The LGBT movement will self destruct

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DaddyGirl said:
What does this author mean when she says “the LGBT movement”?

Is she talking about laws to protect LGBT men and women against discrimination?
Is she talking about the psychological, biological, and social study, research, discussion, and learning regarding the spectrum of sexuality that exists–and has always existed?

She talks about “foolish ideas” coming from the “movement” and compares it to spelling, bad habits, and idiocy that will be remembered with “shame” and “derision”.
And yet, I don’t think she gives one example of these foolish ideas she speaks of (does she?) so…what is she saying?

There are so many outrageously inaccurate statements in the article…I can’t bear to read it a second time to list them.

Bad ideas don’t always die, Rachel.
I’m sorry to break this news to you. I wish they did.
Sometimes they remain for thousands of years because people get stuck doing the same thing for centuries and can’t bear change. Or people aren’t enlightened enough yet to look beyond their bad idea to new, better ones. Or they are afraid. Or they are too egotistical to consider they may be wrong.

.
Click to expand...
Thanks for a great analysis. 👍
 
Rau said:
Probably? Do you imagine there might be another possibility?
Click to expand...
I’m not going to say that there will categorically “always” be gay people. If I did, someone would say that scientists might invent some kind of medical way of preventing homosexuality. Perhaps in the future, we will have designer, genetically engineered babies…

Even if it’s not the whole story, I still think that there is at least a genetic component of homosexuality.
 
Since it’s a behavior played out through free will, there will never be a way to screen for it.
 
BCole said:
Since it’s a behavior played out through free will, there will never be a way to screen for it.
Click to expand...
Clearly that’s true for the “playing out”. As for the inclination to it - and the absence of the inclination towards the opposite sex - we don’t yet know what gives rise to that. Maybe there will be a basis to forecast this.
 
Thorolfr said:
I’m not going to say that there will categorically “always” be gay people. If I did, someone would say that scientists might invent some kind of medical way of preventing homosexuality.
Click to expand...
First, they would need to discover what mechanisms determine one’s sexual interests, and they’d need to be amenable to a medical response. At the present there are only bits and pieces of ideas, some biological, some genetic, some psychological and environmental, but nothing firmly established. I suspect a looooonng way to go.
 
Rau said:
First, they would need to discover what mechanisms determine one’s sexual interests, and they’d need to be amenable to a medical response. At the present there are only bits and pieces of ideas, some biological, some genetic, some psychological and environmental, but nothing firmly established. I suspect a looooonng way to go.
Click to expand...
I’m not looking forward to advances like that. Have you read C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man? He talks about once we learn to manage nature. it will be men managing other men. Not such a great idea given our track record.

.
 
These are people who are into sexually abusive relationships, and when they discover that they are being sexually abused, I predict that a fair number of them will turn to religion as an escape. It’s these types of people who will come to deepen their faith much more deeply than if they never engaged in perversive sex, and I expect that God will bless them greatly once they repent!
 
From The Quadrant - Do Gays Really Want Gay Marriage ?
Describing itself as one of the “largest surveys of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) people ever conducted” the report titled Private Lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians concludes that marriage recognition is a very minor issue. The report states “Only a small percentage of men and women (between 5-10%) reported formalising the relationship with a marriage or commitment ceremony, while most others had no wish to do so”.
Click to expand...
When discussing relationship status the report also notes, “It is of interest that the majority of respondents between (52% of men and 39% of women) indicated no intention or wish to formalise their current relationship”.
Click to expand...
A second national survey, titled Monopoly: A Study of Gay Men’s Relationships and involving 4,215 gay and bisexual online respondents plus face-to-face interviews, reports a similar conclusion in relation to gay men. Under the heading ‘Marriage & Other Ceremonies’ the survey states, “only a minority of men indicated they would like to marry their primary regular partner”. In relation to men with multiple partners, as might be expected, the percentage answering ‘yes’ to the question ‘Would you marry partner’ sits at 11%.
Click to expand...
 
BobCatholic said:
When I was in college, I knew a few homosexuals, and they said they disagreed with gay marriage because it was “playing hetero” - they wanted to be accepted based on who they are, and not because they’re copying off of the heteros (“marriage”).

I wonder what happened to that viewpoint lately.
Click to expand...
The goal was elevated from mere acceptance of their relationship to have it recognized as equivalent in all respects.
 
Rau said:
The goal was elevated from mere acceptance of their relationship to have it recognized as equivalent in all respects.
Click to expand...
You think that most conservatives actually “accept” gay relationships? They don’t, of course. At most they might tolerate them.

tolerate (verb): allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

accept (verb): believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
 
Thorolfr said:
You think that most conservatives actually “accept” gay relationships? They don’t, of course. At most they might tolerate them.

tolerate (verb): allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

accept (verb): believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
Click to expand...
I spoke of the goal, not successful achievement. I note you’re not disagreeing with what I said.

The definition of accept you provided is also for a different use of the word.
 
Thorolfr said:
You think that most conservatives actually “accept” gay relationships? They don’t, of course. At most they might tolerate them.

tolerate (verb): allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

accept (verb): believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
Click to expand...
I thought tolerance was the goal in all of this. Christians of orthodox belief will not accept gay relationships, but at least here in America, tolerance of differing beliefs is necessary. That means those in favor or gay "marriage " must be tolerant of those of use who reject it
 
JonNC said:
I thought tolerance was the goal in all of this. Christians of orthodox belief will not accept gay relationships, but at least here in America, tolerance of differing beliefs is necessary. That means those in favor or gay "marriage " must be tolerant of those of use who reject it
Click to expand...
Isn’t it interesting how the pro-SSM supporters feel empowered to declare those opposing SSM as bigots and haters on principle.
 
Rau said:
Isn’t it interesting how the pro-SSM supporters feel empowered to declare those opposing SSM as bigots and haters on principle.
Click to expand...
Oh, it is more than that. They (some of them) insist that we participate in the event: the photographer, the baker, and soon, I expect, they will demand it of the Church

Jon
 
As with any of these minority movements, the goal is domination, not equality.
 
I dearly hope so. As someone who use to strongly support SS"M" the LGBT movement is one obnoxious disordered stain on society.

If there’s one thing I want to implode in my lifetime it’s the LGBT movement and to a lesser extent the film/movie industry (well, it’s already eating itself and the world seems to be fine with it doing so).
 
BobCatholic said:
When I was in college, I knew a few homosexuals, and they said they disagreed with gay marriage because it was “playing hetero” - they wanted to be accepted based on who they are, and not because they’re copying off of the heteros (“marriage”).

I wonder what happened to that viewpoint lately.
Click to expand...
I think it’s still there but is drowned out immensely by straights who are looking to be PC in order to impress their friends on Facebook feeds and go along with what’s cool :cool:

Which is why I advise GLBTQ persons to be very careful around such individuals.
 
JonNC said:
Oh, it is more than that. They (some of them) insist that we participate in the event: the photographer, the baker, and soon, I expect, they will demand it of the Church

Jon
Click to expand...
Thing to keep in mind is none of that would even be remotely possible if Christians would not betray their values.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top