>Q
This kills the cause.
you mean
>T
>>5273907
GLB master race
Lets add a P in there
>>5273920
That's already covered under B.
>No A
you fuckers would be nowhere without us allies
There is no cause that encompasses all letters of LGBT
>>5273929
A stands for asexual (which is an actual gender and/or sexual minority, unlike allies). Allies are allies OF lgbt, rather than actually part of the acronym. Allies are just non-LGBT people fighting for LGBT issues, if there were no LGBT people there would be no such thing as allies, so it's not really an identity in its own right. Whereas every part of LGBT would remain even if all the others ceased to exist.
>not QQUILTBAAAAG
>>5273926
Pedophile?
I just don't understand why "queer" or "questioning" is different.
It should honestly be GT. But even those two issues have nothing to do with each other. Gay acceptance include L B and P because you're either being gay or you're being straight.
A don't need to be included because that's literally fighting for nothing. Like the atheists who demand to be recognized as an organization.
>>5273907
this
/thread
T are no ally of mine
what cause?
straight sexuality is primary and there are infinite degenerations therefrom. just like there are infinite physical deformities. I'm not saying any sexual orientation should be discriminated against, we should tolerate everyone, but the campaign for recognition as somehow equal counterparts is ignorant and doomed.
>>5273907
>>5273958
>Like the atheists who demand to be recognized as an organization
ohh shots fired
we fight indeed for equality for everyone. regardless of your religous shit. we fight for reason
>>5274018
I was never against any trans when it was just men who wanted to dress and act like women (or vi.ve.). I even can see how it is valid sexuality in a Greek or Japanese kind of way. But the idea that we should legally and verbally, and in every way as literally as possible regard transvestites as whatever they feel like they are is a revolting attempt at some kind of Orwellian mind control, and it's relativism so profound that every factor of self identification would deteriorate under that kind of pressure, including the same factors which transvestites use as their own standard of sexual definition. therefore it is a self defeating cause.
and yes I'm using the term transvestite. a trans person is only a vestige (i. e. superficially) of the gender they want to assume.
nor was I ever against homosexuality until they started to appropriate marriage. marriage is not about love, it is about reproduction and social adhesion. if gays want to live and love together that is fine, but they can never be "married". actually i hope the legal definition of marriage deteriorates even further, until people recognize it is a biological inevitability, not a legal institution.
TL;DR I love all people, plz stop acting like faggots and campaigning for shit.
>>5274072
What the hell kind of civilization has the main focus of reform on recognizing diverse sexuality? thats the literal definition of degeneracy. do you people actually want to live in the world you are creating? LGBT culture is bound by nothing but playing victim, hatred of normalcy, resistance to reality, and of course rampant unchecked promiscuity.
protip: you aren't your sexuality, you shouldn't identify with it, you shouldn't politically align with it. it has nothing to do with who you are, or whether you're a good or bad person. You can force others to accept you, you can only accept yourself and in time others will be able to tolerate you. Shoving your political agenda down everyone's throat only causes pushback which will last for generations, defining yourself as a movement defines a counter-movement. taking your sexuality as an antagonistic political stance is the most destructive and divisive form human sexuality can take.
>>5274072
how would you feel should medical science reach a state in which transwomen were physically identical to women? that the mental differences ingrained from birth determine gender identity? which as a line of reasoning implies that gender identity is a solely mental property to begin with.
how do you respond to that argument?
>>5274122
Oh and one more thing, prepare to add P (pedophilia) B (bestiality) and N (necrophilia) to your monster acronym. As I said, there are an infinite number of degenerations from normalcy. now you people are being forced to contend with the fact that it always was and always will be a slippery slope. however tolerant you are of the current front line in sexuality, you won't be so tolerant years and decades from now when truly perverse forms of sexuality begin campaigning for legitimacy.
have a day.
>>5274072
>marriage is not about love, it is about reproduction and social adhesion.
Then the Federal government shouldn't be handing out benefits and rights to married couples and withholding them from singles. But they don't, so gays deserve the same access.
i'm so fucking sick of people saying what marriage is or is not when in reality it comes down to the government treating certain citizens differently than others.
Shitlords, its LGBTQIAOPDYNO↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Get it right, its 2015 for Allahs sake!
>>5274072
>biological inevitability
>marriage
>monogamy
>implying any animals are naturally monogamous
dumb fuck
>>5274135
in 1984 degeneration of the language and repeating falsehood over and over until it seems real is used to control the populace.
>>5274126
>how would you feel should medical science reach a state in which transwomen were physically identical to women?
it hasn't and for all you know it never will.
> that the mental differences ingrained from birth determine gender identity?
so is a tardigrade, a 500 million year old microscopic animal which reproduces sexually, a male or female because of the gender roles it was taught?
fucking ridiculous, mental differences have nothing to do with gender, stop spreading this meme.
>>5274192
>in 1984 degeneration of the language and repeating falsehood over and over until it seems real is used to control the populace.
So any evolution of language is mind control?
>so is a tardigrade, a 500 million year old microscopic animal which reproduces sexually, a male or female because of the gender roles it was taught?
"gender roles it was taught" is nothing at all like "ingrained from birth". You're being intentionally obtuse.
>>5274192
it's a hypothetical. besides, gene therapy is a rapidly advancing practice and we've seen the successful transplantation of a uterus to produce a child before.
a tardigrade does not have the same social structure as humanity. that's a completely backwards analogy. i was giving you an avenue to counter-argue my hypothetical but you clearly didn't grasp it you mongoloid
>>5274192
>fucking ridiculous, mental differences have nothing to do with gender, stop spreading this meme.
Actual definitions are memes now?
>>5274145
sure. i agree. but marriage existed before government and government has no business in defining it to begin with.
>>5274156
if monogamous marriage isn't biologically inevitable then why is it the ideal in all civilization?
We should base out behavior not off of animals but rather on naturally evolved social structures.
human societies literally need marriage and monogamy to obtain stability. you can dress, act and fuck however you please, however, I'm not oppressing you.
>>5273907
Yeah I'd weirdly be more ok with Q than T
>>5274233
we literally just evolved beyond that requirement
>>5274233
>sure. i agree. but marriage existed before government and government has no business in defining it to begin with.
Then to preserve separation of church and state, all marriage related legal rights and privileges would have to be abolished.
>>5274214
strictly speaking its hypothetically possible to break down conceptual barriers between self and other, alive and dead, or animal and human.
if through science we can make an xx into an xy then it will naturally follow that they will assume the roles established by the new paradigm.
in the coming centuries the notion of identity itself may deteriorate. but taught gender roles (or ingrained at birth roles, still don't see the difference) are no more of a stable basis for ego identification than genetics.
as things stand now the difference between male and female is as concrete, unalterable, and definite as the difference between alive and dead.
still, you can dress, live with, and fuck whoever you want. identifying yourself with a movement only perverts your own identity. a "movement" can never represent you as a person. everyone knows that people who identify with movements soon grow out of touch with tangible reality and develop seriously neurotic personalities.
>>5274310
>everyone knows that people who identify with movements soon grow out of touch with tangible reality and develop seriously neurotic personalities.
[citation needed]
>>5274282
i pretty much agree with that.
>>5274272
no. we still require traditional monogamous families. the purpose of sexual behavior is still fundamentally reproductive.
children still need biologically male and female parents, still need male/female parental figures. fucking will lead to unexpected consequences.
which is not to say you can't fuck/marry whoever you want. foisting this idea that traditional (which is really biologically inevitable and 100% necessary) marriage and gender roles is obsolete is destructive. if gender roles are really obsolete then they will disappear on their own.
>>5274344
>children still need biologically male and female parents, still need male/female parental figures. fucking will lead to unexpected consequences.
Why does the biology actually matter for raising kids? Obviously for the reproduction aspect you need a male and female, but as far as raising kids I'd think it's really the male or female roles that matter. After all, once a kid is born, they (hopefully) won't be interacting with their parents' anatomy too much.
>>5274344
>fucking will lead to unexpected consequences.
meant to say "fucking with this model will lead to unexpected consequences". (although fucking does sometimes lead to unexpected consequences.)
>>5274336
nope. not needed. no need to argue what is evident. ideologues are warped and neurotic personalities.
>>5274310
there is a significant difference between the dissolution of a social role and a state of existence. if taught gender roles are no more of a stable basis for ego identification than genetics, in the hypothetical scientifically advanced world then gender is plastic.
>>5274344
children do not need biologically male/female parents to function. to develop, certainly. but you're conflating polyamory and sexual deviancy with an inability to reproduce.
>>5274364
>nope. not needed. no need to argue what is evident. ideologues are warped and neurotic personalities.
Yes, it's still needed. In a discussion, if someone asked you for a citation that the sky is blue, you'd be obligated to provide a source.
>>5274208
If you read 1984 you would understand the language thing. Many words are taken out because they don't want people to use them . They basically super simplify the language so that nobody can really think freely. For example, excellent and fantastic become "double plus good", awful becomes "plus bad" etc.
I'm just explaining. I don't exactly agree with that guys opinion, but it kinda makes sense if you stretch it a lot
>>5274353
it might not matter, especially if the environment is overall stable. but dont assume it dosent matter either. childhood development is contingent upon environment in difficult to understand ways (for example, homosexuality itself has a hitherto not fully understood environmental aspect). for example, children being raised by two gay men are more stable than children being raised by a straight couple, and children raised by two women are even worse off than those raised by one woman.
when i was a child i was instinctively terrified of my parents fighting/separating, just as as an adult I'm revolted by being kekolded or cheated on. we exhibit complex behaviors based off instincts that arose under evolutionary pressure. raising children in an environment other than those for which they are evolved will have unexpected consequences just like eating foods or spending your time in ways for which you were not evolved causes various forms of physical and emotional deterioration. it is for this reason that i say we should not be fucking with the model of biologically inevitable traditions.
how did primitive people deal with gender-identity disorder and homosexuality? i don't know but my guess is that they just shrugged and got along with it. rather than the normal people persecuting the "other" or the minorities organizing and forming obnoxious, divisive, "social movements"
>>5274412
no. i literally wouldn't. sorry there isnt an infinite database of studies to prove every obvious thing, and the few that we do have are dubious, biased, small scale affairs. you're better off using your eyes and ears friend.
>>5274477
Then you'll just have to accept that you've lost the debate on the basis of failing to support your argument.
>>5274384
I agree with you. i acknowledge that hypothetically gender roles are fluid. as are all roles. I believe in anatman (no self). what i am taking issue with is people trying to foist the idea that what gender they chose to have is *literally* their gender. they make this argument by breaking down factors of identity (which is valid) and then introduce their own factors of identity to redefine gender how they want it. its self defeating logic. if you want to break down your identity fine, but don't rebuild it on equally tenuous terms as the ones you initially rejected. you can't have your cake and eat it too. I really believe this insanity is causing LGBT people more harm than good.
Okay, I'm done rantpaging. anyone who is thoughtful at all will be able to see the reasonability behind what i'm saying.
stop your divisive incoherent social movement, and learn to live with the complexities of your life. maybe you'll attract less hatred if you stop blaming the world/demanding the world fix for your complex problems.
>>5274481
Karma decrees that the next argument you get into your opponent demands you cite sources for every statement you make.
>>5274550
very few people do so, and only tend to do so when enraged and disillusioned. your confirmation bias is showing.
>>5274558
If my opponent asks for a source on each of those, then yes, I would be obligated to provide one. Otherwise the entire system of discussion breaks down - if you can make any claim, without needing to support it, you can literally argue anything you want.
>>5273904
I think agender and genderqueer people muddy and hurt the lgbt cause.
Just attention seeking feminist fucktards trying to be a part of something they are not.
Genderqueer? I'd be more okay with that than trans
LGBQ>LGBT
>>5274583
I need a source saying you're obligated to provide sources if asked, a source saying system of discussions can break down without sources, a source saying anything can be argued, and a source saying that if you make a claim without support, that should be invalid in all cases.
>>5273929
>No E
Eunuchs were the first sexual minority
>>5274146
>LGBTQIAOPDYNO↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
>>5275199
Genderqueer is really a sub-category of trans desu (unless you're going to include non-dysphoric transtrenders).
LBJBBQGTA5
>>5273907
/thread
>>5273945
Fuck off, asexual. Take a multivitamin, you fake fuck. You don't even lose anything from identifying with your completely curable low sex drive. No one beats you in an alley. No one takes away your house. No one keeps you from employment. Fuck off.
