LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[King Arts]

Here's where'd I'd draw the line: My sister's blood siblings, if she had any, wouldn't be her actual siblings. They didn't grow up with her. But let's say they did for a time. Then we'd just have a non-transitive family (the transitive property states if x=y and y=z, then x=z, for various purposes of =. In this case, we'll let = mean 'in the same family'). But this reflects the real world. For example, if you consider first cousins to be family with you, that doesn't mean your first cousin's first cousin needs to be family to you. Family is ultimately a measure of nearness, and nearness is inherently not transitive.

That part with the xs and the ys just confused me sorry man. Anyway but I can respond to your first part if your sisters blood siblings aren’t her real siblings then there would be nothing wrong with it if she wanted to marry one of them. But that’s not true I’m going to say that blood is thicker than water.

 

[Doomsought]

As noted, for one, that's not what a fetish is. Two, even if it was a fetish....ok? Fetish's aren't illegal, if you want to have a BDSM wedding you can, why is that legal while a gay one isn't?

Because it is not a marraige without a man and a woman. You are attempting to reverse cause and effect. Homsexuallity is just a fetish because it does not serve to create a healthy marriage, not the other way around. Just like BDSM does not create a healthy marriage, it creates a risky one on the knife edge of abuse (even abuse can be consensual, actually a greate deal of abuse has an element of consent to it).

 

[Battlegrinder]

Because it is not a marraige without a man and a woman.

That's another goalpost shift. You attacked LGBT marriage on the grounds of it being a fetish, not that it wasn't a man and a women.

 

[Abhorsen]

That part with the xs and the ys just confused me sorry man. Anyway but I can respond to your first part if your sisters blood siblings aren’t her real siblings then there would be nothing wrong with it if she wanted to marry one of them. But that’s not true I’m going to say that blood is thicker than water.

Basically, think of the transitive property like this. If I'm wearing the same color shirt as my sister, and she's wearing the same color shirt as her friend, then I'm wearing the same color shirt as her friend. If that bolded statement is true, then the 'same color' stuff has the transitive property.

But let's replace 'same color shirt' with 'within a mile of'. If I'm within a mile of my sister, and she's within a mile of her friend, I'm not necessarily within a mile of her friend. we could be all in a line, making me two miles away, or right on top of each other. This sort of scenario means that "within a mile" stuff doesn't have the transitive property.

I'm saying the same is true for family relationships. So it's fine that she's a sister to someone I'm not related too.

As for her having problems marrying the brother, the issue there is the blood. They wouldn't actually have the instinctual revulsion for having relations with each other that most siblings develop as they are raised together, while I do have that revulsion. This actually leads to problems to unknowing siblings separated at birth. They frequently feel attraction because of similarity of looks, not knowing they are related.

 

[Doomsought]

That's another goalpost shift. You attacked LGBT marriage on the grounds of it being a fetish, not that it wasn't a man and a women.

I attack every aspect of homosexuality because it is something disgusting that is held up with false esteem. I call dismiss it as a fetish because it needs to be dismissed as unimportant. I deny gay marriage legitimacy because it has no legitimacy. I attack both at once because there can be no compromise.

The compromise between truth and a lie is just a more convenient lie.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Psychology is a very new area of medicine, and use not having a treatment now doesn't mean we can't develop one eventually.

On the contrary, the study of psychology is far older than modern medicine.

Psychology dates back to the philosophers of multiple ancient civilizations, with notable examples including Egypt, Greece, China, India, and Persia. And yes, this was psychology as we know it and not just abstract philosophy; Hippocrates for example argued that mental disorders had physical rather than supernatural causes and could be treated by medicine, while the Ebers Papyrus dating back to 1550 BC Egypt accurately describes several mental disorders including depression and dementia and lays out a variety of medical treatments.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

That part with the xs and the ys just confused me sorry man. Anyway but I can respond to your first part if your sisters blood siblings aren’t her real siblings then there would be nothing wrong with it if she wanted to marry one of them. But that’s not true I’m going to say that blood is thicker than water.

if blood is supposed to be thicker water then apparently my family is defective We can't stand each other half the time.

 

[King Arts]

Basically, think of the transitive property like this. If I'm wearing the same color shirt as my sister, and she's wearing the same color shirt as her friend, then I'm wearing the same color shirt as her friend. If that bolded statement is true, then the 'same color' stuff has the transitive property.

But let's replace 'same color shirt' with 'within a mile of'. If I'm within a mile of my sister, and she's within a mile of her friend, I'm not necessarily within a mile of her friend. we could be all in a line, making me two miles away, or right on top of each other. This sort of scenario means that "within a mile" stuff doesn't have the transitive property.

I'm saying the same is true for family relationships. So it's fine that she's a sister to someone I'm not related too.

As for her having problems marrying the brother, the issue there is the blood. They wouldn't actually have the instinctual revulsion for having relations with each other that most siblings develop as they are raised together, while I do have that revulsion. This actually leads to problems to unknowing siblings separated at birth. They frequently feel attraction because of similarity of looks, not knowing they are related.

Ok I think I get what you mean by transitive. Using it with something I believe in. If I have a half brother and my half brother has a half sister that sister of his could have no blood connection to me? Is that it?

Anyway the effect of incest deformities is overstated the Hapbsurgs required multiple generations. Having it happen once probably won’t cause a problem. Also there are people who have relationships without producing kids either because they are at high risk for something or personal choice. We don’t do eugenics and force those people to choose that option though. Also when those unknown siblings find out they end up horrified because they and our society do consider blood siblings to be siblings.

 

[Abhorsen]

Ok I think I get what you mean by transitive. Using it with something I believe in. If I have a half brother and my half brother has a half sister that sister of his could have no blood connection to me? Is that it?

That would be non-transitive. If the universe had weirdly different rules, and somehow the half sister had to have a blood connection with you, that would be transitive. That's the basic idea.

Anyway the effect of incest deformities is overstated the Hapbsurgs required multiple generations. Having it happen once probably won’t cause a problem. Also there are people who have relationships without producing kids either because they are at high risk for something or personal choice. We don’t do eugenics and force those people to choose that option though. Also when those unknown siblings find out they end up horrified because they and our society do consider blood siblings to be siblings.

Oh, yeah, they definitely end up horrified, but some stay together anyways. I was focused more on the instinctual revulsion as that seems more important as to determining which sibling relationship actually matters. Anyway, this is getting off topic, please open a new thread if you want to continue this.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I attack every aspect of homosexuality because it is something disgusting that is held up with false esteem. I call dismiss it as a fetish because it needs to be dismissed as unimportant. I deny gay marriage legitimacy because it has no legitimacy. I attack both at once because there can be no compromise.

The compromise between truth and a lie is just a more convenient lie.

If you have multiple unrelated reasons for "attacking" homosexuality, you can admit to being wrong about one of your reasons without admitting to being wrong about all your reasons.

You are wrong about the fetish reason, because of what a fetish is. You can admit this and still be against homosexuality.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I attack every aspect of homosexuality because it is something disgusting that is held up with false esteem. I call dismiss it as a fetish because it needs to be dismissed as unimportant. I deny gay marriage legitimacy because it has no legitimacy. I attack both at once because there can be no compromise.

The compromise between truth and a lie is just a more convenient lie.

That sounds like you're picked your conclusion and are working backwards from that to devise justifications, rather than having you beliefs be based in a consistent set of principles.

 

[ShieldWife]

Sexual orientation has been proven to be influenced by environmental factors via twin studies. It is just a fetish, nothing more. You have no more right to practice your homosexual fetish that someone with a foot fetish or a fetish for bondage.

Anyone who has claimed that it is innate since the twin studies is a liar.

Actually, people do have the right to practice a foot fetish or bondage fetish. I have no interest in debating the line between a sexual fetish and a sexual orientation, if there is a clear line, but I don’t know if it matters. People are allowed to engage in foot fetishes if they like, or any other fetish actually as long as the other participant(s) are consenting and able to consent.

Freedom should be the default state, people should be allowed to act as they desire unless some action can be shown to be too harmful to be allowed (like murder or theft) or that some action is so necessary that it must be compelled (like paying taxes).

You’re right that homosexuality isn’t genetic, it’s largely caused by environment, but that isn’t really material in regard to outlawing it. If some gene is discovered that makes everyone who has it a murderer, we would still prohibit murder.

 

[King Arts]

Actually, people do have the right to practice a foot fetish or bondage fetish. I have no interest in debating the line between a sexual fetish and a sexual orientation, if there is a clear line, but I don’t know if it matters. People are allowed to engage in foot fetishes if they like, or any other fetish actually as long as the other participant(s) are consenting and able to consent.

Freedom should be the default state, people should be allowed to act as they desire unless some action can be shown to be too harmful to be allowed (like murder or theft) or that some action is so necessary that it must be compelled (like paying taxes).

You’re right that homosexuality isn’t genetic, it’s largely caused by environment, but that isn’t really material in regard to outlawing it. If some gene is discovered that makes everyone who has it a murderer, we would still prohibit murder.

I don’t think doomsought was saying we should ban homosexuality because it’s a fetish. Banning something using the argument that it’s a fetish is dumb. But that it should be treated as a fetish it’s something you do and enjoy in public there is no need to bring in laws and parades for foot fetishes or BDSM for example.

 

[Doomsought]

I don’t think doomsought was saying we should ban homosexuality because it’s a fetish. Banning something using the argument that it’s a fetish is dumb. But that it should be treated as a fetish it’s something you do and enjoy in public there is no need to bring in laws and parades for foot fetishes or BDSM for example.

Exactly, not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Homosexuallity is something that just needs to be treated with the same shame and indignity as other forms of debauchery.

 

[Abhorsen]

I don’t think doomsought was saying we should ban homosexuality because it’s a fetish. Banning something using the argument that it’s a fetish is dumb. But that it should be treated as a fetish it’s something you do and enjoy in public there is no need to bring in laws and parades for foot fetishes or BDSM for example.

Exactly, not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Homosexuallity is something that just needs to be treated with the same shame and indignity as other forms of debauchery.

Yeah, when that happened last, we were lobotomised and castrated in mass by the state, because hated, legal things usually don't stay that way. They get banned or accepted unless there are protections against majority rule for the hated thing.

As for it being a fetish, it just fails to meet the definition, and it is also immutable past a young age, unlike fetishes. Also, unlike fetishes, it's immediately obvious: two men living together long term, and none dating women, it's a pretty big tipoff. A foot fetish, in contrast, can be enjoyed in just the home. This is also why gays were hunted down by the government, while people indulging in a foot fetish weren't.

Finally, unless you believe in using force to keep gays down, there is no option of keeping it quiet. This was a deliberate and strategic choice on the part of the LGBT movement (especially during the AIDS movement, but Harvey Milk was also apart of this) to be out and proud, and now it's basically unchangeable, as no new group will have any incentive to go back in the closet (unless you use legal force). This puts the rest of civilization in a dilemma as we aren't ignorable, so you can love us or hate us. But since in every cohort of American society there's a chance your kid will be gay, the hatred doesn't last.

 

[ShieldWife]

I don’t think doomsought was saying we should ban homosexuality because it’s a fetish. Banning something using the argument that it’s a fetish is dumb. But that it should be treated as a fetish it’s something you do and enjoy in public there is no need to bring in laws and parades for foot fetishes or BDSM for example.

Well, I would agree that having fetish parades isn’t necessary, and pretty vulgar too. I can see why there is a difference, though, between the political movement associated with homosexuality and an equivalent one for (to continue with the example we have been using) a foot fetish.

One thing is that historically, people could engage in a foot fetish without much fear of punishment. If some couple were already sexually active, if they added that to their activities nobody would know and likely nobody would care. I’ve never heard of anybody getting put in prison or executed for engaging in a foot fetish. Gay people, on the other hand, have been severely punished just in living memory even in relatively liberal Western nations. Alan Turing, for example, was chemically castrated for being gay, despite his contributions to science, mathematics, and the British war effort: how is that for a thank you? There are people still alive who have likely been subjected to harsh punishments for being gay even in the USA or Western Europe. Considering that, I could see how there could be a different attitude about homosexuality than most other sexual proclivities.

Additionally, man with a foot fetish could historically get together with a woman with a foot fetish and enjoy their foot fetishy life together, complete with a full legally recognized marriage. Gay people in the last few decades, after legal punishments ended, could not get married or have the associated advantages of that. At least until gay marriage recently was legalized. That issue isn’t as important as ending punishments for gays, but I could still see it as a cause that gay people would reasonably advocate for.

 

[Doomsought]

Finally, unless you believe in using force to keep gays down, there is no option of keeping it quiet. This was a deliberate and strategic choice on the part of the LGBT movement (especially during the AIDS movement, but Harvey Milk was also apart of this) to be out and proud

A movement which financially supported attempts to legalize pedophilia until an act of congress was made to stop them.

 

[ShieldWife]

Exactly, not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Homosexuallity is something that just needs to be treated with the same shame and indignity as other forms of debauchery.

True, not all immoral things should be illegal, and I support your right to freedom of speech to say what ever you like regarding homosexuality. Then people who disagree with you can express their opinions. It’s basically the libertarian method.

Though, within the context of both sides having free speech, what would you expect a gay person to do? Assuming that someone is gay and that they can’t willingly end their desires for people of the same sex and also can’t willingly gain desires for people of the opposite sex, what option would you prefer that the gay person take? To simply live a life of chastity and celibacy? That is a pretty big sacrifice to make, to give up the ability for both romantic and sexual fulfillment. Are a gay person’s only options shameful debauchery or celibacy?

 

[Abhorsen]

A movement which financially supported attempts to legalize pedophilia until an act of congress was made to stop them.

Evidence, please? If you're talking about NAMBLA, I've covered that before:

Second, yes, pedos latching onto the LGBT movement is an old story. The LGBT movement predated NAMBLA (NAMBLA started in '78, gay liberation in '69), worked to kick the pedo group out of where it was allowed, including banning it from multiple pride marches (most pretty quickly), until it was totally excommunicated from pride marches by 1986 (maybe earlier?), and almost no one invited them in (except David Thorstad). The thing is, pedos will use any excuse to mainstream themselves and latch onto any movement that justifies their evil actions. They say gay rights as a pathway to acceptance. Good on the movement for working to stop evil hangers on from taking advantage of the movement.

 

[Doomsought]

Evidence, please? If you're talking about NAMBLA, I've covered that before:

They only kicked the NAMBLA out when the normies notice. That is why the NAMBLA still got money from them until congress passed a bill about it in 91. To butcher a phrase, the fact that congress had to act in order to stop the financial relationship is proof that the gay rights movement does not put their money where your mouth says they are.