Society is forced to be accepting of gays & transgenders.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
You know, just speaking from my own experiences, it's usually not people that shove something down our throats. It's not the average citizen, it's not a passerby on the street or someone in the park.

It's firstly the media, and secondly the government, and third, being part of an online community and in general surfing the Web.

A lot of people here know I'm conservative in my own life, but if I wrote legislation it would be quite liberal.

That being said, I definitely feel the media and government will take every chance they get to push an agenda - is the agenda freedom for the LGBT group? Hell no its not. The agenda is more likely hiding the bombing of some hospital across seas, or passing some legislation that strips of of more of our rights, and the like.

So yes, I agree it's quite a bad circumstance when a Google news search, the top threads on ats, the first thing when you turn the TV on and the topic of discussion amongst politicians is the same thing. This does give the feeling that we are being suffocated by an issue - I feel this way even when it comes to second amendment rights, and I am very pro second amendment. But when the nra can profit off of contention and debate, they'll sure put on a show with Fox news about how Obama said "take every gun from every house"

If you are feeling suffocated by a topic or feel it's proportion is not realistic.. There's likely someone profiting from that.

Food for thought.

Perfect response

a reply to: celinem

I understand your frustration.

There seems to be a lot of guilt and shame foisted on anyone who dares to disagree with anything socially "progressive". As a more conservative person, it's very irritating.

To be totally honest, I disagree with LGBTQ...etc. as a lifestyle. This does not mean I "hate" anyone or would actively seek to harm or shun or damage anyone who lives that lifestyle. It just means I don't think it's best for the health and well-being of a human person. There are lots of other lifestyles I don't agree with that everyone else embraces--serial monogamy comes to mind...also abortion, drug abuse, atheism, hedonism, etc.

I don't hate any of these people. I tend to side with Libertarians in the idea that the government doesn't really have a place in people's personal lives. People need to be free to figure things out for themselves (so long as they aren't actively harming anyone).

At the same time, I don't want to be told I'm hateful or backward for disagreeing with someone. I have just as much of a right to my opinion as anyone else. In the long run, why does it matter that everyone agrees with a certain group?

Have a gay marriage, buy a gay cake...but why do I have to endorse it as a wonderful thing? Why can't people like me shrug and say "ok, glad your happy, but it's not my way of doing things" without being considered some massively prejudicial cretin?

Dissent is not the same thing as hate.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Bluesma... they were told they were not caring and loving people if they didn't. So they went against what they personally were comfortable with, in order to be seen as "right and good" by the societies terms at that time.

This happens when people do not remain true to themselves, which is not an easy thing to do for a myriad of reasons and influences, both internal and external, but ultimately not anyone's fault or responsibility but their own. No one forced them to do anything. This was a conscious decision they made, to go with the flow or fit in, no matter what "they were told."

In addition, looking back on something like this with the advantage of both knowledge gained through the years of self and knowledge lost through the years of the circumstances at the time with some sort of regret is pointless too. Embrace and retain the wisdom gained and move on without the regret, right?

Staying true to yourself isn't always easy in "society," and you may pay a price for that whether you call attention to it or not, but that's something you have to make peace with and accept without becoming an external influence yourself on others.

Yes, this all mirrors my sentiment.

Except

How can one say that,
and also tell a person they either feel the same about the gay issue as is currently socially acceptable,
or they are a bad person???



What I am hearing is- well, I'm going to be part of this peer pressure in this current fad,
and I am going to shame people to try to force them,
but it is their own fault if they fall for it and give in to my attempts.

There's not an inkling of conscience involved in that choice of action???

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: redhorse
There is a lot of societal pressure put on people to celebrate LGBTQ

Wait. What?

Where? Can you show some examples of this pressure to celebrate gays? Because honestly I've never seen anything close to it.

Where have you been??? I'm all the way over on the other side of the world, and I am having to face the pressure from the US here!


I think people mix up this fad of being enamored with the concept of LGBT people, and making changes in laws.

They are two different phenomena. I have watched in France, gay marriage became legal a few years ago. Yes, there was lots of debate and discussion before it was decided. But not a lot of rainbows on everybody, on their social media, bragging and making a show about "how open minded I am". Life just went on after that, with people slowly getting used to seeing the gays in their community married. Just a gentle transition of habits, with no pressure.

There is this peacock show going on with Americans, where not only they vote and dicuss their views when the subejct comes up in a group of friends, but they make a spectacle of their position, going overboard with how much they LOOOOVVE homosexuals.... and AAAddoooorrrreee transexuals..... and anyone who doesn't echo that is a hating bigot.


It doesn't seem to be really about their rights at a certain point, but rather about peoples ego's and trying to present a certain image to everyone around them. Everyone wanting to be defender of the downtrodden and abused, a hero of rightiousness.

Which needs downtrodden and abused to defend, of course, so using that polarizing pressure which pushes everyone to one side or another is helpful for ensuring there is always some resentful people on the "hater" side. (without ever acknowledging you pushed them there...)

a reply to: 3danimator2014

You didn't have to be such a jerk in your response, honestly. There is a lot of pressure in the media and society in general to be "tolerant" and accepting, and any view to the contrary in even the most miniscule way is met with anger from the "triggered" individual. Also, it's rich to claim someone else of "overly dramatic" rhetoric when discussing the LGBT community since they're usually the ones crying about "micro-aggressions" and needing "safe spaces".

originally posted by: mouthfullofkefirgrains
a reply to: blueman12

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Rummel says: "Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs."4

The historical evidence is quite clear: Religion is not the #1 cause of war.

You aren't going to get away with plagiarizing here, friend.

Caught you

Ridiculous attempt anyways.. the evidence is quite clear that religion is not the #1 cause of war?

Listed is 120 million deaths to what is called "atheist regimes", and then cited is 360 million as the total.

Even by the article's own evidence, it is quite clear that religion is the #1 cause of war.

Now, let's take a look at the citations.

Hitler was in absolutely no way atheist, by the way. He was Catholic and it was plastered over many of his campaigns and war sigils.

Stalin regarded himself as a god himself, he hated organized religion, as he was constantly beaten growing up in a Greek Orthodox family.

Pol Pot? Buddhist.

Hideki Tojo? Jōdo Shinshū. More Buddhism.

Mao Zedong? Taoism.

And Chang Kai-Shek? Are you out of your mind?!

Chiang Kai-shek developed relationships with other Generals. Chiang became a sworn brother of the Muslim General Ma Fuxiang and appointed him to high ranking positions. Chiang addressed Ma Fuxiang's son Ma Hongkui as Shao Yun Shixiong[105] Ma Fuxiang attended national leadership conferences with Chiang during Battles against Japan.

When Chiang became President of China after the Northern Expedition, he carved out Ningxia and Qinghai out of Gansu province, and appointed Muslim Generals as Military Governors of all three provinces: Ma Hongkui, Ma Hongbin, and Ma Qi. The three Muslim governors, known as Xibei San Ma (lit. the three Mas of the Northwest), controlled armies composed entirely of Muslims. Chiang called on the three and their suboordinates to wage war against the Soviet peoples, Tibetans, Communists, and the Japanese.

All of that aside, name me a war going on -- present day -- that isn't fueled by religion.

Take your end-goal goggles off when you do it this time.

originally posted by: peppycat
...
If the LGBQT community doesn't bother you, there is no reason to get riled up about it.
I haven't felt any pressure from the LGBQT community personally... my gay and lesbian friends don't try to change me or pressure me into giving to certain charities or attend any functions... but I support their happiness and well being.

Laws are being passed, and implemented forcing the transgender agenda. A lot of people from the LGB community doesn't even agree with this agenda of pushing the transgender idea on everyone, and forcing even religious institutions to have to not only embrace these ideas, but to forcefully accept and implement them into religious traditions, and this is simply wrong.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
dismanrc

But am I the pot or the kettle?

I don't know if I can answer that without being "labeled" something.

I wouldn't want to offend the kettle. But by saying that I might of just offended the pot.

Of course now they both have to run off into the "safe zone" so they can get over it.

How about I just let you decide with one you want to be. In the long run I really don't care because unless you hit me over the head with one of them it really does effect me.

a reply to: celinem

I personally believe everyone should accept it, it's life and it's been this way for 1000's of years. It's just society's perception that alters.
Most that disagree are usually brainwashed in some way, or have a dirty little secret.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse I am interested in what all of the laws being pushed are because I'm only aware of the bathroom issue... I should subscribe to a newspaper.
Thank you for the reply, it makes me want to look into the laws being pushed.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

Now, let's take a look at the citations.

Hitler was in absolutely no way atheist, by the way. He was Catholic and it was plastered over many of his campaigns and war sigils.

Wrong... Hitler's mother was catholic but his father was an atheist who brought him up with anticlerical views. He was only baptised Catholic because his mother wished it. But as a matter of fact Hitler persecuted the Roman Catholic church...

The Roman Catholic Church suffered persecution in Nazi Germany. As a totalitarian ideology, the Nazis claimed jurisdiction over all collective and social activity, interfering with Catholic schooling, youth groups, workers' clubs and cultural societies.[1] Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment, whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state.[2] The Nazi leadership hoped to dechristianise Germany in the long term.[3] Aggressive anti-Church radicals like Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler and Hitler's "deputy" Martin Bormann saw the kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[4][5] Hitler himself also held radical instincts on the Church Question, but was prepared to restrain his anticlericalism out of political considerations, seeing dangers in strengthening the church through persecution
...

Link

originally posted by: DeadFoot
Stalin regarded himself as a god himself, he hated organized religion, as he was constantly beaten growing up in a Greek Orthodox family.

Stalin was an atheist, not only did he hate organized religion, but like the origins of communism the complete destruction of religious institutions/churches was part of Stalin's reign of terror. For crying out loud, one of his policies was the "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the LMG aka League of the Militant Godless); Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников Obshchestvo bezbozhnikov); Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov).

originally posted by: DeadFoot
Pol Pot? Buddhist.

Drops jaw... Really?... he was so much a good Buddhist that he attacked Buddhism...

...
In the late 1960s (the last time anyone was able to make a count) there were some 65,000 monks and novices in Cambodia's 3,369 wats. During the war between 1970 and 1975 more than one-third of the wats were destroyed; many monks and novices were killed, left the order, or became refugees, Still, Buddhism remained a vital basis for Khmer life until the end of the war in 1975. Cambodian Buddhism was not to benefit, however, by the end of the war in April 1975. The new Khmer Rouge government under Pol Pot sought to systematically obliterate Buddhism from Cambodian society.
...

www.culturalsurvival.org...

originally posted by: DeadFoot
Mao Zedong? Taoism.

Heh?...

For crying out loud the revisionism of history some people want others to believe...

...
Early Communist Persecution of Religion in China

‘soon after Mao's victory, Deng was dragged out of his temple and stood up before a crowd, accused of accumulating wealth without engaging in physical labor, and spreading “feudalistic and religious ideas that poisoned people's minds." People stepped forward to denounce him, and the crowd that gathered responded on cue, howling slogans like “Down with the evil landlord” and “Religion is spiritual poison." Some spat on him. Others punched and kicked. “No matter which temple you go to, you will find the same rule: monks pass on the Buddhist treasures from one generation to the next," Deng says. ‘since ancient times, no abbot, monk, or nun has ever claimed the properties of the temple as his or her own. Who would have thought that overnight all of us would be classified as rich landowners! None of us has ever lived the life of a rich landowner, but we certainly suffered the retribution accorded one." [Ibid]

By Master Deng's reckoning, between 1952 and 1961 this meant he endured more than 300 ‘struggle sessions," as these organized hazings were known in the revolution's euphemistic terminology. In his area of Sichuan Province, he tells Liao, by 1961 “half of the people labeled as members of the bad elements had starved to death."
...

factsanddetails.com...

The only people you might be right about are Chang Kai-Shek and Hideki Tojo, but the rest were atheists. Some were brought up under some religious church, but eventually they sided with atheism and the persecution of religious people.

originally posted by: Bluesma
There is this peacock show going on with Americans, where not only they vote and dicuss their views when the subejct comes up in a group of friends, but they make a spectacle of their position, going overboard with how much they LOOOOVVE homosexuals.... and AAAddoooorrrreee transexuals..... and anyone who doesn't echo that is a hating bigot.

Oh yeah I agree, it's typically American to shout as loud as you can how much you love god/guns/gays or whatever, and in the same time pissing as many people as you can with your very precious personal opinion.

But it's hardly a deliberate effort from anyone to pressure people into celebrating gays. More like a global symptom of how loud-mouthed the American culture is in general. It's exactly the same with all the other controversial topics: guns/patriotism/immigration/politics/etc...


It's sad that people can't see this for what it is: the issue is with their own behavior, not with society.



Exactly like this thread. The irony of a thread complaining about the excessive amount of discussion about gays being lost on the OP is a good indication.


If people don't want to be reminded about gays, why don't they just shut up about it already?

On thing I can say for sure is that in the younger generations - 20's, and 30's, I meet much more gay people than I used to.

If being gay were purely biological, you would think that the ratio would stay the same as in the past.

originally posted by: nOraKat
On thing I can say for sure is that in the younger generations - 20's, and 30's, I meet much more gay people than I used to.

If being gay were purely biological, you would think that the ratio would stay the same as in the past.

The terrible mistake you make is assuming that in the previous generations, gays would not try to hide the fact that they are gay.

Which they of course did and still do, because they are pressured by society to do so.


Or you could have approached this with an unbiased perspective and check what the anonymous surveys are indicating, id est: there are no more gays today than in the past. While your post was a very sneaky way to try to pretend that there is.


thumbs down for lack of critical mind and maybe even deliberate misleading

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart


If people don't want to be reminded about gays, why don't they just shut up about it already?

Because there is not pressure to "celebrate gays"... there is name calling and moral judgements going on.
There are people calling you a hater- not because of anything you did or said or even thought. Simply because to feel superior and exceptional as individuals, they need to claim the majority (they are courageously fighting) is evil.

I clicked on this thread because that same morning I witnessed someone doing that- claiming you all are evil haters.

Yes, like I said earlier in this thread, one can ignore it. Just take it, keep walking until the next day, when you get characterized like that again, and you repress again the normal and expected drive to defend yourself.
But it is going to come out at some point. Repressing emotions doesn't make them magically disappear, they tend to resurface (and with more and more intensity).

It might be better to discuss it rationally like this than to blow up one day and punch someone.
It might also serve for some people to gain better sense of how to be effective with others.

I thought of something yesterday, but am not sure it is totally appropriate - there might be a rule against writing about other posters I think.. but this is a good thing, so I'll take my chance.

I was thinking of Enlightenedservant, and how he is very good at the way he handles himself with others. He is speaking for Muslims much of the time- he understands that he is a representative of Muslims, and in a potentially hostile environment.
People can have prejudices, people might be unsure what they feel or think. But he behaves in a way that does not provoke and inflame, with much integrity, and I suspect he has brought about a more positive view of muslims from some people here.

Now, if LGBT activists only used the same sort of approach- not calling people haters, not using the "if you're not with us you're against us" stuff (where being with us means crying off rooftops and pointing out potential haters), then maybe they might get more people to feel less defensive and listen to the real issues?

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart


If people don't want to be reminded about gays, why don't they just shut up about it already?

Because there is not pressure to "celebrate gays"... there is name calling and moral judgements going on.
There are people calling you a hater- not because of anything you did or said or even thought. Simply because to feel superior and exceptional as individuals, they need to claim the majority (they are courageously fighting) is evil.

I clicked on this thread because that same morning I witnessed someone doing that- claiming you all are evil haters.

Yes, like I said earlier in this thread, one can ignore it. Just take it, keep walking until the next day, when you get characterized like that again, and you repress again the normal and expected drive to defend yourself.
But it is going to come out at some point. Repressing emotions doesn't make them magically disappear, they tend to resurface (and with more and more intensity).

It might be better to discuss it rationally like this than to blow up one day and punch someone.
It might also serve for some people to gain better sense of how to be effective with others.

I thought of something yesterday, but am not sure it is totally appropriate - there might be a rule against writing about other posters I think.. but this is a good thing, so I'll take my chance.

I was thinking of Enlightenedservant, and how he is very good at the way he handles himself with others. He is speaking for Muslims much of the time- he understands that he is a representative of Muslims, and in a potentially hostile environment.
People can have prejudices, people might be unsure what they feel or think. But he behaves in a way that does not provoke and inflame, with much integrity, and I suspect he has brought about a more positive view of muslims from some people here.

Now, if LGBT activists only used the same sort of approach- not calling people haters, not using the "if you're not with us you're against us" stuff (where being with us means crying off rooftops and pointing out potential haters), then maybe they might get more people to feel less defensive and listen to the real issues?

I think what seriously needs to be discussed, is this "peacocking" of opinions that is a bad American habit as you explained.

Making it a problem concerning LGBT activists is adressing the wrong issue. I see exactly the same behaviors from all sides. Guns activitists, anti-gun, religious people, atheists, democrats, republicans, pro/anti-immigration.

Maybe Americans should look in the mirror and ask themselves why is it everything is so polarized in the US, and if they aren't a part of the problem.


Maybe it's the extreme mindset of competition causing this, maybe it's the slow decline of the old common American values (White, anglosaxon, fervent christian), whatever is causing this, this is what needs to be adressed.

The US are more diverse today and it's a fact you can't simply ignore and brush under the carpet. If they keep ignoring it and keep acting like they can still live like 50 years ago, they are in for a whole lot more coming troubles.

Compromising isn't in the habits of Americans, but it's most certainly a skill they will have to learn if the want their society to survive the 21st century.

originally posted by: celinem
So I'm aware that I am going to receive A LOT of hate for this thread but i feel that there are others that will agree with me on this subject.

We are basically forced to be 'ok' with the idea of gay marriage, transgender people and anyone who we don't consider 'normal'.

Let me say straight up - I DON'T GIVE A # WHAT YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR 'GENDER' IS!!!! I don't care if you're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual or whatever..

What really grinds my gears is that we are hounded if we do not support them..

Does anyone else agree that its complete and utter bull# that we are put down if we don't support all of the above? Am i the only one that feels pressured into supporting these people?

Opinions?

I don't believe you're being forced to support them but you will be shunned by the majority if you attempt in any way to oppress them. Which i believe is 100% correct.

originally posted by: DoubleDeez
I don't believe you're being forced to support them but you will be shunned by the majority if you attempt in any way to oppress them. Which i believe is 100% correct.

Are you suggesting people should be left free to oppress others? Just to be sure you aren't being sarcastic or someting.

originally posted by: nOraKat
On thing I can say for sure is that in the younger generations - 20's, and 30's, I meet much more gay people than I used to.

If being gay were purely biological, you would think that the ratio would stay the same as in the past.

One theory I've heard before is that it is a biological response to overpopulation. Basically that we are programmed to stop reproducing when populations get out of control. I don't necessarily know this to be true, but it would explain how it could be a natural occurrence and becoming more common.

On a separate note, I don't think we actually know what the ratios were in the past. Given that they were oppressed not many of them were lining up to go public.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: DoubleDeez
I don't believe you're being forced to support them but you will be shunned by the majority if you attempt in any way to oppress them. Which i believe is 100% correct.

Are you suggesting people should be left free to oppress others? Just to be sure you aren't being sarcastic or something.

I'm a libertarian so generally forcing anyone (including being tolerant) is a government overstepping its role. Obviously there have been periods where the government needed to step in to protect minorities, especially from violence. While some laws may need to exist for awhile to protect minorities, eventually these laws become redundant.

Using the classic example of the baker who won't make a wedding cake for a gay couple... On the one hand this prejudice person is forced by law to make wedding cakes for gay people, and he/she continues to receive business and profit from those they hate. In another situation refusing business is legal and the bakery is publicly shamed and loses business.

Maybe I just have too much faith in people, but I think this can largely be controlled by society.