I just cannot understand why so many people get so angry about what other consenting adults get up to in a closed bedroom. Live and let live.
Probably a reaction 'what they do in the bedroom' being made literally illegal for a long period of time. I can imagine wanting to throw a parade to show the 'good people of society' that you're just as human as they are, with the expected goal being to ward off further persecution in the future.
I think a lot of people consider homosexuals as deviants and in some way less than human, also. They might not say it openly but they think it.
I think that most people would say that 2003 is not 'a long time ago.'
...so yeah, that's not a good example of your argument.
It's like having a 30 year old comment in a Windows driver about a variable no one uses anymore - no one cares and it doesn't reflect anything today.
Also, ONE stupid incident with ONE stupid prosecutor does not reflect society.
This can be used to justify anything. Muslims and Jews used to be persecuted in catholic spain for a very long time since the 1400s, should muslims make periodic month-long parades where they play the quran loudly and cosplay as 14th century muslim warriors ? should Spain be forced to host them ?
"I was harmed in the past" is suspiciously similar to what a lot of abusers and opportunistic psychopaths say to justify their actions and get their way.
>with the expected goal being to ward off further persecution in the future.
How does that work ? Some people despise your existence, so you... shove your existence in their faces and in their streets even more ? To what end ? own them ? stick your tongue out ? rub your legal or social victory in their face ? This is just plain revenge, you can just call it "owning the haters", no need to add any kind of moral decorations on top that isn't there.
This would make you more honest, and also open your eyes to some effects you're not currently seeing with the overly moralistic framework, such as that the "owning" might be overly broad and end up making people who previously had no problem with the group in question gradually resent it more and more as it intrude further into their life year after year.
Regardless of its purpose or morality, is this strategy even successful ? was it used in the past by any minority that successfully evaded the majority's wrath because of it ? if anything, majorities hate proud minorities even more. Is there any coherent defense of it that lays out how exactly is obnoxiously marching in the streets supposed to make people accept you more than they currently do ?
You're not going to find disagreement from me here, I think that some aspects of the pride parade are probably detrimental to the acceptance of LGBTetc amongst regular members of society.
There seems to be a subgroup that enjoys showcasing what can fairly honestly (as in, not in a pearl-clutching kind of way) be described as deviant behaviour and I don't think it's going to work out in the favour of LGBTetc in the long term.
Correct. Furthermore, Pride is optimized for this group, meaning that it's an inherently meaningless celebration that rewards novelty purely for novelty's sake. Since deviance is novel, that's the direction that pulls.
So this group, regardless of numbers, is dominant. If you attend pride parades, try talking about those views. See for yourself how native is deviance to the LGBT thing, the movement that doesn't like the words "respectable" and "normal" and views them as slurs.
Secondly, who gave the right to non-Muslim countries to enforce what they think onto conservative Muslim societies? This is literally continued colonization.
There are no laws indicted that dictates you can't work if you are LGBTQ, there are no LGBTQ only water fountains and they are not forced to wear an identifying symbol on their arm for their camps.
LGBTQ loves to lump religion, race and their own decision to change "gender" together so that they can use it as a trojan horse to push their agenda.
Should we care for them? Yes. Should we love them? Yes and I believe that they must have access to all the therapy and treatments that they need when diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Should they be able to have an entire "month" dedicated to them and parade it in front of our children? No, I don't think so. Nor do I think it's wise to subject our children to these at the age of 5 and then encourage them to take puberty blockers and have life altering surgeries as soon as they are 16 to feel at "ease" with their chosen gender.
If we are even not even willing to have a conversation about this without one side immediately jumping into calling the other "transphobic", then we may have a problem.
Why can't we have an honest conversation about this issue for once with being attacked?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_scare#Executive_Order...
> they are not forced to wear an identifying symbol on their arm for their camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle
> Should they be able to have an entire "month" dedicated to them and parade it in front of our children?
Don't attend, then. No one forces you.
> Why can't we have an honest conversation about this issue for once with being attacked?
I'm expected to have "honest conversations" with people who call me a pedophile. You try it for a change.
One obscure law from 70 years ago that only prevented *reads wikipedia section* about 5000 people in a country of millions from working at a very specific place, is this really the best defense of your claim ?
>Don't attend, then. No one forces you.
There is a certain audaciousness to the idea of making a parade a public month-long occupation of streets and public squares then telling people they can not attent if they want. The only thing missing is for you to tell the GP to "Make Your Own City Bro" if they don't like what their city is doing.
I can equally say, "Don't attend the UAE then. No one forces you." but I have a feeling you won't take it gracefully.
>I'm expected to have "honest conversations" with people who call me a pedophile.
Who's expecting you ? and who's calling you a pedophile without provocation ?
In other words, sharing what they do in their bedrooms.
I feel like it's reasonable to have LGBTQ people hosting events to try and let these people know that you shouldn't be ashamed of a perfectly normal thing.
In many times, the Wisdom behind such orders is made apparent to us. As we see here (and historically, as per the accounts in the Quran about Prophet Lot Peace be upon him), these groups will not stop at just what's in the bedroom. Today we see indoctrination and outright hostility toward anyone who disagrees with them, causing societal instability.
Despite that attitude being the norm for much of human history, to advocate such a position now is literally modern heresy, and the end to your career and any public life.
Diversity of opinion is trivial if we agree only to differ on the easy stuff and not the difficult stuff.
You are saying that the Arab countries do this because they want to love or respect these people?
Maybe not stoning them to death might be more helpful. Just saying.
> Diversity of opinion is trivial if we agree only to differ on the easy stuff and not the difficult stuff.
This is the thing... I don't think this is the difficult stuff at all. It's just nobody else's business if people are gay.
Obviously bad faith, GP never mentioned the arab countries, they were talking about how western countries screaming about "bowing down" is hypocrisy, since they themselves do an aweful lot of making people, most of the time their own citizens, bow down when they could leave them alone. So if your house is made of glass, keep away from the stones. UAE is threatening a corporation to enforce an ideology, that is aweful, Oh gee, I wonder what that style reminds me of.
Preach only what you would do for others if the positions were reversed. Do not ask what you don't give.
>I don't think this is the difficult stuff at all.
I also think all my opinions are extremly based and uncontroversial in the slightest, all my enemies are just dumb and evil, they are making it up, they are not genuinely disagreeing.
Come on. This is the oldest trick in the book.
What good is free speeach if you're just going to relegate it to 'the difficult stuff', defined as whatever you say is the difficult stuff ? This is just like how authoritarian regimes say they are not impriosning 'genuine opposition', just the bad people who pretend to be dissidents but actually want to destabilize the country. But, mystery of mysteries, there never seems to be any 'genuine opposition' who are not harrased and imprisoned, it always turns out that all oppositions in those countries are of the bad kind. Almost as if selectiely defining exceptions to free speech is some tool authoritarians use to silence people without giving up the moral high ground.