More Americans Identify as LGBT than ever before

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

this raises the question though, is a heterosexual polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

Yeah, I’m thinking no.

im leaning toward yes, as the qualifier seems to be having a nonconventional relationship with gender and/or romance/sex and, afaik the vast majority of relationships are monogamous

[Ainland]

this raises the question though, is a cishet polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

I reject the idea that there is a "LGBT+ community". This phrase has become fashionable among politicians wishing to seem inclusive, but I think it is unhelpful. There is no "LGBT+ community", there are regular gay (or trans etc.) people, living in their own communities. Sexual orientation really should be an irrelevance. Not a defining characteristic, nor something that makes someone part of some different 'community'. It really tells you nothing about a person, other than their private sexual preferences.

[The New California Republic]

I reject the idea that there is a "LGBT+ community". This phrase has become fashionable among politicians wishing to seem inclusive, but I think it is unhelpful. There is no "LGBT+ community", there are regular gay (or trans etc.) people, living in their own communities. Sexual orientation really should be an irrelevance. Not a defining characteristic, nor something that makes someone part of some different 'community'. It really tells you nothing about a person, other than their private sexual preferences.

Having been part of the LGBT community and involved in it for decades, yes it exists.

[Thermodolia]

this raises the question though, is a cishet polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

Who cares. The community is full of self absorbed assholes anyway

[Ainland]

I reject the idea that there is a "LGBT+ community". This phrase has become fashionable among politicians wishing to seem inclusive, but I think it is unhelpful. There is no "LGBT+ community", there are regular gay (or trans etc.) people, living in their own communities. Sexual orientation really should be an irrelevance. Not a defining characteristic, nor something that makes someone part of some different 'community'. It really tells you nothing about a person, other than their private sexual preferences.

Having been part of the LGBT community and involved in it for decades, yes it exists.

This is exactly my point. Not every person who is gay, is part of this "community". In fact, it is probably the majority who aren't. If someone is homosexual, that really tells you nothing about them, many are just regular people living the same life they would if they were straight, working hard, getting on with their lives, part of their local communities, having no relation to any "LGBT community". So if people want to talk about "gay people", that's what they should say, instead of implying that all gay people are part of a "community", as if sexual orientation is their 'identity' and they are all somehow different or separate. Some may choose that, but not all do, nor should we assume.

[The New California Republic]

Having been part of the LGBT community and involved in it for decades, yes it exists.

This is exactly my point. Not every person who is gay, is part of this "community".

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

In fact, it is probably the majority who aren't.

But again that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

If someone is homosexual, that really tells you nothing about them, many are just regular people living the same life they would if they were straight, working hard, getting on with their lives, part of their local communities, having no relation to any "LGBT community".

It's a trait, that can have an affect in varying degrees on the way they identify themselves in relation to others, and has its own associated culture, so yes it can very much tell us something about a person depending on how much they engage with it.

So if people want to talk about "gay people", that's what they should say, instead of implying that all gay people are part of a "community", as if sexual orientation is their 'identity' and they are all somehow different or separate. Some may choose that, but not all do, nor should we assume.

But again none of this says that the community does not exist.

[Auzkhia]

A lot of young lgbtqia+ people are polyamorous. It's an adjacent topic for sure.

There are heterosexual people who are non-monogamous, also. There is nothing inherent about homosexuality which leads to non-monogamy, and vice versa. I see no notable link here.

Most ethical non-mongamous people tend to be queer anyway. And it's a coincidence not a causation, really it's because queer and lgbtq+ people tend to forgo or resist a lot of norms around sexuality and romance that are typically heterosexual and heteronormative. I do not know any cishet polyamorous people personally, and if I have they're really just swingers. Most cis people I knew in it tend to be bisexual or pansexual, and I know plenty of trans and non-binary people who are as well, especially my partners who are all trans women and non-binary people like myself.

Even if it's not "inherently" lgbtqia+, it certainly is adjacent to it and polyamory has much more acceptance about queer people than cis-straight people for sure.

this raises the question though, is a cishet polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

Kat Blaque considers herself a part of it, though she's a straight trans woman dating bisexual and pansexual men.

[Ainland]

This is exactly my point. Not every person who is gay, is part of this "community".

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

In fact, it is probably the majority who aren't.

But again that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

If someone is homosexual, that really tells you nothing about them, many are just regular people living the same life they would if they were straight, working hard, getting on with their lives, part of their local communities, having no relation to any "LGBT community".

It's a trait, that can have an affect in varying degrees on the way they identify themselves in relation to others, and has its own associated culture, so yes it can very much tell us something about a person depending on how much they engage with it.

So if people want to talk about "gay people", that's what they should say, instead of implying that all gay people are part of a "community", as if sexual orientation is their 'identity' and they are all somehow different or separate. Some may choose that, but not all do, nor should we assume.

But again none of this says that the community does not exist.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not sure how I can express it in a different way. I reject the idea that there is "a LGBT community". I am not saying that groups of people who are exclusively LGBT and choose to associate with other LGBT people do not "exist". That's not my point at all. My point, if I can try to express it a different way, is that being gay (or trans etc.) does not mean you belong to "the LGBT community". It is, in my view, both an incorrect and unhelpful way to refer to "people who are gay".

[Salus Maior]

Well, it's just logical.

Now that being or presenting as LGBT is more acceptable, more people are going to do it.

Simple.

[Ainland]

There are heterosexual people who are non-monogamous, also. There is nothing inherent about homosexuality which leads to non-monogamy, and vice versa. I see no notable link here.

Most ethical non-mongamous people tend to be queer anyway. And it's a coincidence not a causation, really it's because queer and lgbtq+ people tend to forgo or resist a lot of norms around sexuality and romance that are typically heterosexual and heteronormative. I do not know any cishet polyamorous people personally, and if I have they're really just swingers. Most cis people I knew in it tend to be bisexual or pansexual, and I know plenty of trans and non-binary people who are as well, especially my partners who are all trans women and non-binary people like myself.

Even if it's not "inherently" lgbtqia+, it certainly is adjacent to it and polyamory has much more acceptance about queer people than cis-straight people for sure.

I'm seeing a lot of generalisation here. Being gay, trans etc., really has nothing to do with being monogamous or not. Even if, in your experience, gay people are less likely to be monogamous. It may be a true coincidence, but I don't think it's a useful thing to point out, it has no relevance and I think can be unhelpful in perpetuating some conflations that exist.

[The New California Republic]

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not sure how I can express it in a different way. I reject the idea that there is "a LGBT community".

I haven't misunderstood you at all.

I am not saying that groups of people who are exclusively LGBT and choose to associate with other LGBT people do not "exist".

I didn't think you meant that.

My point, if I can try to express it a different way, is that there is being gay (or trans etc.) does not mean you belong to "the LGBT community".

It actually does, if they are just saying that as an umbrella term to denote that they identify as LGBT, and it is often used as such.

It is, in my view, both an incorrect and unhelpful way to refer to "people who are gay".

If someone identifies as being part of the LGBT community in the manner I mentioned, then what is the problem precisely? I'm really not seeing why you are taking such issue with it, it seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill, or just an exercise in hairsplitting.

[Ainland]

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not sure how I can express it in a different way. I reject the idea that there is "a LGBT community".

I haven't misunderstood you at all.

I am not saying that groups of people who are exclusively LGBT and choose to associate with other LGBT people do not "exist".

I didn't think you meant that.

My point, if I can try to express it a different way, is that there is being gay (or trans etc.) does not mean you belong to "the LGBT community".

It actually does, if they are just saying that as an umbrella term to denote that they identify as LGBT, and it is often used as such.

It is, in my view, both an incorrect and unhelpful way to refer to "people who are gay".

If someone identifies as being part of the LGBT community in the manner I mentioned, then what is the problem precisely? I'm really not seeing why you are taking such issue with it, it seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill, or just an exercise in hairsplitting.

Well, if by "taking such an issue", you mean mentioning it on an internet forum, then the reason is because I felt it was relevant. But it's not hairsplitting, I think it's quite important, and I tried to explain this in the first place which I think has not been understood. I'd only be repeating myself to say that, being gay is not (or should not) be something that 'identifies' someone, or makes them different, or separate, or part of some other community. In fact it should be an irrelevance. I know that there will be people on both sides, for different reasons, who will not like this. But I believe that, not only is it factually accurate, but it's actually far better for increasing acceptance and reducing judgement. If someone's gay, they're just... gay. They're not necessarily part of a specific community, they may just be regular people, living their regular lives in their regular local community.

[The New California Republic]

If someone identifies as being part of the LGBT community in the manner I mentioned, then what is the problem precisely? I'm really not seeing why you are taking such issue with it, it seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill, or just an exercise in hairsplitting.

Well, if by "taking such an issue", you mean mentioning it on an internet forum, then the reason is because I felt it was relevant.

Whether this is taking place on an internet forum or not is irrelevant. If you are taking issue with something then it doesn't somehow become less meaningful just by mere merit of it taking place on an internet discussion forum.

But it's not hairsplitting, I think it's quite important, and I tried to explain this in the first place which I think has not been understood.

Clearly not sufficiently well, as it is still not at all clear as to why you are making it a big issue.

I'd only be repeating myself to say that, being gay is not (or should not) be something that 'identifies' someone, or makes them different, or separate, or part of some other community. In fact it should be an irrelevance.

And again you have not sufficiently and cogently explained why you think this. We "allow" groupings and don't take issue with them on the basis of a whole variety of factors, such as the trainspotting community, the furry community, etc. Why is it only here that the line is being drawn? Unless of course you think we shouldn't do any of that either and should just consider ourselves one single homogeneous morass that doesn't differentiate on any basis of collective identifiers at all?

[Ainland]

Well, if by "taking such an issue", you mean mentioning it on an internet forum, then the reason is because I felt it was relevant.

Whether this is taking place on an internet forum or not is irrelevant. If you are taking issue with something then it doesn't somehow become less meaningful just by mere merit of it taking place on an internet discussion forum.

But it's not hairsplitting, I think it's quite important, and I tried to explain this in the first place which I think has not been understood.

Clearly not sufficiently well, as it is still not at all clear as to why you are making it a big issue.

I'd only be repeating myself to say that, being gay is not (or should not) be something that 'identifies' someone, or makes them different, or separate, or part of some other community. In fact it should be an irrelevance.

And again you have not sufficiently and cogently explained why you think this. We "allow" groupings and don't take issue with them on the basis of a whole variety of factors, such as the trainspotting community, the furry community, etc. Why is it only here that the line is being drawn? Unless of course you think we shouldn't do any of that either and should just consider ourselves one single homogeneous morass that doesn't differentiate on any basis of collective identifiers at all?

Again, I'm not sure that I have made it such a big issue. I made a comment, and you keep questioning me on it. I think I've explained myself sufficiently well. You disagree, and that's to be expected. I don't think I will be able to change your mind, but I'm not concerned that it's for lack of clearly explaining my position. I haven't said that it's only the idea of "the LGBT community" that I reject, by the way. The same would apply to black community, disabled community, female community, etc. for the same reasons. But that's not relevant in this thread. If you want to talk about people who are gay, then just say people who are gay. Don't assume they are all part of some separate community.

[Mannixa Prime]

I could be wrong but I just think people are more comfortable with their sexuality these days.

Not comfortable enough mind you but more than say in the past.

[The New California Republic]

Again, I'm not sure that I have made it such a big issue. I made a comment, and you keep questioning me on it. I think I've explained myself sufficiently well. You disagree, and that's to be expected.

You have been quite adamant on it, so I'd regard that as making it a big issue. And no, there has really not been any sufficient or cogent explanation as to why you think there is no LGBT community, aside from you thinking it is bad or is somehow inaccurate without offering anything of substance to back that up, which really isn't a sufficient or cogent reason at all.

I don't think I will be able to change your mind, but I'm not concerned that it's for lack of clearly explaining my position. I haven't said that it's only the idea of "the LGBT community" that I reject, by the way. The same would apply to black community, disabled community, female community, etc. for the same reasons.

...for the same insufficient and unsubstantiated reasons. Right...

[Atheris]

this raises the question though, is a cishet polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

...No? It's not really a community, either, but I guess I'll use that for this argument. LGBT+ people explicitly aren't cis and/nor het, so I don't see why someone who is cis/het would count as being LGBT+ because he/she likes a bit more women/men in their life.

this raises the question though, is a cishet polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

Kat Blaque considers herself a part of it, though she's a straight trans woman dating bisexual and pansexual men.

Well, she's trans. That is the "T" in LGBT.

[Ainland]

Again, I'm not sure that I have made it such a big issue. I made a comment, and you keep questioning me on it. I think I've explained myself sufficiently well. You disagree, and that's to be expected.

You have been quite adamant on it, so I'd regard that as making it a big issue. And no, there has really not been any sufficient or cogent explanation as to why you think there is no LGBT community, aside from you thinking it is bad or is somehow inaccurate without offering anything of substance to back that up, which really isn't a sufficient or cogent reason at all.

I don't think I will be able to change your mind, but I'm not concerned that it's for lack of clearly explaining my position. I haven't said that it's only the idea of "the LGBT community" that I reject, by the way. The same would apply to black community, disabled community, female community, etc. for the same reasons.

...for the same insufficient and unsubstantiated reasons. Right...

I've been very clear, and you keep mischaracrerising what I've said. I gave you the benefit of assuming you misunderstood, but you're determined you've understood well. I've never said that communities of LGBT people don't exist. But we'd be going round in circles, and if I was cynical I'd think you're just being argumentative at this point. You disagree, and that's okay, and you have explained your reasons. I really think there's little benefit to keep going on about it like this.

[The New California Republic]

I've been very clear, and you keep mischaracrerising what I've said.

Sorry but in its entirety hasn't been clear at all, and if I am mischaracterising what you are saying then it'd only be the result of insufficient explanation of the premises on your part.

I gave you the benefit of assuming you misunderstood, but you're determined you've understood well.

I have understood the conclusion, it's the lack of a sufficient and cogent explanation of your premises that lead to your conclusion that I am taking issue with.

I really think there's little benefit to keep going on about it like this.

Fine.

[The Emerald Legion]

What makes you think it’s just some enclaves?

I don't think Poland or the Southern US would be cool with LGBT people being out.

I think if youre in some rural areas of the US you will get attacked or killed just for existing if they know youre LGBT. I don't think society is as inclusive outside of cosmopolitain areas. Just my experience leads me to believe this.

Look, there's places near where I live where you can get attacked and killed for just not being from that district, everywhere has bad parts of town or bad towns. But that doesn't mean rural area's are just going to go Waterworld on you for being gay. You have to find the bad parts of rural areas.

[Auzkhia]

Most ethical non-mongamous people tend to be queer anyway. And it's a coincidence not a causation, really it's because queer and lgbtq+ people tend to forgo or resist a lot of norms around sexuality and romance that are typically heterosexual and heteronormative. I do not know any cishet polyamorous people personally, and if I have they're really just swingers. Most cis people I knew in it tend to be bisexual or pansexual, and I know plenty of trans and non-binary people who are as well, especially my partners who are all trans women and non-binary people like myself.

Even if it's not "inherently" lgbtqia+, it certainly is adjacent to it and polyamory has much more acceptance about queer people than cis-straight people for sure.

I'm seeing a lot of generalisation here. Being gay, trans etc., really has nothing to do with being monogamous or not. Even if, in your experience, gay people are less likely to be monogamous. It may be a true coincidence, but I don't think it's a useful thing to point out, it has no relevance and I think can be unhelpful in perpetuating some conflations that exist.

So what, I'm gonna be this, and plenty of people are going to be polyamorous or do polyamory, and that should be accepted as another part of life's diversity in sexuality and romance.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

this raises the question though, is a cishet polyamorous person included in the lgbt+ community?

LGBT+ people explicitly aren't cis and/nor het, so I don't see why someone who is cis/het would count as being LGBT+ because he/she likes a bit more women/men in their life.

yeah now that i think about it that does make sense. at the time it seemed to draw similarities with ace discourse, so i tried to apply my same thought process about it.
is and/nor a thing that people say? inch resting

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

I could be wrong but I just think people are more comfortable with their sexuality these days.

Not comfortable enough mind you but more than say in the past.

yeah probably this

[New Acardia]

How many of theses LGBT are only LGBT because it is now the cool thing to say or had goofy adults pound it (figuratively) in to there head that are LGBT ?

How many LGBT theses? This isn't a gender studies course...

Just trying to be as objective as possible

[Atheris]

I'm seeing a lot of generalisation here. Being gay, trans etc., really has nothing to do with being monogamous or not. Even if, in your experience, gay people are less likely to be monogamous. It may be a true coincidence, but I don't think it's a useful thing to point out, it has no relevance and I think can be unhelpful in perpetuating some conflations that exist.

So what, I'm gonna be this, and plenty of people are going to be polyamorous or do polyamory, and that should be accepted as another part of life's diversity in sexuality and romance.

But being LGBT+ isn't simply being out of the sexual/gender norm. A person who is LGBT+ isn't cis, het, or both, not simply someone who practices their sexuality different but is still cishet. I don't see why cishet people should be included in the LGBT, especially if they practice something morally degrading like polygamy.