Do you think LGBTs will eventually be all rounded up?

[San Lumen]

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 They have long since been repealed or rendered unenforceable.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.

So picking and choosing who you serve is ok? If a hotel or restaurant said we only serve white straight people you'd say that's their right. If a gay couple holds hands or does anything you'd allow a straight couple to do you'd say its my right to remove you? If you are a private club you can choose who you want to serve but if your open to the public you cannot.

[Vigilante justice]

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

In no where inside of that article does it say those chemicals are in the water system.

[Vigilante justice]

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.



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.

So picking and choosing who you serve is ok? If a hotel or restaurant said we only serve white straight people you'd say that's their right. If a gay couple holds hands or does anything you'd allow a straight couple to do you'd say its my right to remove you? If you are a private club you can choose who you want to serve but if your open to the public you cannot.

*cough* United Airlines *cough*

[Neo Balka]

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.

does he want a blanket or a hug?

[Agathyr]

So picking and choosing who you serve is ok? If a hotel or restaurant said we only serve white straight people you'd say that's their right.

yeah

If a gay couple holds hands or does anything you'd allow a straight couple to do you'd say its my right to remove you? If you are a private club you can choose who you want to serve but if your open to the public you cannot.

The owner should do this before they have bought a drink or whatever otherwise it would be unfair since they already have paid and therefore they should have the right to stay. But yeah, people should be able to put a sign saying who they allow or not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

Well, I was mostly wondering about the chemicals in the water and food supply and the sperm count revision, but now that I see what you're referring to, it does make sense.

I mean, it's not necessarily a conspiracy, but it is an explanation as to why you might think that (namely, big farming are dicks). I will say though, I am not homosexual, nor a "leftie" per se. I just had never heard of this before personally, and I have a father who believes 9/11 was, somehow, an inside job, so I tend to be lenient towards conspiracies (even if Alex Jones came in and ruined conspiracy theorists' field forever).

[San Lumen]

So picking and choosing who you serve is ok? If a hotel or restaurant said we only serve white straight people you'd say that's their right.

yeah

If a gay couple holds hands or does anything you'd allow a straight couple to do you'd say its my right to remove you? If you are a private club you can choose who you want to serve but if your open to the public you cannot.

The owner should do this before they have bought a drink or whatever otherwise it would be unfair since they already have paid and therefore they should have the right to stay. But yeah, people should be able to put a sign saying who they allow or not.

So you have no problem with segregated schools, having blacks sit at the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains or use different bathrooms?

You should create a private club then you can choose who you serve. A business open to public does not have the right to pick and choose who they serve. You'd be sued in court.

[Karvelia]

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

In no where inside of that article does it say those chemicals are in the water system.

Alright, I'll break it down then. Just because you couldn't be bothered to read while browsing a forum.

"Data from animal research is abundant demonstrating the adverse effects on reproduction of hormonally active compounds found in the environment."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0706001687
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 0180050251
http://adc.bmj.com/content/91/8/633
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/ ... .2009/full
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 4200000163

Affects on humans.
https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article ... m=fulltext
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 0180050251
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 390700106X
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713042/

Shall I keep going?

[Agathyr]

So you have no problem with segregated schools, having blacks sit at the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains or use different bathrooms?

Then create a private club. A business open to public does not have the right to pick and choose who they serve. You'd be sued in court.

Jesus christ what part of this are my opinions don't you understand? lol I know it's not legal, but that's not the point! And yes I would be ok if someone decided that they want to make a school for X ethnicity only. Parents would be able to choose. There are already schools for girls/boys only anyway.

*cough* United Airlines *cough*

That's different that guy had already paid for his ticket. Overbooking is a scam (I know it wasn't exactly overbooking but it's pretty much the same situation). If you sell seats that can't be occupied its fraud. in which other sectors they sell a number of tickets higher than the ones can actually be offered? Imagine they did this at a concert. It is the definition of scam, but when airlines do it is called "overbooking", pff...

[Vigilante justice]

In no where inside of that article does it say those chemicals are in the water system.

Alright, I'll break it down then. Just because you couldn't be bothered to read while browsing a forum.

"Data from animal research is abundant demonstrating the adverse effects on reproduction of hormonally active compounds found in the environment."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0706001687
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 0180050251
http://adc.bmj.com/content/91/8/633
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/ ... .2009/full
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 4200000163

Affects on humans.
https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article ... m=fulltext
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 0180050251
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 390700106X
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713042/

Shall I keep going?

Well you just shot me down, lol.

Seems legit.

[Karvelia]

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

Well, I was mostly wondering about the chemicals in the water and food supply and the sperm count revision, but now that I see what you're referring to, it does make sense.

I mean, it's not necessarily a conspiracy, but it is an explanation as to why you might think that (namely, big farming are dicks). I will say though, I am not homosexual, nor a "leftie" per se. I just had never heard of this before personally, and I have a father who believes 9/11 was, somehow, an inside job, so I tend to be lenient towards conspiracies (even if Alex Jones came in and ruined conspiracy theorists' field forever).

It's not a conspiracy if it's an accident. Years ago we had no clue that the newfound and HIGHLY lucrative and innovative field of plastics and polymers leeched these into the environment. We had no clue about the effects of the chemicals we used to make the "Green Revolution" (a misnomer if I've ever heard one) and to preserve foods in the (then) new fields of industrial food production.

[Mechanisburg]

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.

Plenty. One only needs to use google for them.

Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-651. Retrieved from the APA website at: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/discrimination.aspx

1. The American Psychological Association supports the action taken on December 15, 1973, by the American Psychiatric Association, removing homosexuality from that Association's official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association therefore adopts the following resolution:

Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities; Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.

Fox, R. E. (1988). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1987: Minutes of the Annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 43, 508-531. Retrieved from the APA website at: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/diagnoses-homosexuality.aspx

Whereas the American Psychological Association has been on record since 1975 that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities”; and
Whereas it appears that the ICD-9-CM is widely used either by mandate or choice by many psychologists nationwide in connection with third-party reimbursement, institutional-based service delivery, and research; and
Whereas the next revision of the ICD is not anticipated to be completed until 1992 and may, according to current proposals, then contain the “ego-dystonic homosexuality” diagnosis which APA also opposes; and
Whereas the Council of Representatives already has urged APA members not to use the proposed DSM-III-R diagnoses of Periluteal Phase Disorder, Self-Defeating Personality Disorder, and Sadistic Personality Disorder because they lack adequate scientific basis and are potentially dangerous to women;
Be it resolved that the American Psychological Association: Urge its members not to use the “302.0 Homosexuality” diagnosis in the current ICD-9-CM or the “302.00 Ego-dystonic Homosexuality” diagnosis in the current DSM-III or future editions of either document.

To name two.

Also, not being able to find any mention of homosexuality in the DSM-V, the 1000-pages long manual of psychiatric disorders, should at least give an hint re: its classification as a disorder.

Edit: autocorrect.

[Arcturus Novus]

I'll make it your way but it's a pain in the ass to reply this way, I'll screw up the quotations and it's your fault

Your inability to format is not my problem or my fault.

Nobody is actually claiming that conservatives will forcibly incarcerate LGBT people. OP suggested that this may be the logical conclusion to conservative homophobia, but never said that this was strictly what conservatives want. That in and of itself is, ironically, a strawman.

Saying it's the logical conclusion to" conservative homophobia" is totally not a fallacy aswell. You are one step away from saying conservatives secretly want to gas gay people. No wait, you just said its the LOGICAL conclusion so you pretty much said it already. And now you will say you didn't and this is a strawman right? Fun game.
btw I tried to explain in my post why this is not the logical conclusion to conservative "homophobia" in fact I implied that in many cases there is no such homophobia.

Did you actually read what I said? "OP suggested... but never said that this was strictly what conservatives want." You're only reading what you want to read.

God forbid that marginalised people ever seek social/legal equality or reparations for past wrongdoings.

Who marginalises LGBT people again? This is the kind of victimhood some people are wearied of putting up with. Life is tough for everyone. We all have special circumstances but some groups and yell more than others and shout: LOOK AT US WE ARE THE VICTIMS!!! Have some self-respect, please. Stop acting like others owe you something. "Reparations" and "equality" are buzzwords. The bread and butter of SJW.

It's illegal to be gay or trans in multiple nations across the world. Until 2003, being gay was illegal in 13 states. The US vice president has given funding toward conversion therapy, which is proven to be ineffective and harmful. It isn't victimhood. It's actual, warranted fear. And since when is "equality" a buzzword? Equality is a fundamental principle of Western society.

Except this actually happens. Employees in right-to-work states can fire anyone for any reason; this can extend to simply being a racial or sexual minority.

Good. Anyone should be free to fire whoever they want. I don't leave in a country as free as yours sadly.

An employer should have a damned good reason to fire an employee. Otherwise, that's just oppression of the worker.

Why is levelling the playing field a bad thing? Are all men not created equal? Do people not deserve equality?

Because this is not a game, this is life. And no, we are not created equal! We should be equal before the law but we are here to be individuals not to depend on others, because that goes against the very nature of existence. And if the government interferes is like literally forcing someone else to carry part of your weight, which if anything is something people should do voluntarily, not forced. What a kindergarten a state is if "equality" is forced down our throats like that.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." -Thomas Jefferson

The concept of equality among everyone is hardly new. It isn't some radical SJW nonsense. It's basic human decency. Some people genuinely need more support than others.

To be fair, the government is kinda created to serve the people, so it'd make sense that it's laws benefit all people.

Kind of but also we are all equal before the law not through the law but before the law. Or that's how it should be because one thing is not being equal by nature and other is to institutionalise discrimination which is what making laws for your particular benefit would be. Even if it's to level the playing field, which again, it's an expression because this is not a game, it's life.

There would be no institutionalized discrimination. That's precisely what equity-based legislation eliminates.

We don't want "privileges." We mostly just wanna be recognised as people. Sure, I'd personally like if the government helped pay for my gender reassignment surgery, but that doesn't trump the "being treated as people" thing yet.

I wasn't aware you weren't recognised as people. I must be very blind about the problems the LGBT community suffer in 1st world countries. Either that or you are exaggerating.

As a transgender woman, my life expectancy in the US is 30 years, tops. We have higher rates of death by suicide and homicide than almost any other demographic in America. I have seen people evicted, beaten, raped, and killed because of who they are. So yes, you are blind to our issues.

Again, no special laws, we just don't want to be treated as second-class citizens just because we're not straight and/or cis.

Stop the victimism! Seriously, all your arguments are based on the fact that you are being denied rights which if you live in a 1st world country is not true except perhaps the right to get married which you should have but then again if a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple he shouldn't be forced to do so.

I can legally be fired for being a trans woman in roughly 20 US states. People can deny me housing. Police are more likely to profile me. I'm more likely to be forced into prostitution. Legally, I'm not your equal.

[New haven america]

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, young one.

[United Muscovite Nations]

My beliefs are more important than my life.

And without your life your beliefs are just nothing but words others have said and plenty have rejected, so it doesn't really matter what you believe if you're dead.

I mean, if you really want to put your beliefs that far ahead of everything else, then I echo the earlier suggestion to join a clergy. But having children is a bad idea.

I don't agree with that because I'm not a deist. I think the beliefs are true: That there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible. And so on as the creed describes.

[Arcturus Novus]

Look in the DSM-5 and search for it.

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

That's... not even what gender dysphoria is, but okay.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

The WHO disagrees: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd ... /en#/F64.0

[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.

The WHO disagrees: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd ... /en#/F64.0

This is about homosexuality, not about transgender people.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The WHO disagrees: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd ... /en#/F64.0

This is about homosexuality, not about transgender people.

Yes, but then the problem is that we decide which sexual preferences are mental disorders based on social acceptability.

[New haven america]

And without your life your beliefs are just nothing but words others have said and plenty have rejected, so it doesn't really matter what you believe if you're dead.

I mean, if you really want to put your beliefs that far ahead of everything else, then I echo the earlier suggestion to join a clergy. But having children is a bad idea.

I don't agree with that because I'm not a deist. I think the beliefs are true: That there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible. And so on as the creed describes.

And if you actually followed the teachings and life lessons of Jesus, you'd know that humanity (At least Jesus followers, anyway) are eternally forgiven for all since, it's kinda why he was crucified, so that humanity can be eternally forgiven.

Hence, using Christianity to argue why homosexuality is wrong is honestly silly at best. Don't feel bad about that though (Since most people don't seem to understand what "Eternal Forgiveness" means) but instead, try to change your ways and become more accepting of your fellow people.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't agree with that because I'm not a deist. I think the beliefs are true: That there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible. And so on as the creed describes.

And if you actually followed the teachings and life lessons of Jesus, you'd know that humanity (At least Jesus followers, anyway) are eternally forgiven for all since, it's kinda why he was crucified, so that humanity can be eternally forgiven.

Hence, using Christianity to argue why homosexuality is wrong is honestly silly at best. Don't feel bad about that though (Since most people don't seem to understand what "Eternal Forgiveness" means) but instead, try to change your ways and become more accepting of your fellow people.

We're forgiven for what we ask repentance for. The crucifixion alone does not give us forgiveness; you have to receive grace through sacraments, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Karvelia]

I'm not going to quote Mechanisburg, it would make my post huge but it raised a giant spark in my mind. Sure, homosexuality isn't classified as a disorder by, well... social "scientists". However, let's look at this from a far more scientific basis.

In ye olden tymes- you would ABSOLUTELY require more farm hands to run your plot of serf/peasant land. Thus, the only way and still the only way to get more labor that is somewhat loyal and also produces more of your genes (granted with some mixture from someone who is a (maybe not so) very distant cousin because that's how phenotypes work) is to have children. As you get old, the children take over the farm as they too grow and have children.

Note how homosexuals would be trimmed from this process VERY quickly. Do you expect someone else to take care of you in your old age? No way, food is short enough as is, especially given the "Little Ice Age" that throttled northern regions and reduced population until well into the Industrial Revolution. Crop yields were suspected to have dropped from 7+ to 1 seed ratios to as low as 3-1. I believe that your argument for the support of homosexuality comes from decadence that only the modern world could support with it's 30 to 1 crop yields.

This doesn't mean that I support repressing you, I want whatever genetic component that yields LGBTs out of the system as well. If it means using the insane output of the modern system to let you go and live a fruitless life, I'm perfectly fine with that.

I'm sure that homosexuality would never be a mental illness given the "community's" absurd suicide rate, STD rate, promiscuity and drug addiction. /sarc
I can provide PLENTY of sources for that claim as well if you so desire.

[Mechanisburg]

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.

The WHO disagrees: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd ... /en#/F64.0

The DSM-V disagrees with that, as it declassified being trans*, which per se implies no distress, in favour of gender dysphoria, which is actually distressing. And the ICD is due for a change in... mmmh, maybe a year, this version has been around for two decades.

Work on ICD-10 began in 1983 and was completed in 1992.

This also ignores the fact - and the plentiful studies pointing out this fact, which are available in abstract form at PubMed or similar databases - that most of this distress comes from discrimination, difficult access to gender-affirming healthcare, difficult access to healthcare, loss of jobs, families and friends and the like. Once dysphoria, the disorder, is successfully treated - for example, when puberty blockers are available, HRT is started early, and SRS done as one enters adulthood - this distress only stems from the shit being piled upon us.

[Valgora]

I'm not going to quote Mechanisburg, it would make my post huge but it raised a giant spark in my mind. Sure, homosexuality isn't classified as a disorder by, well... social "scientists". However, let's look at this from a far more scientific basis.

In ye olden tymes- you would ABSOLUTELY require more farm hands to run your plot of serf/peasant land. Thus, the only way and still the only way to get more labor that is somewhat loyal and also produces more of your genes (granted with some mixture from someone who is a (maybe not so) very distant cousin because that's how phenotypes work) is to have children. As you get old, the children take over the farm as they too grow and have children.

Note how homosexuals would be trimmed from this process VERY quickly. Do you expect someone else to take care of you in your old age? No way, food is short enough as is, especially given the "Little Ice Age" that throttled northern regions and reduced population until well into the Industrial Revolution. Crop yields were suspected to have dropped from 7+ to 1 seed ratios to as low as 3-1. I believe that your argument for the support of homosexuality comes from decadence that only the modern world could support with it's 30 to 1 crop yields.

This doesn't mean that I support repressing you, I want whatever genetic component that yields LGBTs out of the system as well. If it means using the insane output of the modern system to let you go and live a fruitless life, I'm perfectly fine with that.

I'm sure that homosexuality would never be a mental illness given the "community's" absurd suicide rate, STD rate, promiscuity and drug addiction. /sarc
I can provide PLENTY of sources for that claim as well if you so desire.

Are you saying that you can find sources claiming homosexuality to be a mental illness?
If the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Edition 5 (DSM-5), doesn't list homosexuality as a mental illness, then it is not a mental illness.

[New haven america]

And if you actually followed the teachings and life lessons of Jesus, you'd know that humanity (At least Jesus followers, anyway) are eternally forgiven for all since, it's kinda why he was crucified, so that humanity can be eternally forgiven.

Hence, using Christianity to argue why homosexuality is wrong is honestly silly at best. Don't feel bad about that though (Since most people don't seem to understand what "Eternal Forgiveness" means) but instead, try to change your ways and become more accepting of your fellow people.

We're forgiven for what we ask repentance for. The crucifixion alone does not give us forgiveness; you have to receive grace through sacraments, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Not really, that's mainly just for show, if you accept Jesus than you will be Eternally Forgiven. So, instead of arguing about why someone living a different life than you is evil for something they have no control over, why not try accepting them and making peace with your brothers and sisters?

While yes, this is a discussion for another thread, you keep bringing up homosexuality and religion, so I felt that it needed to be pointed out.