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

[Marcel_Prix]

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.

 

[Sabertooth]

Your thread invites others to defend LGBT, which isn't allowed here.

 

[Tolworth John]

Hello everyone,
I wonder why is LGBT content so pervasive in Modern Society?

You've never read Romans, they will call evil good and good evil?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Romans 1

 

[NBB]

Its outright satanic, the world don't believe any of this of course. After dealing with the devil as christians so much its not so outlandish at all to think. People just think this kind of talk is just craziness but the bible clearly tells the world is under the evil.

 

[WolfGate]

Hello everyone,
I wonder why is LGBT content so pervasive in Modern Society?

From a pure sociological perspective, when a group believes it had to remain hidden and silent for a long period of time, and then that restriction goes away, it is expected that there will be a large amount of content that follows. People in that group will release lots of content due to a pent-up demand to speak, and many in a society that is changing its view on them will be interested in what they have to say both from a support and curiosity standpoint. In time, it would also follow that the amount of content would reach an equilibrium with the normal demands of that population.

Note I am making no comment on morality or biblical teaching - simply answering a question about why the system is at the point it is today. I'll also point out the Thread Title and question in the thread are kind of different topics. I'm not commenting on why progressives might view them as important other than saying it's politically advantageous.

 

[pdudgeon]

Hello everyone,
I wonder why is LGBT content so pervasive in Modern Society?

It is a sign of these days, my friend, and also a direct result of the removal of God , or any mention of Him, from the public schools.

Whenever we remove what is good, what we are left with is a moral void.
And when that happens, then is when sin--unchecked by righteousness--rushes in to fill the void.

 

[Leaf473]

Hello everyone,
I wonder why is LGBT content so pervasive in Modern Society?

Hi Marcel_Prix, and welcome to CF!

That's a great question, and I'd love to discuss it. But as @Sabertooth said, defending that lifestyle isn't allowed here.

IMO a reasonable exploration of your question would probably contain things that could be construed as a defense.

Hope to see you around more, and may the Peace of the Lord be with you always!

 

[Marcel_Prix]

Hi Marcel_Prix, and welcome to CF!

That's a great question, and I'd love to discuss it. But as @Sabertooth said, defending that lifestyle isn't allowed here.

IMO a reasonable exploration of your question would probably contain things that could be construed as a defense.

Hope to see you around more, and may the Peace of the Lord be with you always!

Thanks. I think my thread my need some editing. However, what I'm trying to get at is: 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 on 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.

 

[WolfGate]

Thanks. I think my thread my need some editing. However, what I'm trying to get at is: 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 on 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.

That's more clear!

In looking at questions like this, I always go back to a simple philosophy - which is just my opinion but it has seemed consistent to me. Political parties do many things primarily to try and get votes, which is where they see the value in promoting certain groups or ideas. In your example, businesses come into play as well as they make decisions largely on what will bring them the most business success. From the political side, elections are won by doing two things, energizing your base and then winning the moderate middle. Conservative religious people are about the only group these days that supports traditional family, gender and sexual mores, and the left knows they won't get those votes. Supporting the groups you mentioned will help bring out their base, partially add to it among those groups, and won't push away the moderate middle. Likewise businesses know they may lose some support from religious people by highlighting those groups in ads, but the projections they've done show for their target market, they'll make more by doing so.

What is common about both these groups? They are not making these decisions for moral reasons, but because they believe they will achieve an outcome that is desirable for their charter.

 

[Marcel_Prix]

From a pure sociological perspective, when a group believes it had to remain hidden and silent for a long period of time, and then that restriction goes away, it is expected that there will be a large amount of content that follows. People in that group will release lots of content due to a pent-up demand to speak, and many in a society that is changing its view on them will be interested in what they have to say both from a support and curiosity standpoint. In time, it would also follow that the amount of content would reach an equilibrium with the normal demands of that population.

Note I am making no comment on morality or biblical teaching - simply answering a question about why the system is at the point it is today. I'll also point out the Thread Title and question in the thread are kind of different topics. I'm not commenting on why progressives might view them as important other than saying it's politically advantageous.

Great post. I would like to add. Why do you think homosexuals have become the "Golden Cow" of the Current Progressive establishment in the West?

For instance, some people talk about "Right wing" parties in Europe. While this might seem like a big deal seeing their policies they are largely very mild about the whole homosexuality and LGBT. They are only saying don't show it in schools and that's it. Only the most "extreme" are against Homosexual marriage.

Yet none have said, "What if we stop promoting homosexuality everywhere in society?" Like on television, on films, on food deliveries? This point seems to be "taboo." None one seems to have the courage to say, "We'll I don't agree with homosexuality on a conceptual level and I don't believe is good for society."

Some people might say, "We live in a "Libertarian" society and people should be allowed to consume or promote whatever they want. But this is not true. Why is it that content for straight men that promote heterosexual men is immediately labelled as "toxic masculinity?"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Thanks. I think my thread my need some editing. However, what I'm trying to get at is: 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 on 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.

Welcome! The secular world may do what it pleases. Inclusiveness has no boundaries or rules nor does it seek to marginalize the sinner. It sees no sin therefore exploiting it brings on the banner of inclusiveness. Blessings

 

[Leaf473]

Thanks. I think my thread my need some editing. However, what I'm trying to get at is: 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 on 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.

Well, i'd be glad to talk about this part of your post: the idea of a "Current Establishment".

What do you mean by that? My impression is that the USA is pretty evenly divided into opposites, no one really has an Establishment.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Great post. I would like to add. Why do you think homosexuals have become the "Golden Cow" of the Current Progressive establishment in the West?

Because it's something that is currently in political flux in the US, with a significant, highly vocal minority strongly opposed to LGBT rights and a rather patchwork legal backing for them that would seem to be more at risk than ever given the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade (signaling that the current Supreme Court is willing to overturn judicial precedent, which is what backs up a number of rights that the LGBT community currently enjoys). Therefore, advocacy for LGBT rights is highly energizing to the progressive base - and beyond. As you point out, it's less of a thing in Europe because the minority opposed is significantly smaller and those rights are largely enshrined in law (outside of Eastern Europe/the Balkans).

None one seems to have the courage to say, "We'll I don't agree with homosexuality on a conceptual level and I don't believe is good for society."

That is a view frequently expressed on this site. As for why it's not expressed more publicly, I suspect it's down to a few reasons:
1. It's not an idea that carries a lot of support, so expressing it publicly invites arguments.
2. The reasons provided to support this view are generally either easily debunked misrepresentations or are rooted in religious morality that the majority of Americans will dismiss out of hand (not even all Christian denominations agree on the morality of homosexuality). Again, this generally ends up in stalemated arguments.
3. Publicly voicing such an argument tends to have social consequences given the broad societal support that LGBT rights enjoy.

Some people might say, "We live in a "Libertarian" society and people should be allowed to consume or promote whatever they want. But this is not true. Why is it that content for straight men that promote heterosexual men is immediately labelled as "toxic masculinity?"

I don't know that anyone says that. There are certainly some people who would like us to live in a "Libertarian" society, but we don't - there are plenty of things that we are legally forbidden from consuming or promoting. Also, societal pressure is a separate thing. People collectively choosing to label something as "toxic masculinity" and shout down those who support it have no bearing on whether or not you're allowed to support it.

 

[Marcel_Prix]

Because it's something that is currently in political flux in the US, with a significant, highly vocal minority strongly opposed to LGBT rights and a rather patchwork legal backing for them that would seem to be more at risk than ever given the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade (signaling that the current Supreme Court is willing to overturn judicial precedent, which is what backs up a number of rights that the LGBT community currently enjoys). Therefore, advocacy for LGBT rights is highly energizing to the progressive base - and beyond. As you point out, it's less of a thing in Europe because the minority opposed is significantly smaller and those rights are largely enshrined in law (outside of Eastern Europe/the Balkans).


That is a view frequently expressed on this site. As for why it's not expressed more publicly, I suspect it's down to a few reasons:
1. It's not an idea that carries a lot of support, so expressing it publicly invites arguments.
2. The reasons provided to support this view are generally either easily debunked misrepresentations or are rooted in religious morality that the majority of Americans will dismiss out of hand (not even all Christian denominations agree on the morality of homosexuality). Again, this generally ends up in stalemated arguments.
3. Publicly voicing such an argument tends to have social consequences given the broad societal support that LGBT rights enjoy.


I don't know that anyone says that. There are certainly some people who would like us to live in a "Libertarian" society, but we don't - there are plenty of things that we are legally forbidden from consuming or promoting. Also, societal pressure is a separate thing. People collectively choosing to label something as "toxic masculinity" and shout down those who support it have no bearing on whether or not you're allowed to support it.

Hey thanks for your answer.

I will compare homosexuality to smoking illegal drugs. My attitude is that if adults want to engage in this activity they should do it in the privacy of their own homes.

But promoting homosexuality to the society at large that seems to be crossing the line. Even worst promoting it to children that seems wrong. And should be called out. Moreover, what they are trying to do is to promote homosexuality everywhere from the food deliveries, to restaurants to banks. When people say, "Western Values" and carry the "LGBT flag" and shout, "This are our values." I agree with the far right wingers who say this is a "Clown World." As a student of history I found it strange that a Society would celebrate, "Homosexuality" and "Transgenderism" as the values they stand for.

This is the opposite of a Libertarian society I envision where you are free to consume drugs if you want. But selling your society as, "We consume drugs and this are our values and we want for our children and everyone's children to consume drugs as well." That seems to be taking it way too far.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As a student of history I found it strange that a Society would celebrate, "Homosexuality" and "Transgenderism" as the values they stand for.

I think you misunderstand. The values that society is celebrating are equality and tolerance - the LGBT community is just the latest marginalized group to be fighting for their inclusion as equal and tolerated members of society. Were this the '60s, it would be African Americans. The 1920s, women.

You are, of course, free to fight back, but unless you can present an argument that is acceptable to the rest of society as a whole, your own personal feelings are largely irrelevant.

 

[Marcel_Prix]

I think you misunderstand. The values that society is celebrating are equality and tolerance - the LGBT community is just the latest marginalized group to be fighting for their inclusion as equal and tolerated members of society. Were this the '60s, it would be African Americans. The 1920s, women.

You are, of course, free to fight back, but unless you can present an argument that is acceptable to the rest of society as a whole, your own personal feelings are largely irrelevant.

I will make sure to fight back. But its clear to me every new decade a new "marginalized" group takes over and Americans, especially Social Justice Warriors just eat it up and try to shame those who disagree. The Right wing again is right on this point.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But its clear to me every new decade a new "marginalized" group takes over and Americans, especially Social Justice Warriors just eat it up and try to shame those who disagree.

If you cannot present a cogent argument on why a group should be marginalized, then I see no reason to marginalize them.

And this is not the exclusive domain of progressives. Christians try to shame those who go against their values as well - see the treatment of the LGBT individuals by some churches, or anti-abortion protests. Shame is a powerful social tool, if somewhat prone to abuse (by everyone).

 

[Marcel_Prix]

If you cannot present a cogent argument on why a group should be marginalized, then I see no reason to marginalize them.

And this is not the exclusive domain of progressives. Christians try to shame those who go against their values as well - see the treatment of the LGBT individuals by some churches, or anti-abortion protests. Shame is a powerful social tool, if somewhat prone to abuse (by everyone).

Why should my opinion be what is decisive on whenever you accept or reject homosexuality. There are tons of arguments online against homosexuality with people who are debaters. I'm not a debater but more of a historian. But its clear to me you are not a Traditional Catholic but rather have bought into the fad of homosexuality. Both Religious and Secular people have outline tons of arguments against homosexuality and moreso against a "Homosexual Lifestyle."

Given the evidence supporting LGBT and calling yourself a 'Catholic" are contradictory beliefs.

Just going to any website you'll find tons of arguments but this two are the most interesting,

1. The homosexual agenda is the wrong direction for our country.
2. People should be (and have been) able to leave the lifestyle if they want to, so why are homosexuals working hard to ban conversion therapy?

There are Activists who are not only wanting to be homosexual but they want to force homosexuality to the general public.In a Libertarian Society homosexuality should not be promoted and people should be free to go to Conversion Therapy yet the latter is banned. While the former will get you called, "Homophobic" for not wanting homosexuality in your daily life like on television, newspaper.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Why should my opinion be what is decisive on whenever you accept or reject homosexuality.

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

Given the evidence supporting LGBT and calling yourself a 'Catholic" are contradictory beliefs.

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

The homosexual agenda is the wrong direction for our country.

This is an extraordinarily broad and meaningless statement.

People should be (and have been) able to leave the lifestyle if they want to, so why are homosexuals working hard to ban conversion therapy?

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.

There are Activists who are not only wanting to be homosexual but they want to force homosexuality to the general public.

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

In a Libertarian Society homosexuality should not be promoted and people should be free to go to Conversion Therapy yet the latter is banned. While the former will get you called, "Homophobic" for not wanting homosexuality in your daily life like on television, newspaper.

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