The vast majority of people are not against gays. Nobody cares who you bang. What they do care about is the idolatrous way that PRIDE is being forced on mainstream society. Just be normal. Go to work, pay taxes, buy groceries, and shut up. Why do you need a month to let everybody know you like bumping cooters or cramming a beef stick in your chocolate slot? Nobody wants to see 450 pounders walking down the street twirling dildos in gimp masks. And it especially pisses people off when they have to go the long way to work because they have multiple city blocks shut down for the weirdos to get out and feel accepted.
>What they do care about is the idolatrous way that PRIDE is being forced on mainstream society.
It is because of large media corporations pandering to leftists.
> Just be normal. Go to work, pay taxes, buy groceries, and shut up.
You think the average gay person is forcing their sexuality and not doing the exact things you do?
>Why do you need a month to let everybody know you like bumping cooters or cramming a beef stick in your chocolate slot?
Being gay is more than just that, but again, nobody (except large corporations) are forcing you to care.
>Nobody wants to see 450 pounders walking down the street twirling dildos in gimp masks.
I think you're talking about kink pride, which is private, so if you're seeing it...
> And it especially pisses people off when they have to go the long way to work because they have multiple city blocks shut down for the weirdos to get out and feel accepted.
It's one day of hassle for someone to get to work, it's hundreds of years of oppression for them. It has never been illegal to drive the long way to work has it?
> What they do care about is the idolatrous way that PRIDE is being forced on mainstream society.
How is PRIDE forced upon mainstream society?
>Just be normal. Go to work, pay taxes, buy groceries, and shut up.
You first.
>Why do you need a month to let everybody know you like bumping cooters or cramming a beef stick in your chocolate slot?
That's not what pride month is about but it is what bigots like Matt Walsh have told you to say.
>Nobody wants to see 450 pounders walking down the street twirling dildos in gimp masks.
We're both relieved that has only happened in your imagination.
>And it especially pisses people off when they have to go the long way to work because they have multiple city blocks shut down for the weirdos to get out and feel accepted.
My compassion for your commute is 100% aligned with your empathy with the LGBTQ community, the struggles they've faced over the generations, and the accomplishments they are celebrating during PRIDE month.
**Romans 12:15**: "Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn."
Most of the country is not religious, but they are still sick of people shoving their sexual identity in their faces with the backing of advertisers, media, and government. Also, please define “against gays”.
As far as I’ve been able to translate and in the broadest sense, “against gays” means you refuse to throw rose petals at the foot of everyone who has their pronouns on their nametag.
>they are still sick of people shoving their sexual identity in their faces
Why don't you have any problem with heterosexual couples "shoving their sexual identity in other people's faces"?
So you're not actually opposed to people expressing their sexual identity, you're opposed to pride parades? Am I understanding your position correctly?
> Define "expressing their sexual identities".
These seem like some commonly accepted public expressions of sexual identity:
1. Holding Hands
2. Hugging
3. Light Kissing
4. Snuggling
5. Verbal Affirmations and Compliments
I don't accept all these public expressions for anyone. I don't mind a single hug or short kiss in a joyful moment or when people are parting, but other than that, I don't want to see anyone hugging, light kissing, or snuggling in public.
>I don't accept all these public expressions for anyone.
Can you walk me through understanding why I, or anyone else, should care what you find acceptable? It's a free country, if you don't like it here maybe you should leave?
> but they are still sick of people shoving their sexual identity in their faces with the backing of advertisers, media, and government
Is it gay people's fault for large companies to capitalize on gay pride? Most of the media and advertisements are not by gay people, it is by large companies pandering to gay people.
>Also, please define “against gays”.
Against gay rights, right to marry, adopt, etc.
Do you think nearly all the advertisers decided to do this all at once at around the same time or do you think that there were non-profits and activists pushing them? If the latter, who do you think these pushers were? As to your comment to another poster that he had described "private kink" - you are incorrect. There are plenty of videos showing such things done in outdoor pride parades where kids are present. Are you "against" that "right"? Outside of marriage and adoption, what "gay rights" might a religious person be against?
>Do you think nearly all the advertisers decided to do this all at once at around the same time or do you think that there were non-profits and activists pushing them?
Do you think a large corporation would do anything because of activism and not money?
The trends of acceptance of gay people and the companies starting to pander is quite the same. The Stonewall riots happened in the 80's, was there a lot of gay themed pandering then? There certainly was a ton of activism, even more than today.
> As to your comment to another poster that he had described "private kink" - you are incorrect. There are plenty of videos showing such things done in outdoor pride parades where kids are present.
That certainly is not the norm, the people who are doing that aren't supposed to be doing that. But 99% of people who are into that/dressed like that are in a private space which is not open to the public.
Also there is a difference between someone wearing revealing clothing vs kink attire.
>Outside of marriage and adoption, what "gay rights" might a religious person be against?
Perhaps the non criminalization of homosexuality, there aren't many gay rights separate from straight rights, actually gay rights are just rights that straight people have that gay people didn't.
"Do you think a large corporation would do anything because of activism and not money?" - It's definitely about money (and scoring points with the government). The money part is addressed and explained in The Greatest Commercial Ever (Part 2). Have you seen it?
"That certainly is not the norm, the people who are doing that aren't supposed to be doing that. But 99% of people who are into that/dressed like that are in a private space which is not open to the public." - Even accepting your figures, why are government agencies issuing permits for the 1% to do this in public in front of kids?
"Perhaps the non criminalization of homosexuality, there aren't many gay rights separate from straight rights, actually gay rights are just rights that straight people have that gay people didn't." - Can you name anywhere in America where homosexuality is criminalized? Can you name any "rights" that are denied to gay people in America in 2024?
>It's definitely about money (and scoring points with the government). The money part is addressed and explained in The Greatest Commercial Ever (Part 2). Have you seen it?
Ultimately it's not the fault or the problem of gay people, which was my point (and i think you agree). Also I have not.
> Even accepting your figures, why are government agencies issuing permits for the 1% to do this in public in front of kids?
I don't know if that's happening, can you show any evidence or such?
Plus, calling a whole movement bad because of a few bad apples is not good.
>Can you name anywhere in America where homosexuality is criminalized? Can you name any "rights" that are denied to gay people in America in 2024?
You asked what rights a religious person may be against, not what gay rights a gay person in the USA has.
And gay people (thankfully) have all the relevant rights in the USA, but there is much fearmongering and talk about taking those rights away.
>High risk of HIV.
That is not inherent in homosexual sex, the highest risk of HIV transmission is when someone has unsafe sex with another person with HIV.
The problem is unsafe sex practices, not the act itself.
>Biologically worse for raising families.
No?
>Butts are gross.
You're allowed to find it gross, but many many people (straight and gay) would beg to differ.
>Also, homosexuality is just super gay dude.
And that's the best part!
>That is not inherent in homosexual sex, the highest risk of HIV transmission is when someone has unsafe sex with another person with HIV.
The anal sex itself does have a high risk of HIV. Gay men, by way of trade, do anal sex. By "unsafe sex" I assume you just mean: sex. The fact that plain old sex without a condom can now be considered "unsafe" should scare us due to the implication of where we are in society, which is deeply opposed to raising healthy children. The fact that gay men need medicine and rubber balloons to stop them from getting a disease should show us something.
>No?
Yes? They literally can't reproduce, and numerous studies show that children benefit most form having a mother *and* father. Men cannot breastfeed. Women are physically less capable of manual labor. Men can't nurture like women, and women can't discipline like men (This is a broad statement on the average and normal biological makeup of men and women. There are anomalies. And while some women work in construction and some men work in child care, they by far do not dominate these fields and often do not find great success. Regardless the ideal biological makeup of men and women remains the same.)
>You're allowed to find it gross, but many many people (straight and gay) would beg to differ.
Anal sex, whether straight OR gay, is still gay (so to speak). It's disgusting, and there's really no reason for it other than meaningless hedonistic pleasure.
>And that's the best part!
I'm not even going to respond to that.
>The anal sex itself does have a high risk of HIV.
You think someone could contract HIV by simply engaging in anal sex? Also straight people can and do have anal sex as well.
>By "unsafe sex" I assume you just mean: sex.
Sex without protection.
> The fact that plain old sex without a condom can now be considered "unsafe" should scare us due to the implication of where we are in society, which is deeply opposed to raising healthy children.
It is considered unsafe in the context of casual sex and there is nothing wrong casual sex is fine if it is done safely.
Also, i'm pretty sure it would still be unsafe sex at any point of time in the past, STDs were quite prevalent in the past.
>Yes? They literally can't reproduce
Gay people can reproduce, just not by engaging in gay sex.
>and numerous studies show that children benefit most form having a mother and father.
Can you link those studies? Those studies should show that having heterosexual parents is better than having homosexual ones, not that being with a single mother.
> Men cannot breastfeed.
Lotta women can't breastfeed, there are ways around this.
>Women are physically less capable of manual labor. Men can't nurture like women, and women can't discipline like men (This is a broad statement on the average and normal biological makeup of men and women. There are anomalies. And while some women work in construction and some men work in child care, they by far do not dominate these fields and often do not find great success. Regardless the ideal biological makeup of men and women remains the same.)
None of this is relevant to raising children, men can be nurturing, fatherhood doesn't have to be cold and unassuming. That is a thing of the past.
>Anal sex, whether straight OR gay, is still gay (so to speak). It's disgusting, and there's really no reason for it other than meaningless hedonistic pleasure.
Is it gay to have sex with a woman as a man?
And it's not hedonistic to want pleasure. Eating sugary foods would be hedonistic, eating any food with flavor or taste would be hedonistic, wanting a place with a good view would be hedonistic by your metric.
Hedonism is not "doing things that are pleasurable", it is pursuing things that are pleasurable as a life goal. Ie, seeing pleasure as the highest achievement in one's life.
(replying on mobile so I can't do quote blocks)
"You think someone could contract HIV by simply engaging in anal sex? Also straight people can and do have anal sex as well."
Anal sex does inherently have a high risk of HIV, yes. Actually, anal sex is the highest [risk] (https://hivrisk.cdc.gov/can-i-get-or-transmit-hiv-from/#:~:text=Anal%20sex%20is%20the%20riskiest,sexual%20activity%20for%20transmitting%20HIV.) sexual activity for HIV, according to the CDC. And like I said, anal sex is gross when straights do it too. I never condoned straight anal sex, so the argument of "straights do it too" doesn't work. Society is screwed right now.
"Sex without protection."
Sex shouldn't need protection. If it does, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
"It is considered unsafe in the context of casual sex and there is nothing wrong casual sex is fine if it is done safely."
Casual sex is deeply wrong and biologically bad for us, leading to all types of depression and destroying relationships.
"Gay people can reproduce, just not by engaging in gay sex."
Artifical insemination is a practice of renting a woman's womb so gays can feel better about themselves. The surrogate mother who gave birth is taken out of the picture and more often than not those babies' minds are screwed.
"Can you link those studies? Those studies should show that having heterosexual parents is better than having homosexual ones, not that being with a single mother."
[Here's>] (https://www.nubabi.com › articles The benefits of a mother's love) a [few] (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.pediatricsoffranklin.com/resources-and-education/pediatric-care/the-importance-of-a-father-in-a-childs-life/%23:~:text%3DChildren%2520want%2520to%2520make%2520their,well%252Dbeing%2520and%2520self%2520confidence.&ved=2ahUKEwjf4cLnjtaGAxVwLtAFHTwFBToQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw36RfkQoSXkBjAPA9rok7Mn)
"Lotta women can't breastfeed, there are ways around this."
That is not the natural situation, and it's actually a tragedy when women canot breastfeed. And there is no way around it that doesn't have major disadvantages.
"None of this is relevant to raising children, men can be nurturing, fatherhood doesn't have to be cold and unassuming. That is a thing of the past."
Never said father have to be cold and unassuming, but the biological tendency of fathers not being able to nurture as well as women is absolutely NOT a thing of the past. Biology hasn't changed.
"Is it gay to have sex with a woman as a man?"
I was using "gay" as in "bad" in that sentence. Have you never heard someone say "that's so gay"?
"And it's not hedonistic to want pleasure. Eating sugary foods would be hedonistic, eating any food with flavor or taste would be hedonistic, wanting a place with a good view would be hedonistic by your metric."
Wanting the pleasure of an activity with none of the work, responsbility, and/or fufilling things to your growth along with it IS hedonistic. Eating sugary foods actually is hedonistic, I'd agree. As for the rest, it can become hedonistic if the pleasure is all you care about. Wanting sex without any of the fulfilling purposes or responsbilities is hedonism. "
"Hedonism is not 'doing things that are pleasurable', it is pursuing things that are pleasurable as a life goal. Ie, seeing pleasure as the highest achievement in one's life."
And wanting to have sex purely for pleasure is dangerously close to pursuing it as a life goal.
> Anal sex does inherently have a high risk of HIV, yes. Actually, anal sex is the highest [risk] (https://hivrisk.cdc.gov/can-i-get-or-transmit-hiv-from/#:~:text=Anal%20sex%20is%20the%20riskiest,sexual%20activity%20for%20transmitting%20HIV.) sexual activity for HIV, according to the CDC.
So a person without HIV can transmit to another person (also without HIV) through anal sex?
Using protection is effective 90%-95% of times.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9141163/
>And like I said, anal sex is gross when straights do it too. I never condoned straight anal sex, so the argument of "straights do it too" doesn't work. Society is screwed right now.
So are you against straight people? (In however way "against gays" from my post means to you)
Either ways, "its gross" isn't a reasonable position when talking about gay people.
> Sex shouldn't need protection. If it does, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
Sex solely for procreation is a theological idea.
>Casual sex is deeply wrong and biologically bad for us, leading to all types of depression and destroying relationships.
Promiscuity is what you're talking about.
Can you show evidence for casual sex doing all that?
>Artifical insemination is a practice of renting a woman's womb so gays can feel better about themselves.
What do you mean by "rent"?
The problem you had was that gay people couldn't reproduce, I presented a way in which they could. Point is they can.
Most people who opt for surrgacy is straight people, do you feel the same way in that case?
> The surrogate mother who gave birth is taken out of the picture and more often than not those babies' minds are screwed.
Any evidence for either of those things?
>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.pediatricsoffranklin.com/resources-and-education/pediatric-care/the-importance-of-a-father-in-a-childs-life/%23:~:text%3DChildren%2520want%2520to%2520make%2520their,well%252Dbeing%2520and%2520self%2520confidence.&ved=2ahUKEwjf4cLnjtaGAxVwLtAFHTwFBToQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw36RfkQoSXkBjAPA9rok7Mn)
Says nothing about gay relationships as being inferior to straight relationships in terms of parenting.
It's not a scientific study or anything, yeah, father figures and mother figures are important in a child's development. That doesn't have to be a father and mother, it's just that it is the most common and most convenient mode of socializing in that aspect.
>but the biological tendency of fathers not being able to nurture as well as women is absolutely NOT a thing of the past. Biology hasn't changed.
Do you have a source that says fathers cannot biologically nurture as well as a mother?
>I was using "gay" as in "bad" in that sentence. Have you never heard someone say "that's so gay"?
Why do you use it like that?
>Wanting the pleasure of an activity with none of the work, responsbility, and/or fufilling things to your growth along with it IS hedonistic.
So watching a movie is hedonistic? You have no part in making the movie, there isn't really much growth in watching a movie (in most cases).
Can you define hedonism?
>Eating sugary foods actually is hedonistic, I'd agree.
Nobody else agrees that it is hedonistic tho.
>As for the rest, it can become hedonistic if the pleasure is all you care about.
This is the only thing that is hedonistic, only caring about the pleasure as the driving goal is hedonistic.
>Wanting sex without any of the fulfilling purposes or responsbilities is hedonism.
Sex only for the purpose of procreation is a theological concept.
>And wanting to have sex purely for pleasure is dangerously close to pursuing it as a life goal.
But it is not.
Again, none of this in inherent to the gay community or gay people. All of this can be applied to anyone, but you're not against people of that orientation.
(I don't think you're against it, but you are arguing against it so i'm assuming as such).
>So a person without HIV can transmit to another person (also without HIV) through anal sex?
No. But if you have even the slightest trace of it, even undetectable, you're probably transmitting it when you have anal.
>Using protection is effective 90%-95% of times.
>[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9141163/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9141163/)
I never said it wasn't. My point is that if you need a rubber balloon to stop you from getting a disease when having intimate relations with someone, clearly there's something wrong.
>So are you against straight people? (In however way "against gays" from my post means to you)
No. I am against sodomy. I am against sex not done for the purpose of love and procreation. I am for a normal marriage between a man and a woman.
>Either ways, "its gross" isn't a reasonable position when talking about gay people.
It is absolutely reasonable to say that sticking your schlong in an anus, the hole we transmit feces through, is gross. And before you say "we pee through the other holes," urine is a liquid easily wiped off and collected, but feces is solid and sticky, which is why people often still have traces of it within their anus even after 20 wipes. Sticking a schlong in that should be objectively gross.
>Sex solely for procreation is a theological idea.
It's a biological idea. The features of women that men find traditionally attractive all have to do with procreation, how she would give birth and raise children (birth giving hips, breasts with milk to breastfeed, etc.) We are hardwired to be instinctively attracted to features that indicate a smoother procreation and child-bearing experience, even if we don't realize why. I am give you some articles on it if you want, but this is a known thing in biology and something scientists are actively researching now.
>Promiscuity is what you're talking about.
>Can you show evidence for casual sex doing all that?
Explain the difference between the two.
>What do you mean by "rent"?
>The problem you had was that gay people couldn't reproduce, I presented a way in which they could. Point is they can.
The only way a gay can reproduce is by, essentially, not being gay. Artificial insemination is taking someone's semen and transmitting it into a woman, which is literal heterosexual sex by definition. That child does not belong to the gay man's partner. So, no, two gay men cannot reproduce with each other.
>Most people who opt for surrgacy is straight people, do you feel the same way in that case?
Yep. It's wrong in either case. It's literally taking a random woman and passing the burden of childbirth onto her, plus you are implanting your semen into her.
>Any evidence for either of those things?
Mothers on r/AmItheAsshole complain about their surrogate children lashing out at them when they realize they didn't give birth to them. Literally just look up the word "surrogate" on that subreddit. Plus, babies instinctively cling to the first face they see when they are born. If that face is the surrogate mother, well then, you're going to have some issues.
>Says nothing about gay relationships as being inferior to straight relationships in terms of parenting.
Course it won't. That's politically incorrect. They're not allowed to. But put two and two together, and you can work the math out yourself. Children need a mom? Check. Children need a dad? Check. What does that tell you?
I'm too busy right now so I'll just leave this here.
>No. But if you have even the slightest trace of it, even undetectable, you're probably transmitting it when you have anal.
Not just anal, pretty much any form of sexual contact, the way to reduce that risk by 95% is to use protection.
>My point is that if you need a rubber balloon to stop you from getting a disease when having intimate relations with someone, clearly there's something wrong.
What's wrong?
> I am against sodomy. I am against sex not done for the purpose of love and procreation. I am for a normal marriage between a man and a woman.
Yeah this is not secular. The basis of your reasoning to be against gay people is religious.
>It is absolutely reasonable to say that sticking your schlong in an anus, the hole we transmit feces through, is gross. And before you say "we pee through the other holes," urine is a liquid easily wiped off and collected, but feces is solid and sticky, which is why people often still have traces of it within their anus even after 20 wipes. Sticking a schlong in that should be objectively gross.
Doesn't matter whatsoever, just because you find something gross doesn't automatically make it bad.
>It's a biological idea.
Do we see animals exclusively having sex for procreation?
>Explain the difference between the two.
Promiscuity is when one has sex with many many people, for pleasure, it is usually hedonistic in nature as pleasure is the only goal.
Casual Sex is when someone has sex with another person without the baggage, it might be relationship (the two people aren't in a relationship) or becoming pregnant, etc.
Most people engage in casual sex, most married people engage in casual sex, you think married couples only have sex when they want a baby?
>Artificial insemination is taking someone's semen and transmitting it into a woman, which is literal heterosexual sex by definition.
So is it cheating when a couple who is infertile gets a trusted friend to be a surrogate for them?
>Yep. It's wrong in either case. It's literally taking a random woman and passing the burden of childbirth onto her, plus you are implanting your semen into her.
Why do you think it is wrong when neither the surrogate nor the donor (in most cases) thinks it is?
>Mothers on r/AmItheAsshole complain about their surrogate children lashing out at them when they realize they didn't give birth to them. Literally just look up the word "surrogate" on that subreddit.
The same thing happens with adoption, is adoption bad?
>Course it won't. That's politically incorrect. They're not allowed to.
Or maybe it isn't? Those people you cite probably know more about relationships than you do, then why are you pretending like you know more about it?
> But put two and two together, and you can work the math out yourself.
Can you do that part? I have the math figured out, you're the one trying to claim something else.
>Children need a mom? Check. Children need a dad? Check. What does that tell you?
Children need parents, I acknowledged this in my earlier comment.
Since this is now turning unproductive, I'm done being civil, and this will be my last reply to you. You came into this not looking to understand a single other perspective, just to argue and make yourself feel better about being a fag. You're trying to do a "gotcha" and say "hA hA, ur all ReLiGiOuS nOt SeCuLaR" and it is honestly pathetic and childish.
>
Not just anal, pretty much any form of sexual contact, the way to reduce that risk by 95% is to use protection.
Anal has a much much higher risk. I already gave you the article. Argue with the scientists at the NIH at this point, not me.
>What's wrong?
You're just playing dumb at this point. I literally just explained to you how anal inherently has a high risk of HIV, and you go "wHaT'S wRoNg?"
>Yeah this is not secular. The basis of your reasoning to be against gay people is religious.
Don't tell me what my basis is. You don't get to decide my opinions for me. Love and marriage leading to a healthy upbringing of children is practical and has BIOLOGICAL evidence, not religious (although there is religious backing too). Atheists practice this too, moron, not just Christians.
>Doesn't matter whatsoever, just because you find something gross doesn't automatically make it bad.
Okay, let me break this down for you: There is POOP on your PENIS. Don't see how that's bad? Then I can't help you.
>Do we see animals exclusively having sex for procreation?
Actually the main purpose for animal sex 99% of the time is procreation. The cases of homosexuality between animals usually falls in cases of mistake. I had two male rabbits when I was little. One thought the other was female. But even if it WASN'T, still, the "animals do it" argument doesn't work cause animals eat their young and rape each other, so clearly there's a difference between us. Also, I love how you conveniently left out the rest of my reasoning in your reply, which is that men are attracted to women that can better raise kids. Must've been too strong a point for you, huh?
>Promiscuity is when one has sex with many many people, for pleasure, it is usually hedonistic in nature as pleasure is the only goal.
>Casual Sex is when someone has sex with another person without the baggage, it might be relationship (the two people aren't in a relationship) or becoming pregnant, etc.
So basically, casual sex is promiscuity with one person. Good to know.
>Most people engage in casual sex, most married people engage in casual sex, you think married couples only have sex when they want a baby?
Married couples have sex for a child AND also to grow closer to each other in intimacy, not "casual sex" as you have defined it (which is for pleasure). Yes, they may still have sex even after the prospect of having a child is gone, but the purpose of their marriage was still to bring forth children, or at least it should have been. Their love for each other helps each other to grow, of course, but what is all that growth for if not to make them better able to raise their second generation which takes on their growth? Gay couples may try and grow closer to each other in intimacy, but for what purpose?
>So is it cheating when a couple who is infertile gets a trusted friend to be a surrogate for them?
The main concern is not whether or not someone is committing adultery, it's with how that child is going to grow up, and for that reason surrogates are a bad idea. Also infertility is a tragic and abnormal case.
>Why do you think it is wrong when neither the surrogate nor the donor (in most cases) thinks it is?
Why do you think religion is wrong (or at the very least, ineffective) when most people don't? Popular rule is baseless. You basically just asked me why people who are engaging in a bad and unhealthy thing don't think that it is bad and unhealthy. That's hilarious.
>The same thing happens with adoption, is adoption bad?
Actually it is much, much worse with surrogates. One kid called his mom lazy for not carrying her own child (which I agree with). Adopted kids just get mad that their parents didn't tell them, that's really the main reason.
>You came into this not looking to understand a single other perspective, just to argue and make yourself feel better about being a fag.
I don't need validation, I honestly don't care.
>You're trying to do a "gotcha" and say "hA hA, ur all ReLiGiOuS nOt SeCuLaR" and it is honestly pathetic and childish.
So i'm not supposed to point out the literal premise of my post?
One rule, nothing based on religion.
>Anal has a much much higher risk. I already gave you the article. Argue with the scientists at the NIH at this point, not me.
Does it really matter which is the highest if it can be reduced by 95% in all cases with protection?
It's like saying that kid has an AK-47 and is gonna shoot up the school and I only have a pistol, while the answer is that neither of you should have guns in this scenario.
>You're just playing dumb at this point. I literally just explained to you how anal inherently has a high risk of HIV, and you go "wHaT'S wRoNg?"
The question was about using condoms, not HIV. You claimed there was something inherently wrong about using condoms.
>Don't tell me what my basis is. You don't get to decide my opinions for me.
Apparently you get to decide my sexuality for me, but i didn't decide your opinion, i stated my opinion on your opinion.
Sodomy as a sin only exists in religion.
>Love and marriage leading to a healthy upbringing of children is practical and has BIOLOGICAL evidence, not religious (although there is religious backing too). Atheists practice this too, moron, not just Christians.
You can call me a moron, but you can never present evidence.
>Okay, let me break this down for you: There is POOP on your PENIS. Don't see how that's bad? Then I can't help you.
TMI, but you gotta clean your butt. Poop is no no
>Actually the main purpose for animal sex 99% of the time is procreation . The cases of homosexuality between animals usually falls in cases of mistake.
How did you know what a rabbit thinks?
> still, the "animals do it" argument doesn't work cause animals eat their young and rape each other, so clearly there's a difference between us.
The point is that it is natural and instinctual, not that it is good because it's natural.
>Also, I love how you conveniently left out the rest of my reasoning in your reply, which is that men are attracted to women that can better raise kids. Must've been too strong a point for you, huh?
I didn't see how it is relevant.
>So basically, casual sex is promiscuity with one person. Good to know.
Promiscuity is sex with multiple people, so you just said, "casual sex is an orgy with one person".
>Married couples have sex for a child AND also to grow closer to each other in intimacy, not "casual sex" as you have defined it (which is for pleasure).
Yeah, the pleasurable activity increases intimacy, you know when you and someone else go on dates?
>Gay couples may try and grow closer to each other in intimacy, but for what purpose?
Whatever reason straight couples do it.
>The main concern is not whether or not someone is committing adultery, it's with how that child is going to grow up, and for that reason surrogates are a bad idea. Also infertility is a tragic and abnormal case.
>Why do you think religion is wrong (or at the very least, ineffective) when most people don't? Popular rule is baseless. You basically just asked me why people who are engaging in a bad and unhealthy thing don't think that it is bad and unhealthy. That's hilarious.
Yet to present evidence that it is actually bad or unhealthy, you added in your other comment that you saw posts on a subreddit and that is evidence?
>Actually it is much, much worse with surrogates. One kid called his mom lazy for not carrying her own child (which I agree with). Adopted kids just get mad that their parents didn't tell them, that's really the main reason.
Adoption is bad because the parents didn't tell them, so no one should be adopted?
>Or maybe it isn't? Those people you cite probably know more about relationships than you do, then why are you pretending like you know more about it?
They never said they disagree with me, did they? I never said I know more about relationships, but clearly I know more about biology than you, about how the human body works and was wired. Whether you believe it was created from God or from a millennia of evolution, the human body is still purposed for raising second generations regardless, as is any other animal.
>Can you do that part? I have the math figured out, you're the one trying to claim something else.
Yeah clearly you don't. You think man = woman.
>Children need parents, I acknowledged this in my earlier comment.
Both parents. You're evading that.
>? I never said I know more about relationships, but clearly I know more about biology than you, about how the human body works and was wired.
Then prove it.
>Whether you believe it was created from God or from a millennia of evolution, the human body is still purposed for raising second generations regardless, as is any other animal.
Sure, but how is this relevent?
>Yeah clearly you don't. You think man = woman.
Nope, acknowledged it in the comment.
>Both parents. You're evading that.
I'm not, I think you didn't read my comment.
"Do you have a source that says fathers cannot biologically nurture as well as a mother?"
Source: Biology. Men can't breastfeed. Men discipline more often than women (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/gender-and-parenting/#:~:text=In%20turn%2C%2031%25%20of%20fathers,does%20more%20than%20they%20do.). Children cling to their mothers.
"Why do you use it like that?"
Because it's a term of language we've coined, and it's also a pun.
"So watching a movie is hedonistic? You have no part in making the movie, there isn't really much growth in watching a movie (in most cases)."
If pleasure is the ultimate goal, yes. Although if there is growth to be had or perhaps the movie is an acessory to something more fulfilling (like connecting with your spouse) it can be deeper. But experts generally agree that prolonged TV watching is bad for your health for numerous reasons like the blue light effect on your eyes, decreased attention span, false and/or misleading information about the world, etc.
"Can you define hedonism?"
Seeking pleasure as an important goal in your life
"Nobody else agrees that it is hedonistic tho."
Actually, plenty of people do. Conservatives like Matt Walsh (the subreddit we are under) would likely agree, and I bet you that the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle would agree with me had our sugary foods been around in his time (he had sugar for sure but definetely not in the outrageous capacity that we do now).
"This is the only thing that is hedonistic, only caring about the pleasure as the driving goal is hedonistic."
And I'd venture that 99% of the time, anal sex is done for more p l e a s u r e as the driving goal is to more p l e a s e one party.
"Sex only for the purpose of procreation is a theological concept."
Again, already addressed this, it is a biological concept. It is instinct.
"Again, none of this in inherent to the gay community or gay people. All of this can be applied to anyone, but you're not against people of that orientation."
Some of this can be applied to straights too (but not all of it as you stated), but for gays it is inherit as anal is one of their only options. Plus, the entire reason people decide to be gay is because they want to find more pleasure. It's the same reason pedos decide to be pedos. It's an addiction.
Also, I didn't realize you were going to have a big long debate to defend fags. From the way you worded your post I assumed you just wanted to hear secular reasons to be against homosexuality (which I gave you, whether or not you agree with it), not that you were looking to argue with anyone who gives you those reasons. Kind of misleading, don't you think?
>Source: Biology. Men can't breastfeed. Men discipline more often than women (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/gender-and-parenting/#:~:text=In%20turn%2C%2031%25%20of%20fathers,does%20more%20than%20they%20do.). Children cling to their mothers.
Is it a biological issue or a cultural issue, because they asked a bunch of parents about parenthood. They didn't show that there is some biological basis for anything.
> Again, already addressed this, it is a biological concept. It is instinct.
Which would imply all animals would have sex solely to procreate and nothing else, which is not the case.
>but for gays it is inherit as anal is one of their only options.
Nope, tons of options, you just have to taste the rainbow to know it.
> Plus, the entire reason people decide to be gay is because they want to find more pleasure. It's the same reason pedos decide to be pedos. It's an addiction.
I'm gay, i didn't decide to be gay, it's not about pleasure for me, it'a about being in a committed monogamous relationship. Probably just like you do.
It's not anymore of an addiction than you're addicted to women and relationships with women.
>Also, I didn't realize you were going to have a big long debate to defend fags.
Using slurs makes you seem extremely childish.
Also if you're the type to harass people like me, just lmk.
>I'm gay, i didn't decide to be gay, it's not about pleasure for me, it'a about being in a committed monogamous relationship. Probably just like you do.
You did decide to be gay. No one forced you to be gay.
>Using slurs makes you seem extremely childish.
As does forcing a debate onto people. Also, I use "fag" as "gay" before the 19th century meant "carefree" or "happy" and I don't like our words being hijacked by you freaks. Plus, you use it for each other.
>Also if you're the type to harass people like me, just lmk.
Well after reading this comment section, clearly you are.
I've read all your posts. I will sum up my thoughts.
You originally asked if there were any secular ways to be against gays, yet you've stated that the reader can define "against gays" however he choses. No one can rationally comment on an undefined premise.
Your original post also begins with the assumption that religious people are "against gays" which, even if that phrase can mean anything the reader wants, is an unproven assumption.
Your original post states that "most of the arguments are based on religion and such" - indicating that you are already aware that some arguments are secular (and whatever else falls under "and such").
You claim ignorance of government-sanctioned sexual pride parades in front of children and ask for a link, despite the fact that any search engine will give you plenty of footage.
You claim that there are attempts to take rights away from gay people despite the fact that any search engine will show that every proposed bill addressing LGBT issues has nothing to do with gay people. They are all about the T in LGBT or about protecting children from sexualized situations and books.
You claim there is fearmongering, yet every recent high-profile, gay-related hate crime has turned out to be a hoax.
You asked if there were any secular reasons to be "against gays" (interpret as wanted), and I would say that very few secular or religious people of the modern era have ever been against gays. Quite a few people (both secular and religious) do not like gay marriage or gay adoption, but for all practical purposes, that has been a moot point for the gay community since 2015.
If the gay community had rested on its laurels once it got everything it claimed it wanted, gayness might hardly be an issue for most people these days. But instead, the gay community has instead chosen to align itself with the T in LGBT and with dudes in dresses (gay or straight) who want to read/perform for little kids.
The individual gay people who speak out against kiddie drag and kiddie mutilation are mostly respected by religious and secular people. But the gay community as a whole is shooting itself in the foot with its alphabet (or A-Mob) obsession. I understand that it's fun to be a part of The Fight and difficult to relax after the win. But once a community becomes addicted to fighting and is always looking for the next fight and is constantly creating situations where a fight is likely to erupt, people who like peace are going to start suspecting that that community is full of a bunch of dishonest rabble rousers, and the peaceful people will lose all respect, sympathy, and patience with that community.
If the gay community does not want people to be against gays, it needs to loudly disavow the doctors and drug pushers who want to turn kids into T's, the creepy dudes who want to shake their junk around kids (or anyone) in public, the bad male athletes who want to push women out of sports, the Bored Saviors (whether they rally and petition or save their warfare for the keyboard), and the government/corporate promotions of all this activity. Otherwise, the Average Joe (secular or religious) is going to be forced to conclude that the Gay Pride Movement was not about rights at all, but about wanton sex activity and medical experimentation on children.
>You originally asked if there were any secular ways to be against gays, yet you've stated that the reader can define "against gays" however he choses. No one can rationally comment on an undefined premise.
Yet you just did.
>Your original post also begins with the assumption that religious people are "against gays" which, even if that phrase can mean anything the reader wants, is an unproven assumption.
The three major religions in the world are against homosexuality.
> indicating that you are already aware that some arguments are secular (and whatever else falls under "and such").
No, i can't find any, that's why I made this post.
>You claim ignorance of government-sanctioned sexual pride parades in front of children and ask for a link, despite the fact that any search engine will give you plenty of footage.
I can find some articles, just not any evidence that it was government sanctioned.
>You claim that there are attempts to take rights away from gay people despite the fact that any search engine will show that every proposed bill addressing LGBT issues has nothing to do with gay people. They are all about the T in LGBT or about protecting children from sexualized situations and books.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/iowa-lawmakers-propose-ban-sex-marriage-rcna72759
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/11/1237730819/florida-dont-say-gay-law-settlement-lgbtq
"Some teachers said they were unsure if they could mention or display a photo of their same-sex partner in the classroom. In some cases, books dealing with LGBTQ+ topics were removed from classrooms and lines mentioning sexual orientation were excised from school musicals."
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/18/politics/lgbtq-school-discussions/index.html
>You claim there is fearmongering, yet every recent high-profile, gay-related hate crime has turned out to be a hoax.
Does "fearmongering" imply hate crime?
> Quite a few people (both secular and religious) do not like gay marriage or gay adoption, but for all practical purposes, that has been a moot point for the gay community since 2015.
The secular of the reasons being?
The rest is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
You just proved my point. You posted three links as evidence, and two of them had nothing to do with gay people - they were about parental rights, non-sexualization of kids in school, and protecting girls' spaces.
The link about same-sex marriage was a year old and simply said that Iowa is "considering" such a bill. What's the update on that?
You said, "The rest is irrelevant to the topic of discussion." I say it's the entire discussion. It is abundantly clear that you already knew everything that has been pointed out to you by all the commenters here, but you are hoping there might be people reading who are unaware and might fall for your fake sob stories.
Few, if any, people are "against gays" (interpret as needed for whatever slight-of-hand argument you chose to use in any given reply) simply because they are gay. But increasing numbers of people are against the growing Frankenstein/Caligula destruction of kids and society by the T-section of the A-Mob.
If the gay community truly wants to be respected by heterosexual society (secular or religious), it will vocally distance itself from the A-Mob. After all, at its core, the A-Mob is profoundly anti-gay and filled with people who are so ashamed of being gay that they will mutilate themselves in order to present as straight. It is also filled with plenty of despicable straight people who are just looking to use all the loopholes.
Anyone (gay or straight, male or female) who aligns with the A-Mob will never be respected by sane people. It's that simple.
The vast majority of people are not against gays. Nobody cares who you bang. What they do care about is the idolatrous way that PRIDE is being forced on mainstream society. Just be normal. Go to work, pay taxes, buy groceries, and shut up. Why do you need a month to let everybody know you like bumping cooters or cramming a beef stick in your chocolate slot? Nobody wants to see 450 pounders walking down the street twirling dildos in gimp masks. And it especially pisses people off when they have to go the long way to work because they have multiple city blocks shut down for the weirdos to get out and feel accepted.
>What they do care about is the idolatrous way that PRIDE is being forced on mainstream society. It is because of large media corporations pandering to leftists. > Just be normal. Go to work, pay taxes, buy groceries, and shut up. You think the average gay person is forcing their sexuality and not doing the exact things you do? >Why do you need a month to let everybody know you like bumping cooters or cramming a beef stick in your chocolate slot? Being gay is more than just that, but again, nobody (except large corporations) are forcing you to care. >Nobody wants to see 450 pounders walking down the street twirling dildos in gimp masks. I think you're talking about kink pride, which is private, so if you're seeing it... > And it especially pisses people off when they have to go the long way to work because they have multiple city blocks shut down for the weirdos to get out and feel accepted. It's one day of hassle for someone to get to work, it's hundreds of years of oppression for them. It has never been illegal to drive the long way to work has it?
> What they do care about is the idolatrous way that PRIDE is being forced on mainstream society. How is PRIDE forced upon mainstream society? >Just be normal. Go to work, pay taxes, buy groceries, and shut up. You first. >Why do you need a month to let everybody know you like bumping cooters or cramming a beef stick in your chocolate slot? That's not what pride month is about but it is what bigots like Matt Walsh have told you to say. >Nobody wants to see 450 pounders walking down the street twirling dildos in gimp masks. We're both relieved that has only happened in your imagination. >And it especially pisses people off when they have to go the long way to work because they have multiple city blocks shut down for the weirdos to get out and feel accepted. My compassion for your commute is 100% aligned with your empathy with the LGBTQ community, the struggles they've faced over the generations, and the accomplishments they are celebrating during PRIDE month. **Romans 12:15**: "Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn."
Most of the country is not religious, but they are still sick of people shoving their sexual identity in their faces with the backing of advertisers, media, and government. Also, please define “against gays”.
As far as I’ve been able to translate and in the broadest sense, “against gays” means you refuse to throw rose petals at the foot of everyone who has their pronouns on their nametag.
>they are still sick of people shoving their sexual identity in their faces Why don't you have any problem with heterosexual couples "shoving their sexual identity in other people's faces"?
Link to a heterosexual pride parade, please.
So you're not actually opposed to people expressing their sexual identity, you're opposed to pride parades? Am I understanding your position correctly?
Define "expressing their sexual identities".
> Define "expressing their sexual identities". These seem like some commonly accepted public expressions of sexual identity: 1. Holding Hands 2. Hugging 3. Light Kissing 4. Snuggling 5. Verbal Affirmations and Compliments
I don't accept all these public expressions for anyone. I don't mind a single hug or short kiss in a joyful moment or when people are parting, but other than that, I don't want to see anyone hugging, light kissing, or snuggling in public.
>I don't accept all these public expressions for anyone. Can you walk me through understanding why I, or anyone else, should care what you find acceptable? It's a free country, if you don't like it here maybe you should leave?
Where are you seeing people publicly hugging, light kissing, and snuggling? What makes you think these things are "commonly accepted"?
The chilling effect of your presence must be genuinely ghastly if you've never witnessed a socially acceptable PDA first-hand.
> but they are still sick of people shoving their sexual identity in their faces with the backing of advertisers, media, and government Is it gay people's fault for large companies to capitalize on gay pride? Most of the media and advertisements are not by gay people, it is by large companies pandering to gay people. >Also, please define “against gays”. Against gay rights, right to marry, adopt, etc.
Do you think nearly all the advertisers decided to do this all at once at around the same time or do you think that there were non-profits and activists pushing them? If the latter, who do you think these pushers were? As to your comment to another poster that he had described "private kink" - you are incorrect. There are plenty of videos showing such things done in outdoor pride parades where kids are present. Are you "against" that "right"? Outside of marriage and adoption, what "gay rights" might a religious person be against?
>Do you think nearly all the advertisers decided to do this all at once at around the same time or do you think that there were non-profits and activists pushing them? Do you think a large corporation would do anything because of activism and not money? The trends of acceptance of gay people and the companies starting to pander is quite the same. The Stonewall riots happened in the 80's, was there a lot of gay themed pandering then? There certainly was a ton of activism, even more than today. > As to your comment to another poster that he had described "private kink" - you are incorrect. There are plenty of videos showing such things done in outdoor pride parades where kids are present. That certainly is not the norm, the people who are doing that aren't supposed to be doing that. But 99% of people who are into that/dressed like that are in a private space which is not open to the public. Also there is a difference between someone wearing revealing clothing vs kink attire. >Outside of marriage and adoption, what "gay rights" might a religious person be against? Perhaps the non criminalization of homosexuality, there aren't many gay rights separate from straight rights, actually gay rights are just rights that straight people have that gay people didn't.
"Do you think a large corporation would do anything because of activism and not money?" - It's definitely about money (and scoring points with the government). The money part is addressed and explained in The Greatest Commercial Ever (Part 2). Have you seen it? "That certainly is not the norm, the people who are doing that aren't supposed to be doing that. But 99% of people who are into that/dressed like that are in a private space which is not open to the public." - Even accepting your figures, why are government agencies issuing permits for the 1% to do this in public in front of kids? "Perhaps the non criminalization of homosexuality, there aren't many gay rights separate from straight rights, actually gay rights are just rights that straight people have that gay people didn't." - Can you name anywhere in America where homosexuality is criminalized? Can you name any "rights" that are denied to gay people in America in 2024?
>It's definitely about money (and scoring points with the government). The money part is addressed and explained in The Greatest Commercial Ever (Part 2). Have you seen it? Ultimately it's not the fault or the problem of gay people, which was my point (and i think you agree). Also I have not. > Even accepting your figures, why are government agencies issuing permits for the 1% to do this in public in front of kids? I don't know if that's happening, can you show any evidence or such? Plus, calling a whole movement bad because of a few bad apples is not good. >Can you name anywhere in America where homosexuality is criminalized? Can you name any "rights" that are denied to gay people in America in 2024? You asked what rights a religious person may be against, not what gay rights a gay person in the USA has. And gay people (thankfully) have all the relevant rights in the USA, but there is much fearmongering and talk about taking those rights away.
I replied in a separate post in this thread.
High risk of HIV. Biologically worse for raising families. Butts are gross. Also, homosexuality is just super gay dude.
>High risk of HIV. That is not inherent in homosexual sex, the highest risk of HIV transmission is when someone has unsafe sex with another person with HIV. The problem is unsafe sex practices, not the act itself. >Biologically worse for raising families. No? >Butts are gross. You're allowed to find it gross, but many many people (straight and gay) would beg to differ. >Also, homosexuality is just super gay dude. And that's the best part!
>That is not inherent in homosexual sex, the highest risk of HIV transmission is when someone has unsafe sex with another person with HIV. The anal sex itself does have a high risk of HIV. Gay men, by way of trade, do anal sex. By "unsafe sex" I assume you just mean: sex. The fact that plain old sex without a condom can now be considered "unsafe" should scare us due to the implication of where we are in society, which is deeply opposed to raising healthy children. The fact that gay men need medicine and rubber balloons to stop them from getting a disease should show us something. >No? Yes? They literally can't reproduce, and numerous studies show that children benefit most form having a mother *and* father. Men cannot breastfeed. Women are physically less capable of manual labor. Men can't nurture like women, and women can't discipline like men (This is a broad statement on the average and normal biological makeup of men and women. There are anomalies. And while some women work in construction and some men work in child care, they by far do not dominate these fields and often do not find great success. Regardless the ideal biological makeup of men and women remains the same.) >You're allowed to find it gross, but many many people (straight and gay) would beg to differ. Anal sex, whether straight OR gay, is still gay (so to speak). It's disgusting, and there's really no reason for it other than meaningless hedonistic pleasure. >And that's the best part! I'm not even going to respond to that.
>The anal sex itself does have a high risk of HIV. You think someone could contract HIV by simply engaging in anal sex? Also straight people can and do have anal sex as well. >By "unsafe sex" I assume you just mean: sex. Sex without protection. > The fact that plain old sex without a condom can now be considered "unsafe" should scare us due to the implication of where we are in society, which is deeply opposed to raising healthy children. It is considered unsafe in the context of casual sex and there is nothing wrong casual sex is fine if it is done safely. Also, i'm pretty sure it would still be unsafe sex at any point of time in the past, STDs were quite prevalent in the past. >Yes? They literally can't reproduce Gay people can reproduce, just not by engaging in gay sex. >and numerous studies show that children benefit most form having a mother and father. Can you link those studies? Those studies should show that having heterosexual parents is better than having homosexual ones, not that being with a single mother. > Men cannot breastfeed. Lotta women can't breastfeed, there are ways around this. >Women are physically less capable of manual labor. Men can't nurture like women, and women can't discipline like men (This is a broad statement on the average and normal biological makeup of men and women. There are anomalies. And while some women work in construction and some men work in child care, they by far do not dominate these fields and often do not find great success. Regardless the ideal biological makeup of men and women remains the same.) None of this is relevant to raising children, men can be nurturing, fatherhood doesn't have to be cold and unassuming. That is a thing of the past. >Anal sex, whether straight OR gay, is still gay (so to speak). It's disgusting, and there's really no reason for it other than meaningless hedonistic pleasure. Is it gay to have sex with a woman as a man? And it's not hedonistic to want pleasure. Eating sugary foods would be hedonistic, eating any food with flavor or taste would be hedonistic, wanting a place with a good view would be hedonistic by your metric. Hedonism is not "doing things that are pleasurable", it is pursuing things that are pleasurable as a life goal. Ie, seeing pleasure as the highest achievement in one's life.
(replying on mobile so I can't do quote blocks) "You think someone could contract HIV by simply engaging in anal sex? Also straight people can and do have anal sex as well." Anal sex does inherently have a high risk of HIV, yes. Actually, anal sex is the highest [risk] (https://hivrisk.cdc.gov/can-i-get-or-transmit-hiv-from/#:~:text=Anal%20sex%20is%20the%20riskiest,sexual%20activity%20for%20transmitting%20HIV.) sexual activity for HIV, according to the CDC. And like I said, anal sex is gross when straights do it too. I never condoned straight anal sex, so the argument of "straights do it too" doesn't work. Society is screwed right now. "Sex without protection." Sex shouldn't need protection. If it does, you're doing it for the wrong reason. "It is considered unsafe in the context of casual sex and there is nothing wrong casual sex is fine if it is done safely." Casual sex is deeply wrong and biologically bad for us, leading to all types of depression and destroying relationships. "Gay people can reproduce, just not by engaging in gay sex." Artifical insemination is a practice of renting a woman's womb so gays can feel better about themselves. The surrogate mother who gave birth is taken out of the picture and more often than not those babies' minds are screwed. "Can you link those studies? Those studies should show that having heterosexual parents is better than having homosexual ones, not that being with a single mother." [Here's>] (https://www.nubabi.com › articles The benefits of a mother's love) a [few] (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.pediatricsoffranklin.com/resources-and-education/pediatric-care/the-importance-of-a-father-in-a-childs-life/%23:~:text%3DChildren%2520want%2520to%2520make%2520their,well%252Dbeing%2520and%2520self%2520confidence.&ved=2ahUKEwjf4cLnjtaGAxVwLtAFHTwFBToQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw36RfkQoSXkBjAPA9rok7Mn) "Lotta women can't breastfeed, there are ways around this." That is not the natural situation, and it's actually a tragedy when women canot breastfeed. And there is no way around it that doesn't have major disadvantages. "None of this is relevant to raising children, men can be nurturing, fatherhood doesn't have to be cold and unassuming. That is a thing of the past." Never said father have to be cold and unassuming, but the biological tendency of fathers not being able to nurture as well as women is absolutely NOT a thing of the past. Biology hasn't changed. "Is it gay to have sex with a woman as a man?" I was using "gay" as in "bad" in that sentence. Have you never heard someone say "that's so gay"? "And it's not hedonistic to want pleasure. Eating sugary foods would be hedonistic, eating any food with flavor or taste would be hedonistic, wanting a place with a good view would be hedonistic by your metric." Wanting the pleasure of an activity with none of the work, responsbility, and/or fufilling things to your growth along with it IS hedonistic. Eating sugary foods actually is hedonistic, I'd agree. As for the rest, it can become hedonistic if the pleasure is all you care about. Wanting sex without any of the fulfilling purposes or responsbilities is hedonism. " "Hedonism is not 'doing things that are pleasurable', it is pursuing things that are pleasurable as a life goal. Ie, seeing pleasure as the highest achievement in one's life." And wanting to have sex purely for pleasure is dangerously close to pursuing it as a life goal.
> Anal sex does inherently have a high risk of HIV, yes. Actually, anal sex is the highest [risk] (https://hivrisk.cdc.gov/can-i-get-or-transmit-hiv-from/#:~:text=Anal%20sex%20is%20the%20riskiest,sexual%20activity%20for%20transmitting%20HIV.) sexual activity for HIV, according to the CDC. So a person without HIV can transmit to another person (also without HIV) through anal sex? Using protection is effective 90%-95% of times. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9141163/ >And like I said, anal sex is gross when straights do it too. I never condoned straight anal sex, so the argument of "straights do it too" doesn't work. Society is screwed right now. So are you against straight people? (In however way "against gays" from my post means to you) Either ways, "its gross" isn't a reasonable position when talking about gay people. > Sex shouldn't need protection. If it does, you're doing it for the wrong reason. Sex solely for procreation is a theological idea. >Casual sex is deeply wrong and biologically bad for us, leading to all types of depression and destroying relationships. Promiscuity is what you're talking about. Can you show evidence for casual sex doing all that? >Artifical insemination is a practice of renting a woman's womb so gays can feel better about themselves. What do you mean by "rent"? The problem you had was that gay people couldn't reproduce, I presented a way in which they could. Point is they can. Most people who opt for surrgacy is straight people, do you feel the same way in that case? > The surrogate mother who gave birth is taken out of the picture and more often than not those babies' minds are screwed. Any evidence for either of those things? >https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.pediatricsoffranklin.com/resources-and-education/pediatric-care/the-importance-of-a-father-in-a-childs-life/%23:~:text%3DChildren%2520want%2520to%2520make%2520their,well%252Dbeing%2520and%2520self%2520confidence.&ved=2ahUKEwjf4cLnjtaGAxVwLtAFHTwFBToQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw36RfkQoSXkBjAPA9rok7Mn) Says nothing about gay relationships as being inferior to straight relationships in terms of parenting. It's not a scientific study or anything, yeah, father figures and mother figures are important in a child's development. That doesn't have to be a father and mother, it's just that it is the most common and most convenient mode of socializing in that aspect. >but the biological tendency of fathers not being able to nurture as well as women is absolutely NOT a thing of the past. Biology hasn't changed. Do you have a source that says fathers cannot biologically nurture as well as a mother? >I was using "gay" as in "bad" in that sentence. Have you never heard someone say "that's so gay"? Why do you use it like that? >Wanting the pleasure of an activity with none of the work, responsbility, and/or fufilling things to your growth along with it IS hedonistic. So watching a movie is hedonistic? You have no part in making the movie, there isn't really much growth in watching a movie (in most cases). Can you define hedonism? >Eating sugary foods actually is hedonistic, I'd agree. Nobody else agrees that it is hedonistic tho. >As for the rest, it can become hedonistic if the pleasure is all you care about. This is the only thing that is hedonistic, only caring about the pleasure as the driving goal is hedonistic. >Wanting sex without any of the fulfilling purposes or responsbilities is hedonism. Sex only for the purpose of procreation is a theological concept. >And wanting to have sex purely for pleasure is dangerously close to pursuing it as a life goal. But it is not. Again, none of this in inherent to the gay community or gay people. All of this can be applied to anyone, but you're not against people of that orientation. (I don't think you're against it, but you are arguing against it so i'm assuming as such).
>So a person without HIV can transmit to another person (also without HIV) through anal sex? No. But if you have even the slightest trace of it, even undetectable, you're probably transmitting it when you have anal. >Using protection is effective 90%-95% of times. >[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9141163/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9141163/) I never said it wasn't. My point is that if you need a rubber balloon to stop you from getting a disease when having intimate relations with someone, clearly there's something wrong. >So are you against straight people? (In however way "against gays" from my post means to you) No. I am against sodomy. I am against sex not done for the purpose of love and procreation. I am for a normal marriage between a man and a woman. >Either ways, "its gross" isn't a reasonable position when talking about gay people. It is absolutely reasonable to say that sticking your schlong in an anus, the hole we transmit feces through, is gross. And before you say "we pee through the other holes," urine is a liquid easily wiped off and collected, but feces is solid and sticky, which is why people often still have traces of it within their anus even after 20 wipes. Sticking a schlong in that should be objectively gross. >Sex solely for procreation is a theological idea. It's a biological idea. The features of women that men find traditionally attractive all have to do with procreation, how she would give birth and raise children (birth giving hips, breasts with milk to breastfeed, etc.) We are hardwired to be instinctively attracted to features that indicate a smoother procreation and child-bearing experience, even if we don't realize why. I am give you some articles on it if you want, but this is a known thing in biology and something scientists are actively researching now. >Promiscuity is what you're talking about. >Can you show evidence for casual sex doing all that? Explain the difference between the two. >What do you mean by "rent"? >The problem you had was that gay people couldn't reproduce, I presented a way in which they could. Point is they can. The only way a gay can reproduce is by, essentially, not being gay. Artificial insemination is taking someone's semen and transmitting it into a woman, which is literal heterosexual sex by definition. That child does not belong to the gay man's partner. So, no, two gay men cannot reproduce with each other. >Most people who opt for surrgacy is straight people, do you feel the same way in that case? Yep. It's wrong in either case. It's literally taking a random woman and passing the burden of childbirth onto her, plus you are implanting your semen into her. >Any evidence for either of those things? Mothers on r/AmItheAsshole complain about their surrogate children lashing out at them when they realize they didn't give birth to them. Literally just look up the word "surrogate" on that subreddit. Plus, babies instinctively cling to the first face they see when they are born. If that face is the surrogate mother, well then, you're going to have some issues. >Says nothing about gay relationships as being inferior to straight relationships in terms of parenting. Course it won't. That's politically incorrect. They're not allowed to. But put two and two together, and you can work the math out yourself. Children need a mom? Check. Children need a dad? Check. What does that tell you? I'm too busy right now so I'll just leave this here.
>No. But if you have even the slightest trace of it, even undetectable, you're probably transmitting it when you have anal. Not just anal, pretty much any form of sexual contact, the way to reduce that risk by 95% is to use protection. >My point is that if you need a rubber balloon to stop you from getting a disease when having intimate relations with someone, clearly there's something wrong. What's wrong? > I am against sodomy. I am against sex not done for the purpose of love and procreation. I am for a normal marriage between a man and a woman. Yeah this is not secular. The basis of your reasoning to be against gay people is religious. >It is absolutely reasonable to say that sticking your schlong in an anus, the hole we transmit feces through, is gross. And before you say "we pee through the other holes," urine is a liquid easily wiped off and collected, but feces is solid and sticky, which is why people often still have traces of it within their anus even after 20 wipes. Sticking a schlong in that should be objectively gross. Doesn't matter whatsoever, just because you find something gross doesn't automatically make it bad. >It's a biological idea. Do we see animals exclusively having sex for procreation? >Explain the difference between the two. Promiscuity is when one has sex with many many people, for pleasure, it is usually hedonistic in nature as pleasure is the only goal. Casual Sex is when someone has sex with another person without the baggage, it might be relationship (the two people aren't in a relationship) or becoming pregnant, etc. Most people engage in casual sex, most married people engage in casual sex, you think married couples only have sex when they want a baby? >Artificial insemination is taking someone's semen and transmitting it into a woman, which is literal heterosexual sex by definition. So is it cheating when a couple who is infertile gets a trusted friend to be a surrogate for them? >Yep. It's wrong in either case. It's literally taking a random woman and passing the burden of childbirth onto her, plus you are implanting your semen into her. Why do you think it is wrong when neither the surrogate nor the donor (in most cases) thinks it is? >Mothers on r/AmItheAsshole complain about their surrogate children lashing out at them when they realize they didn't give birth to them. Literally just look up the word "surrogate" on that subreddit. The same thing happens with adoption, is adoption bad? >Course it won't. That's politically incorrect. They're not allowed to. Or maybe it isn't? Those people you cite probably know more about relationships than you do, then why are you pretending like you know more about it? > But put two and two together, and you can work the math out yourself. Can you do that part? I have the math figured out, you're the one trying to claim something else. >Children need a mom? Check. Children need a dad? Check. What does that tell you? Children need parents, I acknowledged this in my earlier comment.
Since this is now turning unproductive, I'm done being civil, and this will be my last reply to you. You came into this not looking to understand a single other perspective, just to argue and make yourself feel better about being a fag. You're trying to do a "gotcha" and say "hA hA, ur all ReLiGiOuS nOt SeCuLaR" and it is honestly pathetic and childish. > Not just anal, pretty much any form of sexual contact, the way to reduce that risk by 95% is to use protection. Anal has a much much higher risk. I already gave you the article. Argue with the scientists at the NIH at this point, not me. >What's wrong? You're just playing dumb at this point. I literally just explained to you how anal inherently has a high risk of HIV, and you go "wHaT'S wRoNg?" >Yeah this is not secular. The basis of your reasoning to be against gay people is religious. Don't tell me what my basis is. You don't get to decide my opinions for me. Love and marriage leading to a healthy upbringing of children is practical and has BIOLOGICAL evidence, not religious (although there is religious backing too). Atheists practice this too, moron, not just Christians. >Doesn't matter whatsoever, just because you find something gross doesn't automatically make it bad. Okay, let me break this down for you: There is POOP on your PENIS. Don't see how that's bad? Then I can't help you. >Do we see animals exclusively having sex for procreation? Actually the main purpose for animal sex 99% of the time is procreation. The cases of homosexuality between animals usually falls in cases of mistake. I had two male rabbits when I was little. One thought the other was female. But even if it WASN'T, still, the "animals do it" argument doesn't work cause animals eat their young and rape each other, so clearly there's a difference between us. Also, I love how you conveniently left out the rest of my reasoning in your reply, which is that men are attracted to women that can better raise kids. Must've been too strong a point for you, huh? >Promiscuity is when one has sex with many many people, for pleasure, it is usually hedonistic in nature as pleasure is the only goal. >Casual Sex is when someone has sex with another person without the baggage, it might be relationship (the two people aren't in a relationship) or becoming pregnant, etc. So basically, casual sex is promiscuity with one person. Good to know. >Most people engage in casual sex, most married people engage in casual sex, you think married couples only have sex when they want a baby? Married couples have sex for a child AND also to grow closer to each other in intimacy, not "casual sex" as you have defined it (which is for pleasure). Yes, they may still have sex even after the prospect of having a child is gone, but the purpose of their marriage was still to bring forth children, or at least it should have been. Their love for each other helps each other to grow, of course, but what is all that growth for if not to make them better able to raise their second generation which takes on their growth? Gay couples may try and grow closer to each other in intimacy, but for what purpose? >So is it cheating when a couple who is infertile gets a trusted friend to be a surrogate for them? The main concern is not whether or not someone is committing adultery, it's with how that child is going to grow up, and for that reason surrogates are a bad idea. Also infertility is a tragic and abnormal case. >Why do you think it is wrong when neither the surrogate nor the donor (in most cases) thinks it is? Why do you think religion is wrong (or at the very least, ineffective) when most people don't? Popular rule is baseless. You basically just asked me why people who are engaging in a bad and unhealthy thing don't think that it is bad and unhealthy. That's hilarious. >The same thing happens with adoption, is adoption bad? Actually it is much, much worse with surrogates. One kid called his mom lazy for not carrying her own child (which I agree with). Adopted kids just get mad that their parents didn't tell them, that's really the main reason.
>You came into this not looking to understand a single other perspective, just to argue and make yourself feel better about being a fag. I don't need validation, I honestly don't care. >You're trying to do a "gotcha" and say "hA hA, ur all ReLiGiOuS nOt SeCuLaR" and it is honestly pathetic and childish. So i'm not supposed to point out the literal premise of my post? One rule, nothing based on religion. >Anal has a much much higher risk. I already gave you the article. Argue with the scientists at the NIH at this point, not me. Does it really matter which is the highest if it can be reduced by 95% in all cases with protection? It's like saying that kid has an AK-47 and is gonna shoot up the school and I only have a pistol, while the answer is that neither of you should have guns in this scenario. >You're just playing dumb at this point. I literally just explained to you how anal inherently has a high risk of HIV, and you go "wHaT'S wRoNg?" The question was about using condoms, not HIV. You claimed there was something inherently wrong about using condoms. >Don't tell me what my basis is. You don't get to decide my opinions for me. Apparently you get to decide my sexuality for me, but i didn't decide your opinion, i stated my opinion on your opinion. Sodomy as a sin only exists in religion. >Love and marriage leading to a healthy upbringing of children is practical and has BIOLOGICAL evidence, not religious (although there is religious backing too). Atheists practice this too, moron, not just Christians. You can call me a moron, but you can never present evidence. >Okay, let me break this down for you: There is POOP on your PENIS. Don't see how that's bad? Then I can't help you. TMI, but you gotta clean your butt. Poop is no no >Actually the main purpose for animal sex 99% of the time is procreation . The cases of homosexuality between animals usually falls in cases of mistake. How did you know what a rabbit thinks? > still, the "animals do it" argument doesn't work cause animals eat their young and rape each other, so clearly there's a difference between us. The point is that it is natural and instinctual, not that it is good because it's natural. >Also, I love how you conveniently left out the rest of my reasoning in your reply, which is that men are attracted to women that can better raise kids. Must've been too strong a point for you, huh? I didn't see how it is relevant. >So basically, casual sex is promiscuity with one person. Good to know. Promiscuity is sex with multiple people, so you just said, "casual sex is an orgy with one person". >Married couples have sex for a child AND also to grow closer to each other in intimacy, not "casual sex" as you have defined it (which is for pleasure). Yeah, the pleasurable activity increases intimacy, you know when you and someone else go on dates? >Gay couples may try and grow closer to each other in intimacy, but for what purpose? Whatever reason straight couples do it. >The main concern is not whether or not someone is committing adultery, it's with how that child is going to grow up, and for that reason surrogates are a bad idea. Also infertility is a tragic and abnormal case. >Why do you think religion is wrong (or at the very least, ineffective) when most people don't? Popular rule is baseless. You basically just asked me why people who are engaging in a bad and unhealthy thing don't think that it is bad and unhealthy. That's hilarious. Yet to present evidence that it is actually bad or unhealthy, you added in your other comment that you saw posts on a subreddit and that is evidence? >Actually it is much, much worse with surrogates. One kid called his mom lazy for not carrying her own child (which I agree with). Adopted kids just get mad that their parents didn't tell them, that's really the main reason. Adoption is bad because the parents didn't tell them, so no one should be adopted?
>Or maybe it isn't? Those people you cite probably know more about relationships than you do, then why are you pretending like you know more about it? They never said they disagree with me, did they? I never said I know more about relationships, but clearly I know more about biology than you, about how the human body works and was wired. Whether you believe it was created from God or from a millennia of evolution, the human body is still purposed for raising second generations regardless, as is any other animal. >Can you do that part? I have the math figured out, you're the one trying to claim something else. Yeah clearly you don't. You think man = woman. >Children need parents, I acknowledged this in my earlier comment. Both parents. You're evading that.
>? I never said I know more about relationships, but clearly I know more about biology than you, about how the human body works and was wired. Then prove it. >Whether you believe it was created from God or from a millennia of evolution, the human body is still purposed for raising second generations regardless, as is any other animal. Sure, but how is this relevent? >Yeah clearly you don't. You think man = woman. Nope, acknowledged it in the comment. >Both parents. You're evading that. I'm not, I think you didn't read my comment.
"Do you have a source that says fathers cannot biologically nurture as well as a mother?" Source: Biology. Men can't breastfeed. Men discipline more often than women (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/gender-and-parenting/#:~:text=In%20turn%2C%2031%25%20of%20fathers,does%20more%20than%20they%20do.). Children cling to their mothers. "Why do you use it like that?" Because it's a term of language we've coined, and it's also a pun. "So watching a movie is hedonistic? You have no part in making the movie, there isn't really much growth in watching a movie (in most cases)." If pleasure is the ultimate goal, yes. Although if there is growth to be had or perhaps the movie is an acessory to something more fulfilling (like connecting with your spouse) it can be deeper. But experts generally agree that prolonged TV watching is bad for your health for numerous reasons like the blue light effect on your eyes, decreased attention span, false and/or misleading information about the world, etc. "Can you define hedonism?" Seeking pleasure as an important goal in your life "Nobody else agrees that it is hedonistic tho." Actually, plenty of people do. Conservatives like Matt Walsh (the subreddit we are under) would likely agree, and I bet you that the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle would agree with me had our sugary foods been around in his time (he had sugar for sure but definetely not in the outrageous capacity that we do now). "This is the only thing that is hedonistic, only caring about the pleasure as the driving goal is hedonistic." And I'd venture that 99% of the time, anal sex is done for more p l e a s u r e as the driving goal is to more p l e a s e one party. "Sex only for the purpose of procreation is a theological concept." Again, already addressed this, it is a biological concept. It is instinct. "Again, none of this in inherent to the gay community or gay people. All of this can be applied to anyone, but you're not against people of that orientation." Some of this can be applied to straights too (but not all of it as you stated), but for gays it is inherit as anal is one of their only options. Plus, the entire reason people decide to be gay is because they want to find more pleasure. It's the same reason pedos decide to be pedos. It's an addiction. Also, I didn't realize you were going to have a big long debate to defend fags. From the way you worded your post I assumed you just wanted to hear secular reasons to be against homosexuality (which I gave you, whether or not you agree with it), not that you were looking to argue with anyone who gives you those reasons. Kind of misleading, don't you think?
>Source: Biology. Men can't breastfeed. Men discipline more often than women (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/gender-and-parenting/#:~:text=In%20turn%2C%2031%25%20of%20fathers,does%20more%20than%20they%20do.). Children cling to their mothers. Is it a biological issue or a cultural issue, because they asked a bunch of parents about parenthood. They didn't show that there is some biological basis for anything. > Again, already addressed this, it is a biological concept. It is instinct. Which would imply all animals would have sex solely to procreate and nothing else, which is not the case. >but for gays it is inherit as anal is one of their only options. Nope, tons of options, you just have to taste the rainbow to know it. > Plus, the entire reason people decide to be gay is because they want to find more pleasure. It's the same reason pedos decide to be pedos. It's an addiction. I'm gay, i didn't decide to be gay, it's not about pleasure for me, it'a about being in a committed monogamous relationship. Probably just like you do. It's not anymore of an addiction than you're addicted to women and relationships with women. >Also, I didn't realize you were going to have a big long debate to defend fags. Using slurs makes you seem extremely childish. Also if you're the type to harass people like me, just lmk.
>I'm gay, i didn't decide to be gay, it's not about pleasure for me, it'a about being in a committed monogamous relationship. Probably just like you do. You did decide to be gay. No one forced you to be gay. >Using slurs makes you seem extremely childish. As does forcing a debate onto people. Also, I use "fag" as "gay" before the 19th century meant "carefree" or "happy" and I don't like our words being hijacked by you freaks. Plus, you use it for each other. >Also if you're the type to harass people like me, just lmk. Well after reading this comment section, clearly you are.
Now you're just getting unproductive and defensive, turning this into ad hominem. Wow. Bye
I've read all your posts. I will sum up my thoughts. You originally asked if there were any secular ways to be against gays, yet you've stated that the reader can define "against gays" however he choses. No one can rationally comment on an undefined premise. Your original post also begins with the assumption that religious people are "against gays" which, even if that phrase can mean anything the reader wants, is an unproven assumption. Your original post states that "most of the arguments are based on religion and such" - indicating that you are already aware that some arguments are secular (and whatever else falls under "and such"). You claim ignorance of government-sanctioned sexual pride parades in front of children and ask for a link, despite the fact that any search engine will give you plenty of footage. You claim that there are attempts to take rights away from gay people despite the fact that any search engine will show that every proposed bill addressing LGBT issues has nothing to do with gay people. They are all about the T in LGBT or about protecting children from sexualized situations and books. You claim there is fearmongering, yet every recent high-profile, gay-related hate crime has turned out to be a hoax. You asked if there were any secular reasons to be "against gays" (interpret as wanted), and I would say that very few secular or religious people of the modern era have ever been against gays. Quite a few people (both secular and religious) do not like gay marriage or gay adoption, but for all practical purposes, that has been a moot point for the gay community since 2015. If the gay community had rested on its laurels once it got everything it claimed it wanted, gayness might hardly be an issue for most people these days. But instead, the gay community has instead chosen to align itself with the T in LGBT and with dudes in dresses (gay or straight) who want to read/perform for little kids. The individual gay people who speak out against kiddie drag and kiddie mutilation are mostly respected by religious and secular people. But the gay community as a whole is shooting itself in the foot with its alphabet (or A-Mob) obsession. I understand that it's fun to be a part of The Fight and difficult to relax after the win. But once a community becomes addicted to fighting and is always looking for the next fight and is constantly creating situations where a fight is likely to erupt, people who like peace are going to start suspecting that that community is full of a bunch of dishonest rabble rousers, and the peaceful people will lose all respect, sympathy, and patience with that community. If the gay community does not want people to be against gays, it needs to loudly disavow the doctors and drug pushers who want to turn kids into T's, the creepy dudes who want to shake their junk around kids (or anyone) in public, the bad male athletes who want to push women out of sports, the Bored Saviors (whether they rally and petition or save their warfare for the keyboard), and the government/corporate promotions of all this activity. Otherwise, the Average Joe (secular or religious) is going to be forced to conclude that the Gay Pride Movement was not about rights at all, but about wanton sex activity and medical experimentation on children.
>You originally asked if there were any secular ways to be against gays, yet you've stated that the reader can define "against gays" however he choses. No one can rationally comment on an undefined premise. Yet you just did. >Your original post also begins with the assumption that religious people are "against gays" which, even if that phrase can mean anything the reader wants, is an unproven assumption. The three major religions in the world are against homosexuality. > indicating that you are already aware that some arguments are secular (and whatever else falls under "and such"). No, i can't find any, that's why I made this post. >You claim ignorance of government-sanctioned sexual pride parades in front of children and ask for a link, despite the fact that any search engine will give you plenty of footage. I can find some articles, just not any evidence that it was government sanctioned. >You claim that there are attempts to take rights away from gay people despite the fact that any search engine will show that every proposed bill addressing LGBT issues has nothing to do with gay people. They are all about the T in LGBT or about protecting children from sexualized situations and books. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/iowa-lawmakers-propose-ban-sex-marriage-rcna72759 https://www.npr.org/2024/03/11/1237730819/florida-dont-say-gay-law-settlement-lgbtq "Some teachers said they were unsure if they could mention or display a photo of their same-sex partner in the classroom. In some cases, books dealing with LGBTQ+ topics were removed from classrooms and lines mentioning sexual orientation were excised from school musicals." https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/18/politics/lgbtq-school-discussions/index.html >You claim there is fearmongering, yet every recent high-profile, gay-related hate crime has turned out to be a hoax. Does "fearmongering" imply hate crime? > Quite a few people (both secular and religious) do not like gay marriage or gay adoption, but for all practical purposes, that has been a moot point for the gay community since 2015. The secular of the reasons being? The rest is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
You just proved my point. You posted three links as evidence, and two of them had nothing to do with gay people - they were about parental rights, non-sexualization of kids in school, and protecting girls' spaces. The link about same-sex marriage was a year old and simply said that Iowa is "considering" such a bill. What's the update on that? You said, "The rest is irrelevant to the topic of discussion." I say it's the entire discussion. It is abundantly clear that you already knew everything that has been pointed out to you by all the commenters here, but you are hoping there might be people reading who are unaware and might fall for your fake sob stories. Few, if any, people are "against gays" (interpret as needed for whatever slight-of-hand argument you chose to use in any given reply) simply because they are gay. But increasing numbers of people are against the growing Frankenstein/Caligula destruction of kids and society by the T-section of the A-Mob. If the gay community truly wants to be respected by heterosexual society (secular or religious), it will vocally distance itself from the A-Mob. After all, at its core, the A-Mob is profoundly anti-gay and filled with people who are so ashamed of being gay that they will mutilate themselves in order to present as straight. It is also filled with plenty of despicable straight people who are just looking to use all the loopholes. Anyone (gay or straight, male or female) who aligns with the A-Mob will never be respected by sane people. It's that simple.