Fleiur
Well-known member
It is pretty much the same thing. Do you want to actually debate or score internet points?
Religion The ethics of disowning degenerate family members
Can we split off the talk about college from this? It seems off topic.
So, first, from a study on abused kids, although gays are more likely to be abused, it turns out that usually happens because they are gay, rather than molestation causing the gayness. Also, as for LGBT having a problem with pedophilia, it sorta does, but not in the way people commonly think. It most certainly has a problem with ebibophilia, which is obviously wrong, but distinct from pedophilia. Male pedos that prey on kids (not teens), are actually usually straight when interacting with adults (source).
Now why the problem with teens? The problem of having sex with teens has to do with the total moral degeneracy that many gays were pushed to pre-Stonewall (given that this is the local degenerate calling their situation degenerate, that should give an idea about how bad it was). They were largely homeless and poor, as they were excluded from the economy and kicked out of homes, and the gays would head to NYC (or other gay meccas) in the belief they would be safe there. There, it was entirely lawless, as the law would not help you, so yes, many teens were having sex with adults, probably from a mixture of grooming and getting a place to sleep and adults not caring. This 'culture', for lack of a better word, has been mostly been killed off by AIDS and greater acceptance.
The other problem the LGBT movement has is that Pedo groups keep trying to latch onto it to get acceptance. They tried before with NAMBLA, which was kicked out from most places pretty swiftly,, but managed to hang on in a few places for about 8 years total. They are trying again now with "it's an orientation". But the best argument against Pedos is that it is a fetish, not an orientation. See the stuff above on pedos being straight when interacting with adults.
I also think you've reversed causality here.
So, first, from a study on abused kids, although gays are more likely to be abused, it turns out that usually happens because they are gay, rather than molestation causing the gayness. Also, as for LGBT having a problem with pedophilia, it sorta does, but not in the way people commonly think. It most certainly has a problem with ebibophilia, which is obviously wrong, but distinct from pedophilia. Male pedos that prey on kids (not teens), are actually usually straight when interacting with adults (source).
Now why the problem with teens? The problem of having sex with teens has to do with the total moral degeneracy that many gays were pushed to pre-Stonewall (given that this is the local degenerate calling their situation degenerate, that should give an idea about how bad it was). They were largely homeless and poor, as they were excluded from the economy and kicked out of homes, and the gays would head to NYC (or other gay meccas) in the belief they would be safe there. There, it was entirely lawless, as the law would not help you, so yes, many teens were having sex with adults, probably from a mixture of grooming and getting a place to sleep and adults not caring. This 'culture', for lack of a better word, has been mostly been killed off by AIDS and greater acceptance.
The other problem the LGBT movement has is that Pedo groups keep trying to latch onto it to get acceptance. They tried before with NAMBLA, which was kicked out from most places pretty swiftly,, but managed to hang on in a few places for about 8 years total. They are trying again now with "it's an orientation". But the best argument against Pedos is that it is a fetish, not an orientation. See the stuff above on pedos being straight when interacting with adults.
When I read "you reversed causality" all I hear is "I'm using this as an excuse to evade accountability on behalf of a community with a serious issue, while justifying sandbagging a target I know we have brow beaten into accepting recrimination no matter what"
"They are abused and subsequently abuse because they are LGBt"
That is a remarkable position to take my friend
Okay thats just insidious double talk "the Alphabet soup has a serious problem with pedophilia because cisscum made us feel, really. Really bad!"
No
So why does the community continue to deify gay pedophiles? Lesbian serial girlfriend beaters and trannys who rape anything with a heart beat? Or a teddy bear?
Why are known sex pest, spousal abusing drug dealing shitheels like Teena and that coke dealer from Wyoming lionized as saints?
Why is it a border line crime to even have this conversation and why are 9 year olds in drag grinding pavement at pride parades?
Funny how long after NAMBLA was exposed LGBT people still are huge on grooming and the violence and zealotry in their wagon cricling continues to aid and abet it.
Almost as if the so called MAPs are merely seizing upon an already existing issue for their own benefit.
No, I acknowledge the problems LGBTs have. But this thread is specifically on the topic of "Should gays (and other degenerates) get kicked out of their parent's house?" So expect bashing of the right here. If this was a thread on pedo acceptance in LGBT groups, I'd be harder on my own side.
Not the position I am actually taking. Just that they were abused because they are LGBT. Being gay can lead to people partaking in riskier behaviors, as there were a lack of rolemodels to follow, and ways to experiment safely (by experiment, I mean like have a like age girlfriend/boyfriend). This is backed up by this study: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...a341bdf8/1488248372994/ContentServer+(84).pdf
First, Pedos are again trying for acceptance.
Second, gay organizations got taken over by the crazies and grifters. All the honest and good faith activists have mostly been leaving/writing books since Obergfell because they won both the right to marry and the PR battle (or they had). Then the organizations got taken over by very far left people who push craziness.
Third, TDS meaning that a bunch of evil stuff is now seen as good because the right hates.
And these two combine to make something awful.
They are trying to. They are basically trying to latch onto the movement again. Hopefully it's stopped again.
Right, but then isn't the problem pride culture itself.
And the refusal until very recently mind ye, of LGBT people to take a baseball bat to the lunatics and a magnifying a glass to their own subculture?
I applaud the initiative but we are seven decades into a problem that Dr King himself ranted about endlessly whenever he did address the community.
Its kind of odd for people to react negatively when they're told "well its about damn time!" And continue to point at a demographic thats castrated itself and will be the soups scapegoat with a forced smile rather than risk being called a bigot.
And the refusal until very recently mind ye, of LGBT people to take a baseball bat to the lunatics and a magnifying a glass to their own subculture?
I applaud the initiative but we are seven decades into a problem that Dr King himself ranted about endlessly whenever he did address the community.
Its kind of odd for people to react negatively when they're told "well its about damn time!" And continue to point at a demographic thats castrated itself and will be the soups scapegoat with a forced smile rather than risk being called a bigot.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Typically even in Christianity shunning is supposed to be an absolute last resort when all other forms of discpline have failed and someone is still in proud open rebellion, IE Spartan's example of his first sister. So even in righteousness it's not something to be taken lightly or in haste. In fact in most circumstances the one in rebellion will likely cut off ties to his or her christian friends long before the church would have to shun them. However it CAN get to the point where shunning maybe necessary more often than not because that person is plain toxic beyond a certain point and just drags the names of all whom they keep company with, Again though, it's not something to take lightly.
Fleiur
Well-known member
When kids are still in their formative years, you don't push them out due to them being gay. As a parent, it's your job to discipline your kids with their behaviours and actions. When your kid says he's gay, it always has a root cause.
That root cause is them being gay. People are born that way, or early life environmental factors cause this. It's usually fixed by a young age. The root cause idea is a myth when it comes to gayness.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
It's what Abhorsen meant by saying you mixed up cause and effect. Your statement, in that same formatting, would be "They are LGBT because they are abused and subsequently abuse"; your statement is that the abuse causes the homosexuality, while Abhorsen's data suggests they end up in a situation to be abused because they are homosexual.
And backs it up with a suggestion of a fairly direct causal link, in that the suggested course of disowning homosexual children leaves them with few other options than work their way to openly and vocally homosexual communities where almost all social moors are abandoned because those moors abandoned them first.
We don't have a functional conversion therapy system, the best we've ever seen is a Beard Enforcement Program, where the people who come out of it viciously refuse basic aspects of their desires to put on the appearance of normality, even as basically everything we know of in closet-opening gives more firm positives than the normal closeted homosexuals.
The problem that arises is that there very much exist preferences there is no known way to unlearn, and we don't actually have any causal knowledge of homosexuality. Again, the best success we have is a form of flagellant self-denial, making people consider active misery something good because to resolve that misery would be a sin.
A screaming zealot who feels all who possess a certain characteristic are subhuman filth to be exterminated can be gradually dragged out of it by exposure to contradiction. Sufficient exposure to proof their recognized pattern is false eventually leads to that pattern being refused, because the human mind craves patterns and can only withstand a certain degree of contradiction in reasoning.
There isn't anything remotely like that with homosexuality. All that defines it is that one finds higher sexual attraction in the same sex, and sexual preferences are still an extremely solid black box of unknowns. We don't know the causes, we don't know the active process, and so we don't know how one might prevent or reverse homosexuality.
The nearest we have to an understood sexual preference is the damn furry community, because they can nearly universally trace their attraction to the trend of animated childhood entertainment using semi-humanized animal characters. And this isn't actually necessarily sexual! The fursuit wearers are, strangely enough, more artstyle connoisseurs than sexual deviants.
LGBT only really became a functioning culture in 1969. Before the was only really one gay rights group in America, the Mattachine Society, which could maybe get 20 people for it's yearly protest. The rest of gay culture was NYC's illegal gay bars run by the Mafia and repeatedly broken up by the Vice Squad, and a dozens of homeless gays having sex in the same Trailer Truck, standing room only (yes, these all really happened and are not exaggerations). Nobody was asking if someone was a kid or not.
Then came Stonewall, and gay organizations actually began doing stuff. In '78, NAMBLA started, founded in part by one of the major gay leaders, who had a lot of access. It was pushed out, with a lot of the efforts coming from lesbians. It was kicked out of most places in a few years despite gays being desperate for allies, and it was out of everything by '86. Now there's a new problem, or really a resurging old problem. Since '86, there have been gay pedophiles, but not as any sort of force. Moreover, gays began normalizing. Then comes 2010's. Gay marriage wins, everything seems good.
My hypothesis is that most of the normals who were activists left around then, maybe still donating, but no need to protest, just party at Pride. Some of the leaders who saw their work completed also left. But prior to this movement, civil rights activists always had a next battle to work on. Abolitionists moved on to Women's suffrage, etc. But after this, with all the wars won or near won, there was nothing left to fight. So the honest ones finally hung up their hats, and unthinkingly handed the controls of the machines they built for justice to a bunch of crazies/grifters.
So this is a recent problem.
As for pride culture itself, it is an outgrowth of the tactics necessary to win civil rights. Basically, the problems gays had to fight were twofold. First, we had to get society to acknowledge we exist, then we had to get them to see us as normal. These two are mostly in tension, but had to be done in that order, or nothing would change. Hence things like Pride Parades, which is a big notice me, we exist sign. It's also why "representation matters" is a thing. It does matter politically for the LGBTs, but not so much for other groups. It's because for gays to win, we had to be seen, and we had to be seen as normal. And up until recently, we had accomplished that. Then we thought we were done, and everything went to shit.
Fleiur
Well-known member
But the parents are there during their formative years to put their feelings in context and to educate them. Then leave the decision on being gay or celibate to them.
(To clarify, by "being gay", I mean actively participating in gay culture and same-sex relationships.)
Fleiur
Well-known member
You can say that about any sexual desire. If you go with that line of defense, it applies to pedophiles.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I wouldn't call you guys normal. However there is a difference between being not normal and being a demon from hell which unfortunately is how many Americancentric religions tended to treat sinners. The problem is I think is like with many a political groups it ceased about accomplishing a cause and more about being seen as important.
Some of conservatisms worse enimies come from it's self-riotousness and extreme denial. Probably why we are extremely prone to believing in your more out their conspiracy theories.
Last edited:
Looking at the article, it seems like what is being discussed in cases of "kids kicked out only for being homo" involve a rather specific kind of parents.
Namely, people who take their religion very seriously. Religious hardliners. Fundies. Ultraconservatives. True Believers. Love 'em or hate 'em, call them whatever you want, they are here, and they are who they are, they have their beliefs, and if you are going to expect respect for your beliefs, its only fair that you give as much respect to theirs. Many people, especially less religious ones, have issues with understanding how these people think, how they see the world around them and why so, and so on. For more secular people, including here, the issues of "sexual morality" may seem like fun and games, maybe with some socio-cultural and health safety provisions for saner ones.
For these people on the other hand, its not fun and games, its not even a matter of life and death, for those who take such faith truly seriously, it is a matter beyond life and death.
Let that sink in. Stop looking at them through the prism of a single political issue and political lobby's buzzwords. They don't act like this because they are mean and hate you for little reason, they act like this because for them this is a matter of right or wrong, to the degree of eternal salvation or damnation.
Do you think its just that pesky homophobia?
Then, for example, consider this - what would happen if said children instead of coming out as gay, went out and openly declared that this whole Christianity thing is kinda unconvincing to them, and they would rather check out the Buddhism thing for now, or maybe build a shrine to Thor, not sure yet?
Yeah...
Even if it affects you, it isn't about your group and its pet peeves specifically. These people have a complete, strongly held, world view that encompasses most if not all possible social, cultural and even political issues, which is why it is so hard to convince them to make an exception and accept all the "politically correct" mores around sexuality.
For starters, that exotic religion example is not incidental. That's because according to these people's beliefs, claiming that there's nothing wrong with pursuing homosexual relationships and being unrepentant about doing so inherently contains within itself not just a sin against some of this religious doctrine's tenants, but also an argument against the doctrine itself. Going about it in the way suggested in the OP article, from the perspective of the religious people, may aswell mean "not only i'm gay, i'm gonna act on it, and last but not least, your religion has it wrong so i can't share religious life with you and your community ever again unless they all change to accommodate my stance on the matter".
And once this is explained like that, hopefully it becomes more logical why these people react so harshly. They are being driven into a corner. Maybye they would have wanted to hope that there are other options, that their children will change their ways, but setting things out to them in such a solid and uncompromising way automatically closes off all the possible alternatives to them. That's with the asked for difference between this and mere ordinary premarital sex. Because in that case, there are options. The parents may be promised that it won't happen again, and believe that the kid will repent and stop sinning. Hell, historically such cases also had the "shotgun wedding" option. Either way one day their kid will get traditionally married to deal with the whole sexual needs stuff, form a normal family, and soon all will be according to their divinely ordained rules again.
With perspectives like that, many of them may be willing to forgive like their faith suggests and cut some slack.
Contrast that to "born this way, gonna practice it at an age when even heterosexual alternative would be frowned upon, and don't even think that anything or anyone will possibly ever change my ways, also your holy book and respected priesthood alike are totally wrong about all this stuff by the way." Sure, the LGBT lobbyists love this narrative, and equally love the victimhood points created by the fallout of it, but is it really driving the point so hard the best option for the people most affected? Even if this is factually correct, which i'm not exactly convinced of myself, letting the religious parents have their hopes, even if misplaced, may be beneficial to the youths that this community supposedly cares oh so much about.
And what's with the very idea of "coming out" anyway? It is not something absolutely necessary and unavoidable, it is a relatively modern idea in itself, glorified and justified by politically correct popculture and even more so the LGBT community, but that doesn't mean that it's universally and unconditionally great idea that should be used even on most religious parents at earliest opportunity, on which one is still dependent on for basic necessities of life.
That is only one part of the more general trend of "LGBT community" adopting a very aggressive stance towards the general society to gain rights and some would even say privileges they never had, and according to some not insignificant part of society, never should have...
But as the meme goes, they will remember this, and if they ever become equally aggressive in return, we all know who is it going to end poorly for.
Last edited:
That is disputable.
A good many kids go through a sort of "gay" phase in early puberty, before becoming clearly heterosexual soon after. Or they would, if they didn't get pounced on by people with an agenda.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Well, they have done studies that show that homosexuality is not purely genetic, in fact it’s mostly not. Does that mean that a teenager’s sexual orientation can be changed? Not necessarily. Though, it’s clearly not a choice to be gay, just any many mental characteristics which we have gained through environmental influences cannot be willfully altered. Regardless of the malleability of sexual orientation, it doesn’t justify casting out a child,
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
And I'm sure that volumes of work have been done in the attempt? Please. Children are encouraged down this path.
Cite a source for this, because it isn't true AFAIK, and if it is, it would be quite interesting. Trans people spontaneously stop, but not gays. At best, some people realize it later in life.
Definitely want to see citations for this claim.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
If there was data about people going through a “gay phase” it would probably be ruthlessly suppressed by academia. Assuming that it’s true though, does it mean that someone was gay and became straight or that a bisexual was dating members of the same sex and then started dating members of the opposite sex?
I’ve known a number of bisexuals who currently live, for all practical purposes, as straight people but had some same sex experiences when they were younger.
If it’s possible for a gay teen or adult to become straight, it must be really difficult and/or unlikely considering the fact that there are gay people in Muslim countries where they could be executed for it. If someone’s gay child could become straight, if that is possible, the chances are probably a lot better if they aren’t thrown out on the street.
I’ve known a number of bisexuals who currently live, for all practical purposes, as straight people but had some same sex experiences when they were younger.
If it’s possible for a gay teen or adult to become straight, it must be really difficult and/or unlikely considering the fact that there are gay people in Muslim countries where they could be executed for it. If someone’s gay child could become straight, if that is possible, the chances are probably a lot better if they aren’t thrown out on the street.