I don't believe you.

You said when people "recognise" incompatibility as if it was a given that gay people aren't compatible with society. That's what makes it a veild justification for violence. You're basically victim blaming.

Oh I reckon I read you fine mate so I think we're god.

There's ample empirical evidence that a culture that emphasizes far left values degrades certain institutions that are vastly better for people whose lives don't revolve around far left values.
As noted, elevation of homosexuality is one such symptom of that world.

Couldn't we say the same thing about queer people who don't want to engage with people who don't like them?
Just stay in the closet?

Ahh yes, the irony-fantasy... Fantasists gunna fantasize.

Maybe I should have been more clear.
We could return to a society that had values that lead to a society without the social-degradation problems we see today, without bringing back Jim Crow or banning gays from being the Mayor.
That false dilemma is the constant of your side, and its still false.

I'm super-duper not afraid of gay people, but do view their weird elevation to cultural "heroes" as being a symptom of something society is not better off having.
Sort of like, I'm not afraid of 'ants' but if my kitchen is full of ants, its a symptom of a problem that needs to be fixed.
And I don't think you're an idiot but we have clear idiots here, so I have to head them off at the pass- this isn't a comparison of 'gays to ants' and if you think that, you're living proof of why they use simple metaphors on IQ tests.

It was a sterile observation, me saying that I largely agree with you- historically, impasses on values do lead to one group shooting it out with the other group, when they can't find a way to live with each other.

Why? Christianity is a useful touchstone to get large groups of people to believe certain values that are useful for a higher functioning society, but the religion itself is absurd.

I disagree.

'Queer' does not seem to be a reclaimed word for use by the community only. You can watch your evening news cast and hear regularly talk of the 'Queer community' by anyone and it seems to get no offense.

Where the NWord is universally considered a pejorative, even when POC use it to de-power the word, Queer is not considered same.

That does not mean every queer person wants every person like laggy to call them queer, as we cannot speak for all people, but to say Queer's use is the same as the NWord for other than the afflicted people, is not accurate.

You're one of the dumber participants here, making a run at "the dumbest" title

1. who cares what you believe? You're incorrect.
2. Correct, people recognizing incompatibility with another group often leads to violence, ethnic cleansing, etc. See: human history. It doesn't justify anything, it's an observable fact. Having to argue with dumb-guy logic gets pretty tedious.
3. Again, incorrect. SEE THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT YOU AND I'M NOT WRONG SO DON'T SAY I'M WRONG BECAUSE ITS WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT YOU !! You're a tard, m8.

In my opinion, any MLB player should be allowed to opt-out of wearing anything on his uniform that promotes any religious or political or social cause.

But ultimately, that's between the owners and the player's union.

You didn't answer my question. (Not that you're obliged to.)

What does the letter "Q" mean in LGBTQ+?

Thanks! Very informative.

I did answer your question you're deliberately choosing not to understand it

My point exists PRIOR to delving in to their reasoning and rationalizations.

My point exist even if you and I agree 100% that laggy (type) is wrong and we are right.

My point says you and I can agree LGBTQ+ people have every right to exist, but I stop short in saying 'I can then force laggy to wear affirmations of that right because him refusing to do so, is proof he does not exist our right to exist' and we must not allow that.

A person like laggy can both believe LGBTQ+ have every right to exist and they would do nothing to interfere with that, but also believe it is wrong based on their beliefs and not something they should affirm publically.

Meaning they can say 'even though we might disagree on this topic I would not force my views on others and thus I support you living your best life based on your views and I will do so with mine'.

You enter in and say 'that is not adequate. I require you to affirm me or you are outing yourself as being against me'.

That is just nonsense.

Thank you for sharing.

please provide some of this ample evidence

well, one group wants to live their life without engaging with people who dislike them, and the other group wants the first group to not exist. They are not equivalent positions, no.



maybe you should be more clear about what, if any, policy changes you are suggesting. Because the impression you have been giving is that you want gay people to go away


If you see gay people as a problem that needs to be fixed, then yes you're homophobic and an *******.

It isn't a sterile observation when you are presenting gay people as a problem that needs to be solved, and talking about how they 'degrade society'. Don't act ignorant of where such language leads

don't you have a free speech thread to rant in about this topic?

Puts the 50s on a pedestal, calls other people fantasists.

LOL@LOLLOL.

Certainly a fine approach, in my opinion.

It might not be polite to say so out loud, but that isn't going to stop people from seeing a trans lesbian and thinking, "Isn't that just being straight with extra steps?"

You might not think it's weird, but it's definitely weird. No less weird than the grown men who wear diapers and pay women to breastfeed them, or the million other weird things humans do.

We can get on board with making sure you aren't prevented from obtaining a mortgage due to your quirks, but lets do away with the thought-police.

My understanding of the culture is that they'd get invited to the parade because everyone is welcome, but the literal man-babies don't get their own letter. They're just 'Q's.

laggy you are correct on this one but once people 'take a position' here you can expect them not to relent or acknowledge a mistake.

Queer is not a default pejorative and in fact is a welcome comment in the community generally.

If you said it without the context to belittle and insult and just as identifier, that is fine and you can turn on the news and see all sorts of people use it the same way without issue.

That would be very different than if you said 'you ****in queer' and meant it pejoratively though or if any individual told you they were not comfortable with its usage.


of course if people are just 'assuming' you meant it to insult, rather than identify, and they will accept nothing other from you, then they will assign you that context and proceed to judge you on that and not attempt to clarify or explain by you may change that. C'est la vie. Such is life. Especially here.

(and note, I am not taking your side nor am I assuming your intent is pure. I am just telling you that i can and would around LGBTQ+ friends if i was asking a question about the community use the word queer and it would not be an issue. I could say ' ...explain X about the LGBTQ+ ....' or '...explain X about the queer community...' and BOTH would be fine.)

Very well said!

Yes, some people think that. Those people don't really understand queer people at all. Your gender matters in how people interact with and treat you, even outside of the bedroom, so I don't really understand why people think they are equivalent, but I'm guessing they just don't have a good understanding of gender or sexuality and are conflating the two.

How are people being thought police? I don't think a single person has been banned. If someone says something offensive, and you tell them they are being offensive, that isn't being the thought police, that is just how free speech works. You can say whatever you want, and people get to judge you and respond to the things you say! No one owes you politeness when you're being a rude bigot.

I really don't get who 'they' are in your last sentence - I'm guessing trans people? maybe specifically trans women? Trans people don't get invited because 'everyone is welcome', but because pride started because of Stonewall, and Stonewall happened because of trans people and dykes fighting back against police violence. Literally there from the start.

Again, if you don't know what you are talking about, it is usually best to listen instead of explain.

And I also don't know who the 'literal man babies' are. A man sized baby? I haven't seen any of those at pride

I assume that you would like to see racism go away.

I also assume that you do not advocate violence against racists.

"Hate the racism, love the racist."

How was Cuepee's post a rant?

I get disagreeing with what he said, but it certainly wasn't a rant. (Unlike many of your posts.)

Did anyone force anyone to wear anything? It sounded like the people who didn’t want to show a basic symbol of support for gay people during pride…..didn’t? And got to expound on their views to the national media as well? Is there any particular reason in the trans thread we are, once again, focusing on our attention on the hypothetical cis straight victims?

Because we live in a society, and there are many people in it whose values run contrary to yours?

Are you proposing keeping your child in a homogenous bubble their whole childhoods?

You said the gays are responsible for the entire degradation of our society!

In what universe is that not you expressing fear of that group?

A pet peeve of mine.

A "double standard" is NOT wrong simply because it is a double standard.
'Discrimination' is not wrong simply because a person may discriminate.

There is third abused word or concept that is similarly abused, and that always triggers me, but it escapes me right now where people think simply because they identified 'DOUBLE STANDARD' or "DISCRIMINATON", they have won the argument of identifying an abuse.

That is wrong.

A 'double standard' or 'discrimination; may or may not be wrong, may or may not be appropriate and right. In each instance, you must make the case.

For instance, I can make the case why a double standard over the use of the NWord for POC is correct while excluding it from use generally from white people. It being a 'double standard' does not make it wrong.

Maybe I missed your answer. Sorry.

Please re-post your answer and put in bold the part where you said what the "Q" in LGBTQ+ stands for. Thanks.