Do you think LGBTs will eventually be all rounded up?

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

So if someone wanted to fire someone for being gay or because of their race you'd say oh well? I agree with you though that if a Priest or Rabbi or someone in any other religion doesn't want to preform a same sex marriage they should not be forced too.

I would be pissed but it's their right because if I have a business and I want to fire someone because I don't like his face I should be able to do so because it's my business, it's my property, it's like my house only people I want to allow in should come in.

ps: you quoted me before I corrected the many typos!

Does that mean that no one has the right to work?

[Vigilante justice]

So if someone wanted to fire someone for being gay or because of their race you'd say oh well? I agree with you though that if a Priest or Rabbi or someone in any other religion doesn't want to preform a same sex marriage they should not be forced too.

I would be pissed but it's their right because if I have a business and I want to fire someone because I don't like his face I should be able to do so because it's my business, it's my property, it's like my house only people I want to allow in should come in.

ps: you quoted me before I corrected the many typos!

That's true, unless you're a public school. Though they decide who they hire or what not, teacher's have a record, and have different rights or something (According to my old language arts teacher.)

[San Lumen]

So if someone wanted to fire someone for being gay or because of their race you'd say oh well? I agree with you though that if a Priest or Rabbi or someone in any other religion doesn't want to preform a same sex marriage they should not be forced too.

I would be pissed but it's their right because if I have a business and I want to fire someone because I don't like his face I should be able to do so because it's my business, it's my property, it's like my house only people I want to allow in should come in.

ps: you quoted me before I corrected the many typos!

So your response to Jim Crow would have been oh well? Sounds like a racist anti gay argument to me. An employee was outed. I'll fire them. I don't like non white people. I won't hire or I'll fire them. You do not have that right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you cannot.

[Vigilante justice]

[/spoiler]

Not at all, and well, yea, I think I reached in too much with the birth control part. But, it cannot be denied that gay people are numerically greater than in the past due to a very stable society and population densities that allow it to exist.

Why does this happen at a biological level I wouldn't be sure, and mind that, in that, most of my conjectures are just that, conjectures. There are studied, but so far I haven't found much on the evolutionary origins of homosexuality in humans. I mean, if it isn't advantageous evolutionarily to be gay, then why does the trait exist in humans, is the question.

What I am saying here should not be discarded as "oh the bigot". I am honestly pondering it and discussing it with someone, because it is as much of a puzzle to me, the reason why many humans are homosexual from a biological standpoint. Socially, I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

The part about more gay people being around might be that it's just more accepted, and more people are exploring themselves. Personally, if it exists, then it probably has to be a mental or genetic disorder.

[Individual Thought Patterns]

No, absolutely not.

[San Lumen]

No, absolutely not.

I agree no one is going to tolerate a repeat of what happened to Japanese Americans in 1942. One can ask George Takai how wonder it was.

[Individual Thought Patterns]

No, absolutely not.

I agree no one is going to tolerate a repeat of what happened to Japanese Americans in 1942. One can ask George Takai how wonder it was.

Or to the Jews in the second world war.

[Agathyr]

I would be pissed but it's their right because if I have a business and I want to fire someone because I don't like his face I should be able to do so because it's my business, it's my property, it's like my house only people I want to allow in should come in.

ps: you quoted me before I corrected the many typos!

So your response to Jim Crow would have been oh well? Sounds like a racist anti gay argument to me. An employee was outed. I'll fire them. I don't like non white people. I won't hire or I'll fire them. You do not have that right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you cannot.

1. I'm not American and I'm not talking about how the law IS but how I THINK it SHOULD be. See the difference?
2. I don't know who Jim Crow is but if in your book it's racist and anti-gay to defend owners right over his property (his business) I don't even know what to say

[Neutraligon]

First off, good points.

About the birth control part, I find that doubtful only because of the size of the LGBT community. It's pretty small, and wouldn't be helping much.

The second is pretty viable though. Of course, if you don't believe in evolution or anything (like most of us christians and other religious folk), it might not be too convincing, because it sounds like it could be related to us evolving into that.

Of course, I really don't know what i'm saying anymore. Excuse me if i'm confusing you.

Not at all, and well, yea, I think I reached in too much with the birth control part. But, it cannot be denied that gay people are numerically greater than in the past due to a very stable society and population densities that allow it to exist.

Why does this happen at a biological level I wouldn't be sure, and mind that, in that, most of my conjectures are just that, conjectures. There are studied, but so far I haven't found much on the evolutionary origins of homosexuality in humans. I mean, if it isn't advantageous evolutionarily to be gay, then why does the trait exist in humans, is the question.

What I am saying here should not be discarded as "oh the bigot". I am honestly pondering it and discussing it with someone, because it is as much of a puzzle to me, the reason why many humans are homosexual from a biological standpoint. Socially, I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

There was the Gay uncle hypothesis. There is also the idea that the genes related to fertility are also linked to homosexuality. There was a study that showed that for women who had at least one homosexual brother, they tended to be more fertile. The advantage of the more fertile women might outweigh the lack of having children for the homosexual men.

[Valgora]

So your response to Jim Crow would have been oh well? Sounds like a racist anti gay argument to me. An employee was outed. I'll fire them. I don't like non white people. I won't hire or I'll fire them. You do not have that right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you cannot.

1. I'm not American and I'm not talking about how the law IS but how I THINK it SHOULD be. See the difference?
2. I don't know who Jim Crow is but if in your book it's racist and anti-gay to defend owners right over his property (his business) I don't even know what to say

Jim Crow stands for the Jim Crow laws in the Southern United States that discriminated against blacks.

[Individual Thought Patterns]

So your response to Jim Crow would have been oh well? Sounds like a racist anti gay argument to me. An employee was outed. I'll fire them. I don't like non white people. I won't hire or I'll fire them. You do not have that right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you cannot.

1. I'm not American and I'm not talking about how the law IS but how I THINK it SHOULD be. See the difference?
2. I don't know who Jim Crow is but if in your book it's racist and anti-gay to defend owners right over his property (his business) I don't even know what to say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

First off, good points.

About the birth control part, I find that doubtful only because of the size of the LGBT community. It's pretty small, and wouldn't be helping much.

The second is pretty viable though. Of course, if you don't believe in evolution or anything (like most of us christians and other religious folk), it might not be too convincing, because it sounds like it could be related to us evolving into that.

Of course, I really don't know what i'm saying anymore. Excuse me if i'm confusing you.

Not at all, and well, yea, I think I reached in too much with the birth control part. But, it cannot be denied that gay people are numerically greater than in the past due to a very stable society and population densities that allow it to exist.

Why does this happen at a biological level I wouldn't be sure, and mind that, in that, most of my conjectures are just that, conjectures. There are studied, but so far I haven't found much on the evolutionary origins of homosexuality in humans. I mean, if it isn't advantageous evolutionarily to be gay, then why does the trait exist in humans, is the question.

What I am saying here should not be discarded as "oh the bigot". I am honestly pondering it and discussing it with someone, because it is as much of a puzzle to me, the reason why many humans are homosexual from a biological standpoint. Socially, I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

I don't believe that any convincing argument can be made that LGBTQ people are numerically greater as a proportion of society now than in the past. Historically speaking it is more accurate to say that their history has been systematically erased from the greater narrative by largely European historians eager to reflexively enforce Victorian values on past societies.

[San Lumen]

So your response to Jim Crow would have been oh well? Sounds like a racist anti gay argument to me. An employee was outed. I'll fire them. I don't like non white people. I won't hire or I'll fire them. You do not have that right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you cannot.

1. I'm not American and I'm not talking about how the law IS but how I THINK it SHOULD be. See the difference?
2. I don't know who Jim Crow is but if in your book it's racist and anti-gay to defend owners right over his property (his business) I don't even know what to say

Thats not how the law should be. You do not have a right to discriminate.
Jim Crow refers to a series of laws in the American South that treated African Americans as second class citizens. They have long since been repealed or rendered unenforceable.

A business owner has rights over their property but if you are open to the public you cannot pick and choose who you serve.

[Neutraligon]

Not at all, and well, yea, I think I reached in too much with the birth control part. But, it cannot be denied that gay people are numerically greater than in the past due to a very stable society and population densities that allow it to exist.

Why does this happen at a biological level I wouldn't be sure, and mind that, in that, most of my conjectures are just that, conjectures. There are studied, but so far I haven't found much on the evolutionary origins of homosexuality in humans. I mean, if it isn't advantageous evolutionarily to be gay, then why does the trait exist in humans, is the question.

What I am saying here should not be discarded as "oh the bigot". I am honestly pondering it and discussing it with someone, because it is as much of a puzzle to me, the reason why many humans are homosexual from a biological standpoint. Socially, I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

The part about more gay people being around might be that it's just more accepted, and more people are exploring themselves. Personally, if it exists, then it probably has to be a mental or genetic disorder.

The most respected mental health organizations have already stated that it is not a mental disorder due to it not directly harming people.
Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities. These do not include issues that are caused by society like discrimination, but rather are about things that are inherent in the mind of the individual.

[Vigilante justice]

The part about more gay people being around might be that it's just more accepted, and more people are exploring themselves. Personally, if it exists, then it probably has to be a mental or genetic disorder.

The most respected mental health organizations have already stated that it is not a mental disorder due to it not directly harming people.
Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities. These do not include issues that are caused by society like discrimination, but rather are about things that are inherent in the mind of the individual.

Could you give an example of an article or something? I'd like to research into that.

[Valgora]

The most respected mental health organizations have already stated that it is not a mental disorder due to it not directly harming people.
Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities. These do not include issues that are caused by society like discrimination, but rather are about things that are inherent in the mind of the individual.

Could you give an example of an article or something? I'd like to research into that.

Look in the DSM-5 and search for it.

[Neo Balka]

No, absolutely not.

I agree no one is going to tolerate a repeat of what happened to Japanese Americans in 1942. One can ask George Takai how wonder it was.

who the fuck cares what he thinks?

[Karvelia]

I see no problem with the thread's resident Orthodox and his beliefs. As for the lefties, don't kid yourself that people will jump in front of a government movement to repress homos. If this thread could get THIS many pages in without speaking for a second about the saturation of hormone imitating chemicals in the food and water supply, there was no hope for the discussion in the first place. Why did definitions of male fertility have to be revised because of such terrible sperm counts? This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory I'm spouting, its very real and easy to find facts. Hormone balance in early life and during pregnancy without a doubt affects the person born and may be part of why LGBTs seem common all of a sudden.

Personally, I don't find issue with LGBTs UNTIL they started being overrepresented. I don't give a damn about "reparations for the past", those are always slippery slopes where the question of "When do reparations end" is never asked. What are reparations for repressing LGBTs anyways, a sum of money, land, or maybe our firstborns? Consider that young people may be calling themselves part of the gay minority just so they can be "trendy"; what do you think happens when gays seem to make up at least a quarter of the characters in media? The answer should be quite obvious because let me say: It doesn't matter how false something is, if you repeat it enough, it becomes true.

Combine hormone saturated (of the opposite sex), impressionable young people with overwhelming media and social gains to get the disaster this whole problem is.

[San Lumen]

I agree no one is going to tolerate a repeat of what happened to Japanese Americans in 1942. One can ask George Takai how wonder it was.

who the fuck cares what he thinks?

You do know he was among those placed into internment camps simply because he was Japanese? He has first hand experience of what its like to rounded up simply because of who you are.

[Vigilante justice]

Could you give an example of an article or something? I'd like to research into that.

Look in the DSM-5 and search for it.

I found homosexuality (gender dysphoria) but not attraction to the opposite sex or anything.

[Valgora]

Look in the DSM-5 and search for it.

I found homosexuality (gender dysphoria) but not attraction to the opposite sex or anything.

Homosexuality isn't gender dysphoria; gender dysphoria is dealing with transgender and feeling like you aren't the gender you were born as.

And if you didn't find it in the DSM, it's not a mental illness.

[Vigilante justice]

I found homosexuality (gender dysphoria) but not attraction to the opposite sex or anything.

Homosexuality isn't gender dysphoria; gender dysphoria is dealing with transgender and feeling like you aren't the gender you were born as.

And if you didn't find it in the DSM, it's not a mental illness.

Take in mind I searched for about 36 seconds.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I see no problem with the thread's resident Orthodox and his beliefs. As for the lefties, don't kid yourself that people will jump in front of a government movement to repress homos. If this thread could get THIS many pages in without speaking for a second about the saturation of hormone imitating chemicals in the food and water supply, there was no hope for the discussion in the first place. Why did definitions of male fertility have to be revised because of such terrible sperm counts? This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory I'm spouting, its very real and easy to find facts. Hormone balance in early life and during pregnancy without a doubt affects the person born and may be part of why LGBTs seem common all of a sudden.

Personally, I don't find issue with LGBTs UNTIL they started being overrepresented. I don't give a damn about "reparations for the past", those are always slippery slopes where the question of "When do reparations end" is never asked. What are reparations for repressing LGBTs anyways, a sum of money, land, or maybe our firstborns? Consider that young people may be calling themselves part of the gay minority just so they can be "trendy"; what do you think happens when gays seem to make up at least a quarter of the characters in media? The answer should be quite obvious because let me say: It doesn't matter how false something is, if you repeat it enough, it becomes true.

Combine hormone saturated (of the opposite sex), impressionable young people with overwhelming media and social gains to get the disaster this whole problem is.

Eh?

Mind if your source these "very real and easy to find facts"?

[Agathyr]

Jim Crow refers to a series of laws in the American South that treated African Americans as second class citizens. They have long since been repealed or rendered unenforceable.

But it's different if the government itself discriminates than if I do it. I should have the right to do so,the government shouldn't.

A business owner has rights over their property but if you are open to the public you cannot pick and choose who you serve

Uhm.. ok. That's the law and it's what it is but if you want my opinion you should be able to do whatever you want. I defend people's right to choose who they serve. Does it mean I am racist? You are assuming I would ban black people but you know nothing about me. What if I actually want to ban white people huh? I should have the damn right to do so as well!
What If I want to ban redheads? Why would I do that? But I should have the right to do so!
These are my political believes ofc. I am the one typing so this are my opinions, obviously.

[Karvelia]

I see no problem with the thread's resident Orthodox and his beliefs. As for the lefties, don't kid yourself that people will jump in front of a government movement to repress homos. If this thread could get THIS many pages in without speaking for a second about the saturation of hormone imitating chemicals in the food and water supply, there was no hope for the discussion in the first place. Why did definitions of male fertility have to be revised because of such terrible sperm counts? This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory I'm spouting, its very real and easy to find facts. Hormone balance in early life and during pregnancy without a doubt affects the person born and may be part of why LGBTs seem common all of a sudden.

Personally, I don't find issue with LGBTs UNTIL they started being overrepresented. I don't give a damn about "reparations for the past", those are always slippery slopes where the question of "When do reparations end" is never asked. What are reparations for repressing LGBTs anyways, a sum of money, land, or maybe our firstborns? Consider that young people may be calling themselves part of the gay minority just so they can be "trendy"; what do you think happens when gays seem to make up at least a quarter of the characters in media? The answer should be quite obvious because let me say: It doesn't matter how false something is, if you repeat it enough, it becomes true.

Combine hormone saturated (of the opposite sex), impressionable young people with overwhelming media and social gains to get the disaster this whole problem is.

Eh?

Mind if your source these "very real and easy to find facts"?

I hope you don't need me to break this down for you as my post would become needlessly bulky. If you want me to, I will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen