Newbie Question: Why are Homosexuals so important in the "Progressive" Era?

[Marcel_Prix]

That was a general "you", not you specifically.


FYI since you're new, questioning the faith of other users is against the terms of service on this site.


This is an extraordinarily broad and meaningless statement.


Conversion therapy assumes that homosexuality is an illness that can be "cured". Most homosexuals do not see it that way. I can't really go further into this due to the rules of this site though.


Can you give some examples of what you mean by "force homosexuality on the general public"?


We are not a libertarian society, so this is irrelevant.

I don't know why you sound upset. This is a religious forum not pro-LGBT group. I'm stating the facts as they are.

First of, if you want to get technical, I'll use the example of Traditional Cristian as opposed to Catholic, so you one say that I'm "personalizing" this issue and targeting you or your beliefs. I'll use it in syllogism form:

Premise 1: To to be a Traditional Christian you have to follow the teachings of the Bible.
Premise 2: The teachings of the bible tells us that its wrong to promote LGBT.
Conclusion: You can't be a Traditional Christian and promote LGBT.

I'll give one example, I would say that I disagree with advertising homosexuality in Children's shows. For instance, a series like Steven's Universe. Meanwhile, LGBT activists think this is what the future should be like. Homosexuality should be in most Children shows. Since its a matter of representation. To them the definition of "homophobic" is not refuse to have LGBT representation in Children Shows.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't know why you sound upset. This is a religious forum not pro-LGBT group. I'm stating the facts as they are.

I'm not upset, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression.

I'll give one example, I would say that I disagree with advertising homosexuality in Children's shows. For instance, a series like Steven's Universe.

Having homosexual characters does not "advertise" homosexuality any more than having black characters advertises blackness or having female characters advertises femininity. In other words, seeing gay people does not make you gay. Sexual orientation is at least partially genetic (see, for example, studies showing that identical twins share the same orientation at a significantly higher rate than fraternal twins) and is really more of a spectrum than a hard binary.

Meanwhile, LGBT activists think this is what the future should be like. Homosexuality should be in most Children shows. Since its a matter of representation. To them the definition of "homophobic" is not refuse to have LGBT representation in Children Shows.

I think that it's important to show children an accurate representation of the society that they live in - which includes gay people. To say that gay characters shouldn't exist in children's shows simply because you think being gay is icky is, in fact, homophobic.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I find it interesting that marketing to homosexuals such as an ad depicting that homosexuals should bank at XYZ Bank is considered to be "promoting" anything other than banking. They're trying to obtain market share among a population segment, not conversion to a lifestyle.

 

[Cody J Dunbar]

The problem is that you’re looking for a reason for why unreasonable people do things.

Thinking like this will only drive you crazy.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Hello everyone,
What is the point of having "gays/homosexuals" at the forefront of a political movement?

I'm not talking about the "lifestyle" of this individuals, whenever or not what they are doing is moral or not although it might come off that way. What I'm trying to get at is why the "Current Establishment" needs to gays/lesbians everywhere. For instance, you can go to the bank and they'll have ads of homosexuals. I've seen young people today and they open an app for ordering food and they'll have that as well.

Because they play and frolick as if life were one big party, spend lots of money on shiny baubles, and croak without leaving any yucky children. In other words, they are model citizens of today's consumer society.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I'm not upset, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression.


Having homosexual characters does not "advertise" homosexuality any more than having black characters advertises blackness or having female characters advertises femininity. In other words, seeing gay people does not make you gay. Sexual orientation is at least partially genetic (see, for example, studies showing that identical twins share the same orientation at a significantly higher rate than fraternal twins) and is really more of a spectrum than a hard binary.


I think that it's important to show children an accurate representation of the society that they live in - which includes gay people. To say that gay characters shouldn't exist in children's shows simply because you think being gay is icky is, in fact, homophobic.

The problem is that's its all a long ways from just homosexual. Now it's sexuality and gender is all fluid and blurry and indefinable. It's not really a matter of "making kids gay" as it is telling them there's no limit to what they are along those lines. It amounts to teaching pan-sexuality and pan-genderism.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The problem is that's its all a long ways from just homosexual. Now it's sexuality and gender is all fluid and blurry and indefinable. It's not really a matter of "making kids gay" as it is telling them there's no limit to what they are along those lines. It amounts to teaching pan-sexuality and pan-genderism.

Telling people that there's nothing wrong with being gay or trans - or pansexual or pangender, for that matter - doesn't teach anything other than tolerance.

For the record, being pansexual means that sex and gender identity aren't relevant to who you find attractive. It doesn't mean "sexually attracted to everything and everyone regardless of age or species". And pangenderism - feeling like you might be multiple or all genders at the same time - while a bit strange, is ultimately harmless on a societal level.

 

[lismore]

Telling people that there's nothing wrong with being gay or trans - or pansexual or pangender, for that matter - doesn't teach anything other than tolerance.

For the record, being pansexual means that sex and gender identity aren't relevant to who you find attractive. It doesn't mean "sexually attracted to everything and everyone regardless of age or species". And pangenderism - feeling like you might be multiple or all genders at the same time - while a bit strange, is ultimately harmless on a societal level.

We're all broken, we're all sinners, but we should speak the truth in love. God Bless

 

[seeking.IAM]

I am interested in the opposite question: Why are homosexuals so important in the conservative era?

But, I suppose that is for a different thread.

 

[public hermit]

I am interested in the opposite question: Why are homosexuals so important in the conservative era?

But, I suppose that is for a different thread.

They're an easy target for conservatives and focusing on them allows them to avoid other issues like caring for the poor, the immigrant, or just the living.

 

[FireDragon76]

They're an easy target for conservatives and focusing on them allows them to avoid other issues like caring for the poor, the immigrant, or just the living.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

.

 

[Lost Witness]

Hello everyone,
What is the point of having "gays/homosexuals" at the forefront of a political movement?

I'm not talking about the "lifestyle" of this individuals, whenever or not what they are doing is moral or not although it might come off that way. What I'm trying to get at is why the "Current Establishment" needs to gays/lesbians everywhere. For instance, you can go to the bank and they'll have ads of homosexuals. I've seen young people today and they open an app for ordering food and they'll have that as well.

Ephesians 2:2 2 Corinthians 4:4

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I am interested in the opposite question: Why are homosexuals so important in the conservative era?

But, I suppose that is for a different thread.

The era decides what’s important. You can hardly ignore what’s continually shoved down your throat, and you can’t avoid an issue that won’t allow itself to be avoided.

 

[seeking.IAM]

You can hardly ignore what’s continually shoved down your throat, and you can’t avoid an issue that won’t allow itself to be avoided.

Actually, one can. Leastwise, I can. Homosexuality doesn't affect my life, my faith, my marriage, my job, my well-being, nor my peace of mind. I think old straight guys should spend their time sorting out old straight guy sins, and leave others to do likewise.

 

[Lost Witness]

Actually, one can. Leastwise, I can. Homosexuality doesn't affect my life, my faith, my marriage, my job, my well-being, nor my peace of mind. I think old straight guys should spend their time sorting out old straight guy sins, and leave others to do likewise.

ezekial 33:8

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, one can. Leastwise, I can. Homosexuality doesn't affect my life, my faith, my marriage, my job, my well-being, nor my peace of mind. I think old straight guys should spend their time sorting out old straight guy sins, and leave others to do likewise.

It affects mine, if my grandchildren are being taught, with my tax money, that not only is LGBTQETC permissible, but normal and respectable, and even honored, and in fact, to be accepted as probably something they ought to consider for themselves —in fact, that it is preferable— and that saying things like I just said, should be outlawed.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Homosexuality doesn't affect my life, my faith, my marriage, my job, my well-being, nor my peace of mind.

...yet.

 

[stevil]

Hello everyone,
What is the point of having "gays/homosexuals" at the forefront of a political movement?

I'm not talking about the "lifestyle" of this individuals, whenever or not what they are doing is moral or not although it might come off that way. What I'm trying to get at is why the "Current Establishment" needs to gays/lesbians everywhere. For instance, you can go to the bank and they'll have ads of homosexuals. I've seen young people today and they open an app for ordering food and they'll have that as well.

On the first sentence you are talking about a "political movement"
Next you talk about "Current Establishment" in the context of ads at the bank.

These are all very vague. Are you talking about the Democrat party? They don't run the adverts at the banks.

It is very confusing what you are talking about. Are you against gay marriage, or against gays partaking of PDA or against ads that have gay people in them????

I think many people are against having a Nanny state, and hence against policing against people being gay or getting married or being in ads.
Think small government, think having people with autonomy to live their lives how they choose.

 

[stevil]

I am interested in the opposite question: Why are homosexuals so important in the conservative era?

But, I suppose that is for a different thread.

I expect having a common enemy, a common battleground can bring the conservatives together and engage them and enable them and get them to take action, especially to get them off their couches and into the voting booths.