Intersectionalism reaching full madness?

[Vassenor]

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

You can’t try to paint them as the bad guys by saying some Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality. Someone could easily rebound back and say that some Democrats want abortion available at every point in a pregnancy, for example.

It’s simply not wise.

As for banning transgender people from the military; 1, they are a very small percentage of the population in the first place, and an even smaller percentage of this already small percentage will go into the military. It’s not a very impactful law, and it’s not only for their safety to an extent (the military isn’t known for being friendly) but also due to the fact that their treatments, if they are undergoing them, could put them at risk.

So how many people does it take before it becomes wrong?

[United Muscovite Nations]

You can’t try to paint them as the bad guys by saying some Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality. Someone could easily rebound back and say that some Democrats want abortion available at every point in a pregnancy, for example.

It’s simply not wise.

As for banning transgender people from the military; 1, they are a very small percentage of the population in the first place, and an even smaller percentage of this already small percentage will go into the military. It’s not a very impactful law, and it’s not only for their safety to an extent (the military isn’t known for being friendly) but also due to the fact that their treatments, if they are undergoing them, could put them at risk.

So how many people does it take before it becomes wrong?

It will never be wrong to ban anyone from the military because the military is bad.

[Sicaris]

You can’t try to paint them as the bad guys by saying some Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality. Someone could easily rebound back and say that some Democrats want abortion available at every point in a pregnancy, for example.

It’s simply not wise.

As for banning transgender people from the military; 1, they are a very small percentage of the population in the first place, and an even smaller percentage of this already small percentage will go into the military. It’s not a very impactful law, and it’s not only for their safety to an extent (the military isn’t known for being friendly) but also due to the fact that their treatments, if they are undergoing them, could put them at risk.

So how many people does it take before it becomes wrong?

I didn’t say it wasn’t wrong because there weren’t enough people, I said it wasn’t very impactful. Don’t put words into my mouth.

[Vassenor]

So how many people does it take before it becomes wrong?

I didn’t say it wasn’t wrong because there weren’t enough people, I said it wasn’t very impactful. Don’t put words into my mouth.

You're saying we shouldn't criticise for it because it's not impactful.

[Purgatio]

I should really know better by now, I've been on NSG way too long to make this rookie mistake, but I can't help it, so I'm gonna bite:

What on Earth are the "drawbacks" of there being gay people in the world, exactly?

Uh...
Christians don't like it? Its unnatural? Its degenerate and corrupting? Accidents in the back seat don't result in children? It normalises sexual deviants and pedophilia? Children exposed to sodomy are traumatized for their life? It leads to high suicide rates?

I dunno, these are the popular concerns raised by those against sodomy. I guess most of it is wrong, but it is unnatural (though marriage and Reese Cups^TM are unnatural too), it does not give the joy of children to a couple (we are created to have children, so it is a valid one) while homosexuals who become hetero can have children, and sexual minorities do have higher suicide rates, how much inherent to their condition is not determined.

Wow oh wow...where to begin...

Anal sex is unnatural? Says who? How do you define 'natural sex', exactly? What metric do you use to determine what kind of sexual intercourse is inherent in nature and which are not? The very fact that homosexual activity has been recorded amongst animals makes it pretty hard to argue that gay sex is just inherently 'unnatural' (whatever that means)

Gay sex can't produce children...great, so should infertile people just never have sex or its immoral? Are you opposed to oral sex? Anal sex between men and women? What about sex with condoms? What about sex when someone's been sterilised? What about sex with a woman on contraception? What about sex where the guy pulls out before he finishes? What about a woman who has undergone menopause - must she remain celibate for the rest of her life otherwise she is committing a sin? If your argument is only sex with the potential to produce a child is moral, then the overwhelming majority of people having sex are doing things in the bedroom which are immoral by your book, in which case you need to own up to that.

As for the idea that suicide might be 'inherent' to being gay, I already addressed this earlier - ask yourself a simple question, which of the following two theories makes logical sense to you. (1) For some bizarre reason, when a guy kisses another guy, it magically increases their inclinations towards suicide, but if you swap out one guy for a girl, suddenly their lips touching doesn't increase the inclination towards suicide, because there's apparently something magical about male lips touching female lips which doesn't induce the 'desire to kill yourself' that men and men being intimate or women and women being intimate apparently does. (2) Or....when you live in a society that systematically shames you for your sexuality, forces you to repress your natural sexual feelings of attraction by making them feel wrong, perverted, abominable and contrary to nature, that you will go to hell, that you are an evil pedophile who traumatises children because you are gay, that you are the reason society is in moral decline, when you face social rejection and familial rejection over your sexuality, that these things can generally drive someone to kill themself. Tell me, seriously, which theory makes more sense to you, (1) or (2)?

Your other claims are so laughably unsupported by science I can't even begin. Homosexuality linked to pedophilia? Been debunked over and over and over again:
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/10/22/no-homosexuality-not-risk-factor-sexual-abuse-children
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
https://stopabusecampaign.org/2017/03/10/most-sex-abusers-are-heterosexual/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J291v01n01_08
https://medium.com/@juliussky/gays-arent-more-likely-to-be-pedophiles-611a48469655
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-26236-001

This 'homosexuality and pedophilia are linked' argument is just one of those unscientific lies that, no matter how many times it gets debunked, just keeps popping up over and over again like a societal cancer.

Needless to say, your 'children exposed to sodomy are traumatised for life' is strictly-speaking true...in the sense that prepubscent children exposed to pedophilia and statutory rape, homosexual or heterosexual, will get traumatised. This is an argument against child sexual abuse, not an argument against homosexuality.

[Anantpura]

Well, I'm not saying that sodomy should be punished, but that it is still controversial to fully legalise sodomy. That is why many countries haven't done so yet. You said that this isn't controversial (factually) in any way, but it is.
Legalising homosexuality doesn't directly lead to more unsavory legalizations, yes, but it normalises them as just another forbidden fruit.
The slippery slope, it is real.

If people say that you would go to hell, won't you want to stay longer in God's green earth than commit suicide and go to hell? Perhaps some of this is due to discrimination, but wouldn't not being able to feel attracted to the gender you are supposed to be attracted to have some psychological consequences?

Umm... Ok, this might be my pure ignorance due to me being born in a different culture, but why would anyone love someone if they can't have children? I've seen divorces happening due to infertility.

[Vassenor]

Well, I'm not saying that sodomy should be punished, but that it is still controversial to fully legalise sodomy. That is why many countries haven't done so yet. You said that this isn't controversial (factually) in any way, but it is.
Legalising homosexuality doesn't directly lead to more unsavory legalizations, yes, but it normalises them as just another forbidden fruit.
The slippery slope, it is real.

If people say that you would go to hell, won't you want to stay longer in God's green earth than commit suicide and go to hell? Perhaps some of this is due to discrimination, but wouldn't not being able to feel attracted to the gender you are supposed to be attracted to have some psychological consequences?

Umm... Ok, this might be my pure ignorance due to me being born in a different culture, but why would anyone love someone if they can't have children? I've seen divorces happening due to infertility.

It's real because a conservative blog citing a conservative website which is totally not trying to push a narrative about the homogays being bad said so?

[Hirota]

Well, I'm not saying that sodomy should be punished, but that it is still controversial to fully legalise sodomy. That is why many countries haven't done so yet. You said that this isn't controversial (factually) in any way, but it is.
Legalising homosexuality doesn't directly lead to more unsavory legalizations, yes, but it normalises them as just another forbidden fruit.
The slippery slope, it is real.

If people say that you would go to hell, won't you want to stay longer in God's green earth than commit suicide and go to hell? Perhaps some of this is due to discrimination, but wouldn't not being able to feel attracted to the gender you are supposed to be attracted to have some psychological consequences?

If you want to care about what imaginary bearded sky person A or imaginary bearded sky person B thinks about you and who or what you rub your bits in or against, that's down to you and your imaginary bearded sky person. It's not down to someone else to decide that their imaginary bearded sky person cares what other people do with their bits.

And as for their argument that polygamy is going to somehow lead to the demise of the christian church and the undermining of imaginary bearded sky person's best selling novel - then sign me up. I'm now in the market ladies, if you are willing to share. Lets fuck for atheism!

Umm... Ok, this might be my pure ignorance due to me being born in a different culture, but why would anyone love someone if they can't have children? I've seen divorces happening due to infertility.

Aside from the slightly disturbing lack of empathy on your part, In the past, where having more children was more important because you needed a large income coming into the house. But that isn't really the case in the west as it approaches post-scarcity these days.

[The New California Republic]

Hmm. Sometimes the articles on Out are a bit out there.

[Hirota]

Hmm. Sometimes the articles on Out are a bit out there.

Luckily the comments section is putting the silly op-ed in it's place.

Actually kind of shocked they have a working comments section.

[Anantpura]

If you want to care about what imaginary bearded sky person A or imaginary bearded sky person B thinks about you and who or what you rub your bits in or against, that's down to you and your imaginary bearded sky person. It's not down to someone else to decide that their imaginary bearded sky person cares what other people do with their bits.

And as for their argument that polygamy is going to somehow lead to the demise of the christian church and the undermining of imaginary bearded sky person's best selling novel - then sign me up. I'm now in the market ladies, if you are willing to share. Lets fuck for atheism!

Yes, that's what I am saying. If you believe in the Christian god and think that you are going to go to hell because everyone says so, you won't want to commit suicide and go to hell. If you don't really believe in god, then participating in sodomy won't matter to your moral conscience and whatever people say to you would be ignored. If you live in places like Iran or KSA, then you would just be a normal hetero to others. It may be inherent to being a sexual minority to commit suicide, as you won't be with the gender you are intended to get dirty with. The experts are not sure though.

Aside from the slightly disturbing lack of empathy on your part, In the past, where having more children was more important because you needed a large income coming into the house. But that isn't really the case in the west as it approaches post-scarcity these days.

Look, I've been to the west I like how you people don't have to struggle for basic necessities daily and how you try to help us develop. It is not in any way my place to comment upon you people harshly. I may find some parts of your culture revolting, but I won't do anything to stop you from developing as you want to. The same however can't be said for you! You find sodomy laws revolting. So you use your power to change them. The world however is becoming multipolar. What if tommorow, my country started laying sanctions upon you for consuming beef or having open access to guns? Would you like that?

[Ifreann]

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

You can’t try to paint them as the bad guys by saying some Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality. Someone could easily rebound back and say that some Democrats want abortion available at every point in a pregnancy, for example.

It’s simply not wise.

In fact I can criticise the Republican party for putting forward candidates for election who support the criminalisation of homosexuality. If you think that I should refrain from such criticism lest someone criticise the Democrats, you will be glad to know that I could not give so much as half a fuck what off-topic bollocks someone might post about the Democrats.

As for banning transgender people from the military; 1, they are a very small percentage of the population in the first place, and an even smaller percentage of this already small percentage will go into the military. It’s not a very impactful law,

My point is that Republicans don't support LGBT rights, and your response is "Well there aren't very many trans people". What does it fucking matter how many transgender people Trump is firing for being transgender? It could be just the one person and it would still show that Republicans don't support LGBT rights.

and it’s not only for their safety to an extent (the military isn’t known for being friendly)

It's transphobic to ban trans people from the military, and pretending that doing so is for their protection is just fucking stupid.

but also due to the fact that their treatments, if they are undergoing them, could put them at risk.

No they couldn't.

[Risottia]

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

You can’t try to paint them as the bad guys by saying some Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality. Someone could easily rebound back and say that some Democrats want abortion available at every point in a pregnancy, for example.

I fail to see how "abortion available at every point in pregnancy" should be comparable to "criminalizing homosexuality".

[Ifreann]

You can’t try to paint them as the bad guys by saying some Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality. Someone could easily rebound back and say that some Democrats want abortion available at every point in a pregnancy, for example.

I fail to see how "abortion available at every point in pregnancy" should be comparable to "criminalizing homosexuality".

I fail to see why it would matter at all what Democrats think about abortion. This thread has nothing to do with abortion.

[Purgatio]

If you want to care about what imaginary bearded sky person A or imaginary bearded sky person B thinks about you and who or what you rub your bits in or against, that's down to you and your imaginary bearded sky person. It's not down to someone else to decide that their imaginary bearded sky person cares what other people do with their bits.

And as for their argument that polygamy is going to somehow lead to the demise of the christian church and the undermining of imaginary bearded sky person's best selling novel - then sign me up. I'm now in the market ladies, if you are willing to share. Lets fuck for atheism!

Yes, that's what I am saying. If you believe in the Christian god and think that you are going to go to hell because everyone says so, you won't want to commit suicide and go to hell. If you don't really believe in god, then participating in sodomy won't matter to your moral conscience and whatever people say to you would be ignored. If you live in places like Iran or KSA, then you would just be a normal hetero to others. It may be inherent to being a sexual minority to commit suicide, as you won't be with the gender you are intended to get dirty with. The experts are not sure though.

Aside from the slightly disturbing lack of empathy on your part, In the past, where having more children was more important because you needed a large income coming into the house. But that isn't really the case in the west as it approaches post-scarcity these days.

Look, I've been to the west I like how you people don't have to struggle for basic necessities daily and how you try to help us develop. It is not in any way my place to comment upon you people harshly. I may find some parts of your culture revolting, but I won't do anything to stop you from developing as you want to. The same however can't be said for you! You find sodomy laws revolting. So you use your power to change them. The world however is becoming multipolar. What if tommorow, my country started laying sanctions upon you for consuming beef or having open access to guns? Would you like that?

Explain to me how exactly consuming beef strips a vulnerable and marginalised sexual minority of their basic human rights and turns them into second-class citizens denied the equal protection of the law?

[Anantpura]

It doesn't, its just an example. I'm just saying that the west shouldn't just be the knight in shining armor, attacking countries for controversial laws. I won't be against intervention for major human rights violations, but c'mon, the bombastic way this is presented makes it clear that something more than economic sanctions are an option.

[Ifreann]

It doesn't, its just an example. I'm just saying that the west shouldn't just be the knight in shining armor, attacking countries for controversial laws. I won't be against intervention for major human rights violations, but c'mon, the bombastic way this is presented makes it clear that something more than economic sanctions are an option.

I'll point out again that when Trump was asked about this push to decriminalise homosexuality, he didn't know about it.

[The New California Republic]

Look, I've been to the west I like how you people don't have to struggle for basic necessities daily and how you try to help us develop. It is not in any way my place to comment upon you people harshly. I may find some parts of your culture revolting, but I won't do anything to stop you from developing as you want to. The same however can't be said for you! You find sodomy laws revolting. So you use your power to change them. The world however is becoming multipolar. What if tommorow, my country started laying sanctions upon you for consuming beef or having open access to guns? Would you like that?

There is so much wrong with this statement and unfortunately I do not currently have the time to tear it to shreds. But I'll ask this: when has the West ever imposed sanctions on countries because of the latter's laws on sodomy?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Well, I'm not saying that sodomy should be punished, but that it is still controversial to fully legalise sodomy. That is why many countries haven't done so yet. You said that this isn't controversial (factually) in any way, but it is.
Legalising homosexuality doesn't directly lead to more unsavory legalizations, yes, but it normalises them as just another forbidden fruit.
The slippery slope, it is real.

If people say that you would go to hell, won't you want to stay longer in God's green earth than commit suicide and go to hell? Perhaps some of this is due to discrimination, but wouldn't not being able to feel attracted to the gender you are supposed to be attracted to have some psychological consequences?

Umm... Ok, this might be my pure ignorance due to me being born in a different culture, but why would anyone love someone if they can't have children? I've seen divorces happening due to infertility.

It's real because a conservative blog citing a conservative website which is totally not trying to push a narrative about the homogays being bad said so?

To be fair, slippery slopes are real: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf

[The New California Republic]

why would anyone love someone if they can't have children? I've seen divorces happening due to infertility.

Maybe because love isn't just about treating someone like a baby factory?

[Anantpura]

It doesn't, its just an example. I'm just saying that the west shouldn't just be the knight in shining armor, attacking countries for controversial laws. I won't be against intervention for major human rights violations, but c'mon, the bombastic way this is presented makes it clear that something more than economic sanctions are an option.

I'll point out again that when Trump was asked about this push to decriminalise homosexuality, he didn't know about it.

Really?? I stand corrected.

[Galloism]

I'll point out again that when Trump was asked about this push to decriminalise homosexuality, he didn't know about it.

Really?? I stand corrected.

As Ann Coulter said, our only national emergency is that the president is an idiot.

[Andsed]

Well, I'm not saying that sodomy should be punished, but that it is still controversial to fully legalise sodomy. That is why many countries haven't done so yet. You said that this isn't controversial (factually) in any way, but it is.
Legalising homosexuality doesn't directly lead to more unsavory legalizations, yes, but it normalises them as just another forbidden fruit.
The slippery slope, it is real.

If people say that you would go to hell, won't you want to stay longer in God's green earth than commit suicide and go to hell? Perhaps some of this is due to discrimination, but wouldn't not being able to feel attracted to the gender you are supposed to be attracted to have some psychological consequences?

Umm... Ok, this might be my pure ignorance due to me being born in a different culture, but why would anyone love someone if they can't have children? I've seen divorces happening due to infertility.

Maybe because 1 you can adopt and 2 you don’t need to have kids with someone to love them.

[Andsed]

It doesn't, its just an example. I'm just saying that the west shouldn't just be the knight in shining armor, attacking countries for controversial laws. I won't be against intervention for major human rights violations, but c'mon, the bombastic way this is presented makes it clear that something more than economic sanctions are an option.

Nah we should be trying to make sure that innocents are not stoned they death for being gays.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It doesn't, its just an example. I'm just saying that the west shouldn't just be the knight in shining armor, attacking countries for controversial laws. I won't be against intervention for major human rights violations, but c'mon, the bombastic way this is presented makes it clear that something more than economic sanctions are an option.

Nah we should be trying to make sure that innocents are not stoned they death for being gays.

Weren't you saying yesterday that morality is only socially constructed?