you've managed to get contacts in that ever-so-thriving community of right-wing lesbians, I take it.

Your claim is that every straight woman you know has been raped by a man. And you wanted me to take that seriously?

It borders on impossibility and here is why:

Homosexuality is rare. Heterosexuality is not. You likely know 1000x times as many straight women as you would gay women. And you want to claim that every single one of them were raped?

It just makes you a liar.

On the other hand, I've personally known perhaps a dozen or two gay people and every one of them told me that they had been raped or molested.

Some straight women I personally know have told me this. Not all of them. It doesn't even match national statistics.

If you are going to just obviously lie, don't bother engaging with me anymore.

traumatic sexual experiences

C'mon man.

What gays are you meeting that're just throwing the fact that they were raped at you?

Bye

Give those far-right lesbos my regards, y'hear.

Honestly when you live a life without thumbing in your political leaning in every conversation, you'll realize that you can make friends of all leanings.

Just because people lean right, doesn't mean they solely nhang out with right leaning people. What kind of bubble you living on over there?

what? ive never ever been molested and had a great childhood

Did I say that you did?

no but since you saying every single gay person you met has been, you can see how someone would think that you would extrapolate that to thinking every gay person was

Would be a lot better for everyone involved if we could look at surveys and studies rather than personal anecdotes for this stuff.

This subreddit is supposed to be a community focused on truth, so let's look at whatever data and facts we can find and set a better example for everyone who claims to be interested in the truth.

(Yes, science has bias and she studies are BS. Still better than personal anecdotes for stuff like this.)

I have a family member that's gay. When we were teenagers, he wasn't gay. He had crushes on several different girls. Maybe the embarrassment of getting turned down had something to do with it, idk. It can be traumatic to get your heart crushed by the girl you're in love with

My older brother claims he knew he was "different" from a young age. Like as young as 3. He didnt claim he knew he was gay he just said he felt different as early as 3. He took some girls on dates in high school and had a crush on a girl in college. I also remember finding sports illustrated swimsuit issue between his mattress and box spring. But now he dates men.

Until we was about 13 my dad wasnt very involved in his life because he worked so much and I have to ask myself if that had anything to do with it.

I feel like you stopped the story just as it was starting to get juicy. Well, why do you think you may have had a hand in it?

I see where you're coming from.

Friggoff, Ricky

username checks out

So what? We all make choices consciously or not about who we want to date and how we do it. Why would LGBT decisions be significant?

Because there seems to be a push by the LGBT community to change our way of thinking. A push for acceptance and equal rights I can understand but we're way beyond that at this point.

All of the things in the media about trans children seems very disturbing to me. And I dont understand the "pride" movement. It seems like a need to be constantly validated. Why cant gay people just be in relationships without having parades?

I just got back from Portland Oregon and every business (even banks) have some sort or sticker or sign in their window or inside stating how their establishment is a safe space for LGBT folks. I dont understand this need to be constantly validated.

Maybe they'll just be satisfied with being in relationships and living their lives when they're not targeted for violence and legislation.

The transgender military ban, rescinding protections for trans students in federal schools, dismantling the Hiv/aids presidential advisory council, the justice department arguing that sexual orientation is not a protected civil right.

Court may have overruled it but Trump has issued a new ban and in effect it is till happening. Source1 Source2

Federal school is a public school that receives federal funding, whether or not you think there are valid reasons it's a right that's being taken back. Official Doc

Dismantling a group that directly influences policy and government decision is a huge blow to ongoing research.

Jeff Sessions' legal dept is arguing that it isn't source

But even if everything was equal and good for LGBT people (which it isn't) society fought that progress for many years and they're entitled to be proud of overcoming their obstacles despite some people (you) insisting they're delusional.

They aren't. You have no "valid" concerns.

Why cant gay people just be in relationships and live their lives without having parades?

You honestly don't know the answer to that question?

If you think the LGBT community is now treated equally with no more targeted harassment you need to get out more. There even still very few pro athletes that have come out because of the stigma.

Depends on where you live. The town my wife is from had a coffee shop opened by a gay couple. They were politely told to leave by the populace with a few veiled threats to follow. They left quickly. This is in the Chicago suburbs.

The T side of LGBT still faces a lot of violence.

And that's ignoring that their rights aren't equal - being gay or trans isn't a protected status in all states and can cost you your job, your home, and a bunch of other things.

Mate I know too many people of the community who have been harassed and assaulted because of their orientation.

I get that the LGBT community was treated unequally under law but we now have the same rights.

Perhaps you should research that before you make such a statement?

Known as the “Freedom to Serve Children Act,” Texas House Bill 3859 allows state-funded child welfare agencies in that state to discriminate against prospective parents on the basis of faith. The legislation, penned by Republican Rep. James Frank, prevents the state from taking “adverse action” against any service provider that acts in accordance with its ,“sincerely held religious beliefs.”

While I agree the bill is silly it isn't an attack specifically on LGBT folks. And it isn't denying anyone access to the services they need. The bill puts a requirement on any organization refusing to provide services to put people in contact with an organization that can help them.

It literally is a bill designed to keep children out of the hands of LGBT families.

I'm not commenting on the moral nature of those bills - I'm simply stating that what you originally said is demonstrably false.

But LGBT folks have access to all public orhanizations that offer the same services. And there are even private organizations that offer these services and aren't faith based that they can use.

I just want to make sure I understand - discrimination and prejudice is fine so long as there are other avenues to pursue?

I get the idea of your original post, that people may or may not be influenced by popular culture (I'm not saying I agree/disagree - I'm just saying that your statement is worthy of discussion for sure). But to make all of these bold claims that are clearly incorrect doesn't bolster your argument at all.

I dont think discrimination is ok. But I do believe that a private organization heavily funded by churches should be allowed to operate based on their convictions whether they're valid or not. And be protected from costly legal action that takes money away from providing the services that benefit many other people and families.

These "private" organizations are often also state-funded (see Oklahoma, South Dakota, etc.). So, now we're looking at state-endorsed discrimination based on religious beliefs. In addition, many, if not most, receive grants from non-religious entities. If they were some small Catholic charity/adoption agency, I could see the validity of your argument - but that's rarely, if ever, the case. What's happening is LGBT families are approaching major adoption agencies and being turned away for their identity - that's un-American. All in all, what results is a very, very dangerous slippery slope. Additionally, while this is very obviously aimed at LGBT families, the implications for interfaith (or even non-religious) families are just as terrible. Should atheists or Muslims or, in some cases, Unitarian Universalists, be denied the opportunity to adopt a child? At the end of the day, what it really means, sadly, is that the children that they are supposedly tasked with helping will suffer - I guess if we're all okay with that, cool.

Again, I get the idea/perspective of your original argument - but this topic, affirming state-endorsed discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, is not the hill you want to die on.

But LGBT folks have access to all public orhanizations that offer the same services.

And just a few decades ago, black people had their own water fountains.

It was literally a bill designed to respect the rights of both people.

Freedom to Serve Children Act

The bill was designed to "protect" religious entities from having to serve all persons, regardless of identity. It does, in fact, prevent LGBT couples (and inter-faiths, atheists, basically anyone that doesn't fall within their range of identity) from being able to adopt children. Sure, they could go through alternative agencies, spend thousands and thousands more than heterosexual/Christian couples, but that doesn't sound very American, does it?

It does, in fact, prevent LGBT couples

No. It doesn't. It prevents them from receiving service from one group of providers.

It also respects the rights of people with religious convictions which state that they are literally sinning if they participate in your sin.

it is literally the most compassionate answer to the problem.

You know, you would probably be able to get a little further with others if you stopped assuming that it is always bigotry. It isn't. Christian beliefs call it a sin. We are told to love the sinner and hate the sin. I have NO hatred in my heart for anyone that is gay. None. It's not bigotry. But forcing me to violate my beliefs and my right to religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st amendment, which tell me that I would be sinning by participating in your sin is a problem. You should be respectful of that if you want others to be respectful of your lifestyle.

You can feel that God is a fantasy and that I am silly for believing in a man in the sky, but I still have a 1st amendment right.

If in the very unlikely case of no service providers being willing to help a gay couple adopt, then I would be right there with you demanding that they validate their claim to religious objection. It is incredibly unlikely however. Nothing would prevent a non-religious agency from opening up to serve gay, atheist, etc.. couples. If religious extremists showed up to shut it down, I would be standing beside you fighting against it.

No. It doesn't. It prevents them from receiving service from one group of providers.

This is the same argument people used to justify business owners not serving persons of color back a few decades back. Its a sly wink towards discrimination without coming straight out and saying it. It's intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

You know, you would probably be able to get a little further with others if you stopped assuming that it is always bigotry. It isn't. Christian beliefs call it a sin. We are told to love the sinner and hate the sin. I have NO hatred in my heart for anyone that is gay. None. It's not bigotry. But forcing me to violate my beliefs and my right to religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st amendment, which tell me that I would be sinning by participating in your sin is a problem. You should be respectful of that if you want others to be respectful of your lifestyle.

No one but you has used the term bigot. I called the law discriminatory which, by definition, it is as it discriminates from providing services to a certain type of person. I'm also not disrespecting your Christian beliefs - nor, to my knowledge, is anyone in this thread doing so.

You can feel that God is a fantasy and that I am silly for believing in a man in the sky, but I still have a 1st amendment right.

No one commented on your belief in God or suggested it was simply a "fantasy". And I absolutely agree that you have the 1st amendment right to believe in whatever you'd like to believe. But if I started believing that God didn't want me to serve straight people in my restaurant, I would be - rightfully - legally reprimanded.

If in the very unlikely case of no service providers being willing to help a gay couple adopt, then I would be right there with you demanding that they validate their claim to religious objection. It is incredibly unlikely however. Nothing would prevent a non-religious agency from opening up to serve gay, atheist, etc.. couples. If religious extremists showed up to shut it down, I would be standing beside you fighting against it. Just like bakeries refusing to bake you a wedding cake. If it were every bakery that refused and you had no alternatives, then I would stand and fight with you. It just isn't likely to happen.

Again, that's the sort of "separate but equal" stuff that is so very, very dangerous - and ultimately, un-American.

This is the same argument people used to justify business owners not serving persons of color back a few decades back.

No, it literally isn't. The bible doesn't say anywhere on any page that it is a sin to serve black people.

I would advise you that this is considered offensive to black people. It isn't even in the same ballpark.

I called the law discriminatory which, by definition, it is as it discriminates from providing services to a certain type of person.

Yet, you want a law that will discriminate against Christians by forcing them to violate their religion beliefs.

No one but you has used the term bigot.

I hate to inform you, but I am participating in other discussions where they are in fact calling Christians bigots. You aren't using the term, but your very words are defining their actions as bigotry.

But if I started believing that God didn't want me to serve straight people in my restaurant, I would be - rightfully - legally reprimanded.

Yet, this actually does happen. Gay coffee shops have refused service to prayer groups. And no, they don't get in legal trouble for it. And I don't believe that they should.

Can you take a step back for just one moment and try to be rational about this?

No law is just that has to take a right away from one group to give a right to another. Something has to be done to protect everyone's rights.

If you aren't willing to take a step back and consider what I am saying, then you are simply displaying an unwillingness to be compassionate to others. You should expect none in return.

If you are willing to take a step back, then propose something that doesn't violate either group's rights.

No, it literally isn't. The bible doesn't say anywhere on any page that it is a sin to serve black people. I would advise you that this is considered offensive to black people. It isn't even in the same ballpark.

You must have misread my statement - I didn't claim anything about the Bible providing for the right to discriminate against black people. What I said was the idea of allowing one business to opt out of serving one population is the same argument that was used back in the 1950's and 1960's.

Yet, you want a law that will discriminate against Christians by forcing them to violate their religion beliefs.

Again, you're not reading what I write - no where have I suggested enacting a law that would "discriminate" against Christians. What I said was that Christians using the law to justify discriminatory business practices is, by definition, discrimination and un-American. I'm sorry that you disagree with me on this.

I hate to inform you, but I am participating in other discussions where they are in fact calling Christians bigots. You aren't using the term, but your very words are defining their actions as bigotry.

Wait - so now I'm responsible for what others are saying about you? That doesn't even make sense. You'd like me to apologize - and hold myself responsible - for people on Reddit who said mean things to you?

Yet, this actually does happen. Gay coffee shops have refused service to prayer groups. And no, they don't get in legal trouble for it. And I don't believe that they should.

I'm not saying you're wrong...but I couldn't find a single instance of this using a search engine. Do you have any examples of this occurring?

Also, holding a prayer group isn't the same as denying service. A coffee shop isn't required to hold an event for anyone as far as I can tell - an event hall, however, may be a bit different.

Can you take a step back for just one moment and try to be rational about this? No law is just that has to take a right away from one group to give a right to another. Something has to be done to protect everyone's rights. If you aren't willing to take a step back and consider what I am saying, then you are simply displaying an unwillingness to be compassionate to others. You should expect none in return. If you are willing to take a step back, then propose something that doesn't violate either group's rights.

I am more than willing to take a step back, be rational, and consider what you're saying. In fact, that is the very idea of debate/discussion and one of the reasons why I enjoy this subreddit. But, despite considering what you are saying, I fundamentally disagree with your argument (and for the record, I also really object to the several instances in which you've wrongfully accused me of doing something).

What I said was the idea of allowing one business to opt out of serving one population is the same argument that was used back in the 1950's and 1960's.

I don't think that I am supporting that position at all. The point is that one party in THIS particular situation is a religious group with 1st amendment rights to consider.

I 100% understand the concern that it could be used by all agencies to deny the right entirely to gay couples. I am denying that that could happen. I would say if it did happen, then the agencies should be challenged to prove their moral objection.

I also really don't think it would happen because a provider would spring up to service this market. That's just capitalism.

It's a difficult situation. I don't deny that. But both sides must consider both sides to find something that is fair.

Again, you're not reading what I write - no where have I suggested enacting a law that would "discriminate" against Christians.

I am not misreading what you are writing, I am telling you the logical conclusion of your position. I am sure you do not want to violate their rights. But you would be if you forced them to service gay couples. It's the conclusion. If you want them to be forced to serve gay couples then you are forcing them to violate their beliefs. It doesn't matter if that is your intention or not. It is the end result.

Wait - so now I'm responsible for what others are saying about you?

No no. Not at all. Slow down. I pointed out that the arguments you were using pointed to bigotry as being the motive. You didn't use the words, but you used the definition. You said no one was using the term bigot. I was simply letting you know that some were using that word, yes. Not you. I even said "Not you".

I'm not saying you're wrong...but I couldn't find a single instance of this using a search engine. Do you have any examples of this occurring?

Yes, but you have to understand not to instantly discredit the sources. As I said, it is not something they will get in legal trouble about and the media really doesn't have an interest to cover it, but there is video:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/video-gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-christians-out-of-his-shop/

If you require more evidence, I will provide it. But I don't think it is especially important. I don't think the coffee shop owners should get in trouble and I support their right, to be honest.

Also, holding a prayer group isn't the same as denying service. A coffee shop isn't required to hold an event for anyone as far as I can tell - an event hall, however, may be a bit different.

So then did you think it was right that the Christian bakers were sued for not agreeing to make a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding even though he was willing to sell them any other pre-made cake?

Did you support the Christian ranch owner that was sued for refusing to allow a gay wedding on her property?

I suggest you think about that one a little more.

I am more than willing to take a step back, be rational, and consider what you're saying. In fact, that is the very idea of debate/discussion and one of the reasons why I enjoy this subreddit. But, despite considering what you are saying, I fundamentally disagree with your argument (and for the record, I also really object to the several instances in which you've wrongfully accused me of doing something).

I respect that. I think the assumption that I was accusing you is a misunderstanding. I was certainly not trying to. You have been very civil.

I 100% understand the concern that it could be used by all agencies to deny the right entirely to gay couples. I am denying that that could happen. I would say if it did happen, then the agencies should be challenged to prove their moral objection. I also really don't think it would happen because a provider would spring up to service this market. That's just capitalism. It's a difficult situation. I don't deny that. But both sides must consider both sides to find something that is fair.

This idea that we have to give equal support to "both" sides, especially when one of those sides is spouting discriminatory beliefs, is problematic. All people are created equal but, sadly, not all ideas are. We have to use available rationale and logic in order to interpet someone's personal beliefs - otherwise, we are at the mercy of those who have the dominant belief system. As a fellow conspiracy theorist, I would hope you would recognize the danger of mandating a dominant belief system (even if that belief system is Christian).

I am not misreading what you are writing, I am telling you the logical conclusion of your position. I am sure you do not want to violate their rights. But you would be if you forced them to service gay couples. It's the conclusion. If you want them to be forced to serve gay couples then you are forcing them to violate their beliefs. It doesn't matter if that is your intention or not. It is the end result.

If you subscribe to a system of beliefs that dictates who you can and cannot serve, maybe you shouldn't own a business in the service industry. Technically, the Bible condemns adultery, work on Sunday, and mixed fabrics. I don't see any businesses rushing to prohibit people that engage in those behaviors from their offerings.

No no. Not at all. Slow down. I pointed out that the arguments you were using pointed to bigotry as being the motive. You didn't use the words, but you used the definition. You said no one was using the term bigot. I was simply letting you know that some were using that word, yes. Not you. I even said "Not you".

This whole process has involved me responding to your replies to my original comment. I did not, and do not, continue to watch the entire thread for additional posts. I'm sorry people are calling you a bigot - but, frankly, it's not my problem.

Yes, but you have to understand not to instantly discredit the sources. As I said, it is not something they will get in legal trouble about and the media really doesn't have an interest to cover it, but there is video: https://www.conservativereview.com/news/video-gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-christians-out-of-his-shop/

That, truly, is a sad, sad example. And thanks for actually providing an example of what you're claiming. I can't really say anything more about it as to do so would suggest I'm attempting to justify it. There's no justification for their behavior and I truly hope the business paid for it - either legally or in terms of business loss.

So then did you think it was right that the Christian bakers were sued for not agreeing to make a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding even though he was willing to sell them any other pre-made cake? Did you support the Christian ranch owner that was sued for refusing to allow a gay wedding on her property?

Yes, I do "believe" it was "right" for Christian bakers, who are claiming to be a business in the United States but then proceed to discriminate based on their own personal beliefs, to be sued for discriminatory practices. In addition, if a Christian ranch owner advertises their business as a venue space for wedding, it is legally, ethically and morally wrong for said owner to decide who is and is not allowed to utilize their services. That's not how business, or even capitalism, works. I even think what happened to Sarah Huckabee Sanders was illegal and unethical - she is a person, regardless of her political or professional affiliations, and she deserves to be treated as such.

Now, personally, if a Christian baker refused service to me on account of my sexuality, I can't say that I would sue them. I would ensure the rest of the community were aware of their attempt to discriminate and would happily engage in any public and legal effort to negatively impact their business. As is my legal right. But, no, I wouldn't sue.

I respect that. I think the assumption that I was accusing you is a misunderstanding. I was certainly not trying to. You have been very civil.

Nope - no misunderstanding. It's in black and white - you accused me of calling you a bigot (which I did not) and then accused me of suggesting there was a passage in the Bible that explicitly allowed for the discriminatory practices of business owners based on race (which I never suggested). I will say that, in terms of interpretation, plenty of people have used Christianity to justify racist beliefs. There was a large split in traditional Christianity in 1845 when southern Baptists were attempting to link a passage from Genesis to their racist beliefs about the morality of slavery. The book of Romans has also been used to justify racist belief systems, most notably in Nazi Germany. It was wrong then and is still wrong today. But, no, the Bible does not explicitly justify racism or discrimination against the LGBT community and your attempts to suggest I am doing so are wrong.

I think you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest in attempt to justify your Christian-persecution complex and I think your argument - namely that Christians have the right to discriminate - is logically and ethically flawed. But, hey, this whole thread was originally about a conspiratorial theory that LGBT equality is an attempt to turn everyone gay. Can we get back to that topic?

This idea that we have to give equal support to "both" sides, especially when one of those sides is spouting discriminatory beliefs, is problematic.

You are the fringe. Pissing off and targeting the majority who you need on your side is not exactly a smart strategy. The gay community did not accomplish all these things on their own.

If you subscribe to a system of beliefs that dictates who you can and cannot serve, maybe you shouldn't own a business in the service industry.

Sounds tolerant. "If you hold religious believes, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the American dream. Maybe you should go hide in a closet."

Technically, the Bible condemns adultery, work on Sunday, and mixed fabrics. I don't see any businesses rushing to prohibit people that engage in those behaviors from their offerings.

So what makes you think this baker participated in adultery, opened their shop on Sundays, or used mixed fabrics?

Yes, I do "believe" it was "right" for Christian bakers, who are claiming to be a business in the United States but then proceed to discriminate based on their own personal beliefs, to be sued for discriminatory practices.

They targeted them specifically because they knew the shop was owned by Christians. I honestly thought you were rational and civil. I was mistaken.

Nope - no misunderstanding. It's in black and white - you accused me of calling you a bigot

Here's what I said:

I hate to inform you, but I am participating in other discussions where they are in fact calling Christians bigots. You aren't using the term, but your very words are defining their actions as bigotry.

I did not walk that back. I did not say you were calling me a bigot. Not even once.

and then accused me of suggesting there was a passage in the Bible that explicitly allowed for the discriminatory practices of business owners based on race (which I never suggested).

In the context of the conversation, you most certainly did. I told you that Christians believed it is a sin to participate in sinful activities and that it is not bigotry or hatred. You said:

This is the same argument people used to justify business owners not serving persons of color back a few decades back.

You did indeed attempt to compare my SPECIFIC argument with what happened with black people.

I let your denial slide for civility sake.

I think you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest in attempt to justify your Christian-persecution complex

I think you are just exposing that you are not as civil or rational as you pretended to be. Apparently you expected to take advantage of my civility to change my mind with the facade and when you realized you couldn't, your serpent tongue comes out.

Goodbye

Have a great one, friend!

The Supreme Court decision just a few weeks ago clearly contradicts this argument.

I know there are shitty people that hate the LGBT community but I dont think, in the United States, that gay folks are actually worried about their safety.

Whether you agree or "believe" in the LGBT community, trans people experience violence and crime at much higher rates.

I'm not sure that's a measurable statement - do you have any information on it?

You are correct. That is a portion.

Most likely a very, VERY small portion and utter nonsense that ascribes the blame on the victim.

But a portion.

I never understood how T got tracked on to that acronym, LGB are all sexual preferences, T is debatable a mental disorder, why are they lumped into the same movement?

It's really not something new - trans identity can be traced back to ancient history (2000-1800 BCE) in almost nearly every geographical region/culture. Their position in the modern gay rights movement is a relatively new phenomenon but that can mostly be chalked up to divisiveness and prejudice within the community itself.

And I'm not sure of any legitimate medical entity that "debates" transgender identity. Could you suggest some? To claim they don't exist doesn't align with modern medical theory.

Well there isn't anything that explains it either.

Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is patently unnatural. There's a lot about our natural world that we don't understand but we don't deny it exists.

When peoples brains tell them something that doesn't align with reality they're considered mentally ill, with the exception of trans people.

That's definitely not the definition of mental illness.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

"Overall the weight of these studies and others points strongly toward a biological basis for gender dysphoria. But given the variety of transgender people and the variation in the brains of men and women generally, it will be a long time, if ever, before a doctor can do a brain scan on a child and say, 'Yes, this child is trans.'"

The idea that all we have to go on is feelings is inaccurate.

Well, you're moving the goal posts. First, you said all we have to go off is people's feelings - obviously, that isn't accurate as now there's reason to believe that not only is there a biological basis for this issue but that the brain structures themselves differ in important ways. Now, you're conceding that there are, indeed, biological indicators but that there are other "outliers" that render all of the science "unreliable". It's obvious that we disagree on trans people, and that's perfectly fine - I'm not trying to persuade you that you're wrong. But can we at least agree that the science is there? That trans persons aren't just some strange manifestation that can't be explained?

that sure was a lot of words to completely disregard my question

Because they all lack any sense of identity beyond their sexuality.

I think I can explain that...

All of those groups have had to deal with prejudice surrounding what behavior is considered acceptable for men or women. They all want the freedom to act in a way that some people think people of their sex shouldn’t act.

Something something best street food vendors (at least here in Ohio...)

if you ever are in columbus, check out juniors taco truck at the milk carry out store on 5th ave a few blocks down from high st. I miss that place so much, best burritos around town.

I Uber in the area (or at least will be again when I get my new car) and I will check it out. Thanks!

It's interesting that their motto is "Pride" which is the iniquity that was found in Lucifer. God allows the lust that is deep within their heart to manifest due to their rejection of him.

Rom 1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 

Rom 1:23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 

Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 

Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 

Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 

Rom 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 

Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 

The way I think about it is comparing homosexuality to watching pornography for the straight person. Both are sins and it comes down to what "repentance" is:

2Co_7:10  For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

True repentance is required for salvation. This is a Godly sorrow for one's current state. A complete change of mind about sin, Jesus Christ, God and everything else. People who claim to be saved but are "proud" homosexuals are no different than someone who would go to Church and talk about the porn they watched the night before and openly displayed their pride in watching porn.

All truly saved people battle with sin and war ageist their flesh daily. A saved person who's fleshly nature is homosexual will struggle with it but it can be easily overcome with the spiritual nature just as pornography addiction is for the straight person. God also chastises his children so anyone who is openly practicing homosexuality and does not receive any chastisement from the Lord should:

Php_2:12  Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

2Co_13:5  Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Something is seriously wrong with the type of "Christian" you are talking about. Don't let false converts prevent you from understanding the true forgiveness that is given to us via the Grace of God through faith in the true gospel of Christ Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection as presented by Paul.

I would argue your family member is likely unsaved therefore doesn't have the Holy Spirit working in him. Nothing can be overcome ourselves. Only with the Holy Spirit in us and we only get that when we repent and believe the gospel. It sounds like your family member is trying to resolve the problem themselves. I'm not sure what brand of Churchianity your family is into but almost all of them are false and never give the true gospel.

God meant for us to be in the garden in a perfect, immortal state. Adam had that for who knows how long before the fall. Nobody knows for certain God's plan but to me, it makes sense that you cannot appreciate something until you lose it. How could Adam know what he had? We are living with the consequences of sin and currently this world is run by Lucifer:

Luk 4:5  And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.  Luk 4:6  And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. Luk 4:7  If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 

Most people are not aware to what extent Lucifer has been given control over the Kingdoms here. He has full control. He is propagandizing people with all sorts of stuff. There is a difference between what God created and what is fed into that creation's head their entire life. We are dealing with the consequences of sin now so that we can truly appreciate perfection when it comes again with the new heaven and new earth.

Kinda off topic, but do you think there’s any chance this is already the new earth?

There is zero chance we are in the new earth that is mentioned in the book of Revelation. However there was a world before this one (not world as in ball in outer space but a time period). It's between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. It's called the Genesis Gap and is found by comparing many Scriptures in order to put together what happened. There was actually a flood before Noah's that took place between 1:1 (creation) and 1:2 (post destruction) that ended that world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki6XFfEmDVs

God isn't real you dumbass.

Oh look, another God hating edgelord. How unique!

1Co_1:18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Another bible basher, how quaint

I suggest checking this out and seeing if it triggers any identifiable cognitive dissidence in you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwimocU0IIc

It doesn't show any deities if that's what you're alleging.

so you think if someone is gay they should just be celibate?

Being gay isn't the sin. Practicing homosexuality is the sin.

I am pretty sure that was the point OP was trying to make.

All of this is irrelevant because nobody should be allowed to force people not to sin or even to believe.

It literally has nothing at all to do with laws and arguably even the subject of this post. And I say that as a Christian. Plead to them and the witness to them and even pray for them, but God gave them free will to sin or chose not to believe.

In short, I agree with you on all of your points at a religious and moral level. I just don't think it applies much here. If they choose not to believe, they aren't getting into heaven anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Addressing one interesting point you made about pride, though. Pride implies a choice. I am not proud to be the race that I am, for example, because I had no choice in the matter. I can say I am proud to be American, however, because I do have a choice to remain American.

Calling it pride while also arguing that homosexuality is not a choice is contradictory. I personally do believe that there is a satanic element behind that.

I just want to re-iterate that I 100% agree with you from a religious standpoint. I just don't believe that Jesus ever ordered me to force people to believe in him.

I don't disagree with you are all. We aren't ordered to force people to believe in him. We are just told to share the gospel of his death, burial, and resurrection as the final blood atonement for sin. God gave us this life freely and we can do whatever we want with it. He also offers his grace freely for those who repent and believe the gospel. Humans are absolutely free to do whatever they want (even pay for their own sin). My point was more that the whole LGBT thing comes from a base rejection of God to begin with. I'm not really making a political argument or anything. I have no interest in temporal politics personally. I just want to let people know about the Kingdom of God and how to enter it which is via repentance and belief in Paul's gospel:

1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 

1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 

1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 

1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 

You can ponder what you like it doesn't mean others have to tolerate it.

where women chose to become lesbians out of their frustrations towards men.

Yes this happens, it's pretty common. My ex-MIL was sexually abused by her father all throughout he childhood. As an adult, she married a man and had 3 children. She became an alcoholic trying to cope with having to have sex with her husband, it triggered such vile memories of her abuse. She left her husband and children and has been a lesbian every since. Being with a man was just entirely too painful for her to endure. She says it is more about companionship than sex, but she now enjoys sex now that she is with a woman vs. man.

The most basic binary physical thing I can think of is "Twist" Rieter link

Two strands can be wound "Left" (S) or "Right" (Z). They are exclusive and if wound on the same two strands; self-annihilating:

S∞∞∞∞∞∞∞SZ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞Z

The SZ will begin unwinding the whole thing. As for how this relates to the binary-sex thing; true effective differentiation of the sexes can result in propagation or "birth".

That is, LGBT is obviously not binary, cannot compete with effective-binary reproduction, so has nothing to do with the fundamental binary existence of many physical processes.

"Trans", multiplicity, profusion, hoard, jillion, oodles..."

Although physical associations, none of these are the basic, binary reproductive reduction, by definition.

There are probably many factors that go into why someone decides they want to be a different gender or whatever. What I'm wondering is who gives a fuck? Why are people so worried about this? Its harmless. Our families are fine. Men and women will continue fucking and having babies. It's all good.

This is my thinking. Who gives a shit? Fuck a dude, fuck a woman, fuck both at the same time. Heterosexuality occurs with enough unchangeable frequency that it will never disappear.

Psychology warfare to push the Luciferian sexual agenda.

Can you please define the Luciferian sexual agenda?

Luciferian Sexual Agenda refers to the plan that is in motion by the Catholic Church to brainwash the public into accepting inhumanly immoral sexual practices. It is a three stage operation that will progress because it hides behind a smokescreen that it is supporting human rights.

Part 1: Homosexuality The first part of the LSA is to implement homosexuality on the public. Homosexuality is important because with it, Luciferian interests can transition to the second step. Without homosexuality they would be unable to.

The sexual desires of human beings can at any time cause them to think or feel sexually about those of the same sex as them. However, those pushing the homosexual part of this agenda will say that if you have homosexual impulses, then it means that you are attempting to "surpress" or hide your true nature which is homosexuality. Because homosexuality is a social decision that is made by an individual for personal reasons, it is easy to assess that this promoted view is inaccurate. In an attempt to confront and deal with this problem facing the agenda, a view has been promoted with pseudo-science that attempts to indicate that homosexuals were "born that way" or "born this way". Illuminati vocalist Lady Gaga was even made to perform a song written by Jesuits that promotes the idea that homosexuality is hereditary with the song "Born This Way". Despite heavy misconception and well done Intentional Disinformation Campaigns, there is no gene that points to homosexuality, a fact that will generally send supporters of homosexuality into a rage.

http://illuminati.wikia.com/wiki/Luciferian_Sexual_Agenda

Quote from 1969 by ruling elite insider Dr Richard Day who kept apologising SAYING IM SORRY "THERE IS NO OTHER WAY" for what they are now unleashing on society,all pornography,homosexuality,drugs,crime,social family breakdown,mass unemployment,terrorism,wars are not RANDOM because of moral breakdown or so called fallen nature it was PLANNED,DESIGNED by the ruling elites before 1969 as a way to reduce population and bring in there New World Order

https://youtu.be/kcGqkvjKCvA

19:55 teaching school sex education would lead to more pregnancies but this would not be a problem,tax payers money would be given for abortions and homosexuality would be made legal and encouraged and promiscuous sex would be encouraged to break down family values as part of the depopulation agenda.

(linked different video since the video in article was removed)

http://www.surviveunagenda21depopulation.com/388778388

I provided the link.

Step 2: Incest

Once homosexuality has been promoted and successfully defended, incest will be the next area of focus. This does not mean that the LSA will abandon the Homosexual Agenda, but rather it will promote it and the Incest Agenda equally. Both will need to be promoted to allow the third step to take place.

In a disturbing amount of states in the United States, incest is legal. Many countries in Europe are beginning to lax their incest laws and some are even calling them "obsolete". In many cases, marrying a family member is illegal but sexual relations are not. This disturbing trend will continue and be promoted and aided as another right that is being taken away.

In poor or war torn areas, incest is commonplace as many people feel as though they may never have sexual contact for the first time or again. Since people in war time are confined to the home due to dangers that are present in public areas, incest is almost expected in many cases in order to keep a family going.

The incest step is more of a stepping stone and will not take as long as the Homosexual Agenda to complete. But it must be fulfilled in its entirety before the final step.

Step 3: Pedophilia

In the ultimate move of destruction of morals and family life, the third step of the LSA will be to promote and defend pedophilia to the public just as they did with homosexuality and incest. In the end, the victory for Luciferians won't be simply in that pedophilia is legal, it will be in that this pedophilia may be done with someone of the same sex (already safely promoted, defended and made into law) and someone who is a family member (also safely promoted, defended and made into law). Men will be able to force their sons into acts of sodomy. Instead of parents being teachers and loving nurturers Lucifer has a plan to let all the people who want to have sex with a child feel comfortable and be able to practice this abomination to the Lord whever they want.

Elitists and Luciferians are for the most part very enthralled with these sexual practices, and based on their impulse desires by their body, will act on them with whatever money and resources they have at their disposal. Ancient Greeks regularly practiced homosexual pedophilia, a sin against God and the ultimate undoing to the family structure.

You bow to your global master. (Not we're)

Your copypasta is poorly written and laughable in a depressing way.

How can my copypasta be poorly written? I think the truth just offends you.

Your second paragraph ends with a sentence fragment.

"surpress"

Your second-to-last paragraph has random full caps, contractions without apostrophes, and no spaces after commas.

And your last paragraph also doesn't have a space after its comma.

That's how its poorly written.

All those grammar errors the author made (copypasta) and yet I can perfectly comprehend it. You have to read and fix it so it fits all grammar rules. Why even waste your time reading posts on reddit if it's so torturous to you mentally?

Good thing we have lines painted on the roads otherwise you wouldn't know how to drive on them.

My personal opinion is that some are born that way, and some are created in the lab.

Lesbians especially I think the majority of them had bad experiences with penises early in life and make the choice to avoid them.

I think it’s the opposite. Everyone is born bisexual to various degrees. Then conditioned by socium to a gender role. And then, as other posts say some receive traumatic experience that puts bisexuality to the front and suppresses heterosexuality.

Everyone is not born with a desire to insert foreign objects into their anus

It seems that it hasn't stopped you from thinking about it deeply.

Since when is thinking a bad thing?

what about domestic objects?

The only domestic object would be poop. And I mean you can get a decal transplant if you have serious stomach problems so I think having good digestion is a universal desire.

Hahaha! Fantastic response.

Everyone born on a spectrum. I agree.

I totally disagree, we are naturally wired/born to be attracted to the opposite sex for reproduction, as with all species. There are other levels with how male/female energies interact. We are not 'conditioned' to be straight, that is by design. Instead, we are being conditioned by society into accepting homosexuality/bisexuality as natural when it certainly is not.

[citation needed]

Personally it doesnt matter to me what another persons sexuality is, it's none of my damn business.

Sure there is. People wear t-shirts with sexual innuendos announcing their straightness all the time. Sexuality is so persistent and prevalent in our society, most advertising is built around it.

I 100% agree.

It isn't any of our damn business. On the same token, it shouldn't be shoved in our faces.

Then maybe we should stop passing laws targeting them for discrimination. They arent putting those laws into place, do you expect them to sit back and say nothing as their rights are eroded by a bunch of bigots?

What laws have been passed to discriminate against them?

Laws like HB2 which allowed people to claim religion as a basis to deny gay citizens employment and housing, state bans on gay marriage, state bans on benefits for gay marriage and the recently repealed DADT and DOMA.

This has been going on for decades quit acting like you dont know what's going on.

quit acting like you dont know what's going on.

I am not acting like I am unaware of it. It was overturned, was it not? HB2 was foolish and I never supported it.

I do have concerns about the bathroom issue, but that is the only part. I don't think transgender people should be denied the right to use public restrooms, I just think there should be a push to have a solution that respects everyone. Honestly, I knew a few transgender women and they never had a problem using the women's room anywhere. It just didn't really seem like an issue until somebody made it an issue. Most people, if you are not acting creepy, really don't give a shit what other people are doing. Of course there will occasionally be an asshole, but that is always going to be true in life.

I am not acting like I am unaware of it.

Asking which discriminatory laws were passed is you playing ignorant. If you were aware of those laws and their intent, then the question should never have been asked.

Gay marriage should have always been legal. The marriage ban was a discriminatory act targeted at gay citizens. The fact remains a citizen is a citizen is a citizen and sexuality has no bearing on your rights as a citizen.

The bathroom issue isnt an issue. It was a created issue. It was packaging for the bill where the true evil lied in legalizing discrimination based on religion. It's kind of like Patriot Act had nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with spying on every American citizens in violation of the 4th amendment. It was the packaging meant to sell the bill with a "protect the children" refrain when there was actually no evidence of any kind of problem with transgender people assaulting people in the bathroom. It was an unenforceable provision that sought to ostracize LGBT citizens. There was never going to be bathroom police and any crimes allegedly committed in the bathroom would be prosecuted under laws already are on the books.

Gay citizens have been systematically targeted and discriminated against. They are simply fighting back for their rights under the Constitution and winning. They could apply for protected class status as these laws are clear in intent, but instead theyve argued their cases under the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law for all citizens.

Asking which discriminatory laws were passed is you playing ignorant. If you were aware of those laws and their intent, then the question should never have been asked.

It was overturned. I was aware. It was overturned. Therefore, it was not passed. It never made it to application. It was vetoed by the governor, IIRC.

Gay marriage should have always been legal.

I agree.

The bathroom issue isnt an issue. It was a created issue. It was packaging for the bill where the true evil lied in legalizing discrimination based on religion.

We agree.

Gay citizens have been systematically targeted and discriminated against.

I don't deny that.

But, you see, here is a the problem:

When they go after and persecute a Christian bakery who refused to make them a custom wedding cake but offered to sell them any other pre-made wedding cake, that is also targeted harassment. The bakery had done nothing specifically against them. There were plenty of other bakeries. The couple knew it was a Christian bakery and wanted to make a statement.

When they go after a Christian rancher for refusing to allow a gay wedding on their property, that is a problem. It was targeted harassment.

Sure you could sit there and argue with me that gays are simply punching back, but neither of these two businesses sought them out to hurt them. The gay couples did seek them out to hurt them. Those two business owners did nothing to them personally.

Assuming that all Christians are bigoted is wrong-headed and bigoted itself. Most are not objecting for bigoted reasons. They are objecting because being asked to participate in what they believe is a sin is asking them to sin themselves. Of course, there are some bigoted Christians, but you know that it is not all of them or even most of them. I am a Christian. I don't support anything that takes rights away from gay people. I've had gay friends. I loved them as I love all my friends.

Gay pride parades are also shoving it in people's faces. It's not 'fighting' back. It has become an event to take a jab at Christians and conservatives in general. It has become degenerate, period. Things go on there that should go on even at a heterosexual event. It is intentional. I've seen the shirts, the signs, etc...

In one place I lived, a mechanic shop owner refused service to a gay customer and pointed him to another shop. Now you might think that strange how the mechanic would even know the customer was gay. The media didn't explain that part until much later.

This man had his business vandalized, he was targeted with social media posts, yelp reviews, etc... people were showing up and blocking his entrances so customers couldn't come to his shop. Each time the protesters showed up, he ordered them pizza and eventually hired a catering service for them. He went out and talked to them. They shouted at him.

In the end, the reason the man refused the service was because the gay customer noticed religious postings on the shop walls and started arguing with the owner. The owner would have never even known the man was gay, but he thought it necessary to make sure the shop owner knew.

That's the kind of in-your-face things I am talking about.

While I agree with you 100% that gay people should not have their rights violated, it's a bit much to demand that everyone treat it as normal. It is not normal. Respect on both sides goes a long way and the obnoxious portion of the gay community is taking advantage of the increased tolerance to act intolerant.

With all the attacks, while they feel justified in doing them, they are turning allies or at least tolerant people against them.

We can disagree on this. This is my observation and my opinion. I feel no need to argue with you about it anymore.

When they go after and persecute a Christian bakery who refused to make them a custom wedding cake but offered to sell them any other pre-made wedding cake, that is also targeted harassment.

They signed a business license that said they would serve the public without discrimination. The baker chose to discriminate based on religion despite the fact he bakes cakes for weddings. The baker discriminated against them, whether they were gay or not shouldnt have mattered. He wasnt go to catch the gayness by baking them a cake and putting two grooms on it. The Supreme Court sidestepped the actual issue of religious discrimination against the public in this case and faulted the state of Colorado for its verdict sending it back to the lower courts.

Provide the details of the Christian rancher. Never heard of that before and I'm sure the details very much matter in this example.

When Christians want to discriminate against people for their sexuality, they are being bigoted. They are violating the 1st amendment rights of the other party by trying to transfer their beliefs or use their beliefs as the basis to justify discrimination. I dont assume all Christians are bigoted, just the ones who act as bigots and try to hide behind religion.

Gay pride parades are the same as Shriners parades or Veterans parades. They have every right to public expression under the 1st amendment.

Refusing service to the public and citing your religion is discrimination. Are you saying Muslims should be able to deny Christians because of their religion? This is a slippery slope here and the law is pretty clear. Conservatives boycott businesses who they dont agree with too. Im not condoning vandalism, but these happen when people get angry and it's not the fault of the gay people that were discriminated against, it was the actions of the guy who discriminated against them that caused the reaction.

Gayness is completely normal, its just not the majority. We've seen it expressed in over 2,000 species. The fact is the evangelical conservatives are the ones waging a war against gay people and they are fighting back. They arent going to roll over for a bunch of holy rollers whose sensibilities are offended by their fundamental rights as citizens of the United States.

The real attackers are the ones writing and passing these laws and forcing gay people to stand up for their rights in court. You act as if these so called Christians are blameless when they are the ones writing this legislation in the first place. True Christians love the sinner not the sin as you said, they dont go on a moral crusade to strip the rights of citizens or to treat them as less than human through legislation.

They gay community is not the ones acting intolerant when they are the ones being attacked and discriminated against. That's the entire point: they are not passing these laws against themselves. You seem to think they are somehow the aggressors here when they are the victims of a moral minority who seems to have abandoned the very same Christian principles they allegedly want to uphold.

The real attackers are the ones writing and passing these laws and forcing gay people to stand up for their rights in court. You act as if these so called Christians are blameless when they are the ones writing this legislation in the first place.

You are simply targeting everyone you perceive as Christian or conservative and I am telling you, this will backfire on your community. Far more of them are your allies right now than you understand. I hate to tell you, but the gay community is a very fringe group. They could not have done this on their own. If you turn public opinion against you, you'll end up harming your cause.

The vast majority of the people support the gay community right now. It isn't simply liberals. I am a conservative, Christian, and I have voted for legalization of gay marriage in my former state.

Keep gnashing your teeth like you are doing to me and targeting Christian businesses for ruin and you will be standing on your own. You are an unreasonable person that does more harm to your cause with your bigotry.

You seem to think they are somehow the aggressors here when they are the victims of a moral minority

No, I am saying that when you attack them and make them feel like victims, that overwhelming majority will turn against you. It makes no sense to do this.

You are simply targeting everyone you perceive as Christian or conservative and I am telling you, this will backfire on your community.

Surprise! I'm not gay. The simple fact is evangelical conservatives are passing these laws. It's a major campaign issue for them. I'm not blaming all Christians, just the bigoted ones who support this violation of the Consittution.

There was never a vote for the legalization of gay marriage in any state.

Keep gnashing your teeth like you are doing to me and targeting Christian businesses

I'm not gnashing my teeth or targeting you or Christian businesses. You're dodging the fact those "Christian" businesses are the ones discriminating against other citizens. Again, you're making an assumption I must be gay because I support gay rights. You've said you support their rights, does that mean you're gay? No. Quit making assumptions like that or that there is "targeting of Christian businesses" when its the Christian businesses doing the discrimination and trying to justify their behavior by citing their religion.

Nobody is attacking them. They discriminated against gay citizens and the public responded. You keep making an assumption you cant prove that gays are attacking when what really happened is they got discriminated against and the public reacted to that unjust and illegal treatment by allegedly "Christian" businesses. It's the hypocrisy people are reacting to.

Gay pride parades are the same as Shriners parades or Veterans parades. They have every right to public expression under the 1st amendment.

I can't remember the last time I say naked people and sexual acts being performed in front of children at the Shriners or Veterans parades.

Ever hear of Mardi Gras??

I can't disagree. I have a close friend of mine who had horrible experiences with men throughout her life and holds a vocal hatred for them. She dated two men in her life before she came out. Now I feel like she chases relationships with women because she thinks that as long as they aren't men, they're going to treat her well, and she ends up dating controlling, trashy women most of the time.

As a lesbian, everything about this post and its comments on it make me cringe. I realized I liked girls in 7th grade, after spending all of 6th grade pining over a girl thinking I just really wanted to be her friend for some reason. I came out to my mom when I was 14. I am now 34 and married to a woman. No trauma. Just gay.

And for all of you arguining the religious aspect, my mother taught Sunday school when I was a child and I grew up in a catholic home watching my mom fall asleep reading her bible every night. As she's taught it to me and I will continue to believe is that all you need to know is that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and if you believe in Jesus that's what matters. All the other judgemental stuff is bullshit and picking and choosing. Just as practiced as you may be in your anti gay bible quotes, I'm just as practiced in all the other idiotic quotes from the bible that humans do but shouldn't. You can't pick and choose folks.

seems probable. humans are complex.

not sure, but I just want to throw it out there that "political lesbianism" (lol really?) is just the female version of incels

or they were raped and cant stand to have a man touch them. incels, are involuntarily celibate, no? so it's the complete opposite, really.

is that the majority of these cases? do you have any data to back that? I would guess that the women deciding to do this for that reason are the vast minority

i dont know their reasonings, but i do have a vagina. someone who has floated between sexual preferences, i was much more into women after i had been gang raped. as someone who probably registers as a 4/5 out of 10 of the hot scale, i take it to mean that there are no female incels, ya'll fuck anything.

valid point at the end there, that's kind of the whole reasoning behind the "master key" double standard. and not to take away from your experiences but that is anecdotal and doesn't provide a clear picture of the group as a whole.

also inb4 you assume I'd throw around slurs because I disagree politically.. oh wait ;)

LGBT* "status" is caused by the way your brain fires its signals. Unless they're not really LGBT*, there is no way to manipulate someone into being queer.

The brain can be changed by heavy trauma. Many LGBTQ+ people have been abused as children.

Trauma and manipulation aren't one in the same. You're not going to get a gay kid just by saying "be gay"

You are so wrong.

I'm not, but alright.

Read my other post in this thread. Its real, tough guy.

Read it, "tough guy," and you've somehow made me disagree with you even more than I originally did. There is literally no purpose of having a gay person instead of a straight person, or a trans person instead os a cis one. LGBT* folks are just as human and just as useless as the rest of humanity. You never provide any reasons other than "BUT GOD AND JESUS!!" Friend, religion just provides a moral compass and a personal support system. Not every satanist is LGBT, nor is every LGBT a satanist. I've even met several LGBT* Christians! Isnt that amazing?

Why do you guys come to this sub? Its like you found the internet yesterday and someone told you to bother people who are in to conspiracies and the like.

Also what does the * mean in lgbt?

"I dont agree with you so you must be here to bother me!" I'm actually here to talk about theories that make sense and go explain why I disagree with ones that don't.

The * is for whatever else people want to include. Basically, it's for folks that aren't Lesbian, Gay, Bi, or Trans.

I came across this a while ago and was pretty surprised. I had assumed that sexuality was fixed.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/05/probably-think-sex-attraction-fixed-researchers-dont/

A large study showed that only 1% of homosexual people were consistently homosexual from the age of 16 to 22.

I think homosexuals are real however are being over expressed - I think we are being poisoned with the most valuable and desirable genes being targeted to become homosexual. Same thing w/ Trannies - I think natural there should be a tiny population but the expansion of them recently makes me think they're poisoning us with something.

Sure, as long as we also agree that gender identity is completely dependent on biochemistry and hormone levels during physical development. I'd say your endocrine system has more influence on your sexuality than pop culture.

Some women date women due to abuse from a man. I met one.

Political lesbianism, if that is a real thing, is misandry. Imagine if two guys did that and said it was because they hated women and that women were terrible. They'd be tossed out of the pride parade faster than Dick Cheney.

Alto of them have claimed brains by TPTB and they use their brains and nervous system to create homosexual attraction. They try to so it to me but I am too old. My reaction is "why the hell are they doing that in 36 and have never been gay my whole life."

Its different for young people. Believe it or not alto of them are owned from birth due to their parents being involved in Satanism and underground affairs. They have control of the kid from the day they are born and they listen to "the voices" and do what theybtell them to do. Because its all they've ever known.

For instance when they take your brain you no longer have an inner voice and they claim noone can hear you but them. That cuts out God and Jesus. Now what do they do? Their forced to listen to these voices they here and they never tell anyone about it because its conditioned from birth. Its Satanic.

Makes me wonder if the judges will know the suffering of these programmed people and will not judge them for their crimes.

Its absolutely amazing that I can literally tell you the Gods honest truth from real life experience and get no response but one downvote. Insane!

I think current climate allows us and the younger generation to explore these ideas whereas before there was such a strict line. Societies acceptance does enable people to truly understand themselves nowadays and its a blessed thing to be apart of. There's so many labels and choices; I hear people get irritated because of it but it means it's becoming more and more to do with "You do you" and I think that's beautiful.

As a bisexual man, I can confirm that I wasn't "born this way." Long story short, I've been into chicks since puberty, but as an adult, I conditioned myself to like dudes. And now I prefer dudes to chicks, but I'm still attracted to both.

I just used associated thoughts and positive reinforcement to develop an attraction to men. It started with an appreciation of human anatomy — once I became attracted to a certain masculine body type, I "engaged with" gay porn featuring men of that body type. Over time, physical arousal was a natural reaction to seeing that type of man, just as if I was seeing an attractive woman.

> is it not plausible that a gay person could condition themself to become straight?

I'd say it's more than plausible, but the right conditioning would have to be used. What that conditioning is I couldn't say; it's a lot easier to form a habit than to break one.

there are studies that link childhood sexual trauma to homosexuality.

I was not born the way I am. I identify as Bisexual because to me, it feels like an absolute logical fallacy to simply decide on what turns my crank during my formative years, when my parents never pushed me one way or the other about anything. I was far too busy with my academics to give a shit about dating when i was in HS and college.

I am Bi by choice because I feel it's fucking retarded that you have to have some kind of dumb fucking label on you regarding what makes you nut, when i haven't as much as ever been given any kind of affection beyond familial in my life until I met my current lover, Vizzy, whom identifies as trans [Male -> Female], and by all fucking accounts i genuinely believe that she really is a woman trapped in a man's body.

I was raised by women. women have been my BFFs for years. I know how a goddamn woman acts, and when i see these minute body languages, habits, emotions, thought processes and the like inside somebody with a male body, i realize "Wow. all religions claiming an infallible creator god are wrong because here is a clear and unmistakeable divine fuckup."

Being Bi is completely sane and rational. Don't knock it til you try it, it doubles your chances for finding love, and you end up finding out just how big your capacity for the emotion truly is.

Your downvotes, like your tears, are fucking delicious.

i raise my bong to you, OP, for having the balls to field this question.

The majority are not born that way.

You are onto something, I think.

But, I do think there are people who are born gay and lesbian (or bi or straight). I think a lot of the LGBT community (and everything it's connected to) is narcissistic and preys on teenagers who have no real identity and are struggling to fit in. A lot of lovebombing exists in the LGBT community.

I have read a lot about radical feminism - and I think the political lesbianism is homophobic. It's not a choice, and it's not a fun aesthetic. It's just a reality that some people, innately have, and has nothing to do with liberal politics. Being gay is not inherently political.

The media does shape how we perceive our sexuality.

Read my post that’s saved into the greatawakening Wiki archive to learn more about chemicals and pedophiles turning kids aged 1-5 LGBQ - I’m a direct result of this and my post got thousands and thousands of views and tons of people reaching out to me thanking me for being honest and trying to tell the truth about this matter - nobody is born gay because there is no such thing as a “gay gene” or gay behavior center in the brain!

"find solace in their acceptance" "vast media content"

I don't know what kind of backwards alternate reality youre living in, but in my world, cisgender heterosexual people take the spotlight in every form of media and are certainly not beloved by society. Any cisgender heterosexual person that felt rejected for society would definitely not join the lgbt community to feel better because being lgbt can be a literal death sentence for many people LMAO.

I see where you're coming from.

What laws have been passed to discriminate against them?

I am not acting like I am unaware of it.

Asking which discriminatory laws were passed is you playing ignorant. If you were aware of those laws and their intent, then the question should never have been asked.

Gay marriage should have always been legal. The marriage ban was a discriminatory act targeted at gay citizens. The fact remains a citizen is a citizen is a citizen and sexuality has no bearing on your rights as a citizen.

The bathroom issue isnt an issue. It was a created issue. It was packaging for the bill where the true evil lied in legalizing discrimination based on religion. It's kind of like Patriot Act had nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with spying on every American citizens in violation of the 4th amendment. It was the packaging meant to sell the bill with a "protect the children" refrain when there was actually no evidence of any kind of problem with transgender people assaulting people in the bathroom. It was an unenforceable provision that sought to ostracize LGBT citizens. There was never going to be bathroom police and any crimes allegedly committed in the bathroom would be prosecuted under laws already are on the books.

Gay citizens have been systematically targeted and discriminated against. They are simply fighting back for their rights under the Constitution and winning. They could apply for protected class status as these laws are clear in intent, but instead theyve argued their cases under the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law for all citizens.

that sure was a lot of words to completely disregard my question

Court may have overruled it but Trump has issued a new ban and in effect it is till happening. Source1 Source2

Federal school is a public school that receives federal funding, whether or not you think there are valid reasons it's a right that's being taken back. Official Doc

Dismantling a group that directly influences policy and government decision is a huge blow to ongoing research.

Jeff Sessions' legal dept is arguing that it isn't source

But even if everything was equal and good for LGBT people (which it isn't) society fought that progress for many years and they're entitled to be proud of overcoming their obstacles despite some people (you) insisting they're delusional.

Your copypasta is poorly written and laughable in a depressing way.

Read it, "tough guy," and you've somehow made me disagree with you even more than I originally did. There is literally no purpose of having a gay person instead of a straight person, or a trans person instead os a cis one. LGBT* folks are just as human and just as useless as the rest of humanity. You never provide any reasons other than "BUT GOD AND JESUS!!" Friend, religion just provides a moral compass and a personal support system. Not every satanist is LGBT, nor is every LGBT a satanist. I've even met several LGBT* Christians! Isnt that amazing?