I Just Want To Say I Told You So. RE: LGBT

a reply to: Nyiah

Wow.

Default design... which is a fact.

Read again what I said about the scenerio.

a reply to: Nyiah

Don't play obtuse. You know exactly what deviation he's referring to, this entire thread is about that devation. Where you should be attacking this argument is from the angle of unfairness. Unfairness is a cornerstone of life.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: Nyiah

Wow.

Default design... which is a fact.

Read again what I said about the scenerio.

Making this up as you go along, I see. Well, you've got one type of pair-bond titled. Yay you?

Now, define what makes one male parent & one female parent paired off so unique. Other than genitals. Exactly what in the child-rearing department is at such a mysterious disadvantage?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Somebody was talking about politicians earlier, sounds like a politician replying to me now.

I do agree that two sets of parents are not exactly alike, everybody is different. What doesn't change though, is a male and female are default parents.

It's alot more than just the "same genitalia" and you know that.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Nyiah

Don't play obtuse. You know exactly what deviation he's referring to, this entire thread is about that devation. Where you should be attacking this argument is from the angle of unfairness. Unfairness is a cornerstone of life.

Oh horses#. Deviation from the average is normal, in every facet of life. The onus is on HIM to prove it's not just an irreparable disadvantage, but to prove to the letter exactly what disadvantage it brings.

a reply to: Nyiah

Oh horses#. Deviation from the average is normal, in every facet of life.

That deviation occurs is normal, but the deviation itself is not normal, by definition.

The onus is on HIM to prove it's not just an irreparable disadvantage, but to prove to the letter exactly what disadvantage it brings.

That's the angle I'm telling you to take in this argument. You were taking the angle that it's not a deviation (or maybe I misunderstood where you were going).

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: Nyiah

Wow.

Default design... which is a fact.

Read again what I said about the scenerio.

Making this up as you go along, I see. Well, you've got one type of pair-bond titled. Yay you?

Now, define what makes one male parent & one female parent paired off so unique. Other than genitals. Exactly what in the child-rearing department is at such a mysterious disadvantage?

What's made up?

Male and female parents are not unique, there is nothing unique about default.

Disadvantages, hmmmm... maybe the "natural" connection between mother, father and child.

This is not intended to be intense, dramatic and so fourth, it is just how i think this machine called life works.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Nyiah

Oh horses#. Deviation from the average is normal, in every facet of life.

That deviation occurs is normal, but the deviation itself is not normal, by definition.

The onus is on HIM to prove it's not just an irreparable disadvantage, but to prove to the letter exactly what disadvantage it brings.

That's the angle I'm telling you to take in this argument. You were taking the angle that it's not a deviation (or maybe I misunderstood where you were going).

I think we both misunderstood each other then. It's not that I find any part of his argument leaning towards unfairness, I find it rather dumb & ill-thought out.
He needs to define what sets mom and dad apart when rearing the children. Both maternal and paternal attributes are ultimately androgynous in application, anyone can exhibit the attributes of either one, or both. I cannot define any differences in my own parents as exclusively "mom" or exclusively "dad". I can't find those differences between my husband and myself, either. If that's the angle he's working with, he needs to find exclusive & irrefutable bullet points to put on the table. If he cannot, his argument is not on solid ground to begin with.

originally posted by: PolyCottonBlend
maybe the numbers went up because we in the lgbtq community finally felt that society has progressed enough for us to express ourselves better...more openly.

but most likely not due to your amazing skills of prediction.

Exactly, and along these lines percentages went up:
1. Millenial group is most concerned about their peers and parents their average age group is more accenting as well
2. As mentioned in the poll Hispanic and Asian Women that are non religious, meaning LGBTx has become more accepting to those demographics as well
3. Hah, funny how this breaks the mold of chemicals in the environment(pointing towards more men turning gay) as a blame because it's mentioning women

a reply to: dreamingawake

If people are more accepting now (they are) why did every generation that wasn't millenials see a decrease in identification? Your logic doesn't hold.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

Enlighten yourself. Check out the "Bear community" ... and then get back to us about masculinity being appreciated.

My life hasnt changed at all , just I learned some more stuff about humans because of LGBT so my ignorance was relieved temporarily before realising the rabbit hole goes alot deeper and as my understanding of LGBT grew as did my ignorance.
I cant keep track of how many "genders" there are now int eh LGBT community , I have just accepted it as another human behaviour
I mean lets face it we are a weird bunch of biological beings

my gay friend from work tells me that all of the trans boys he has dated are terribly self centered and awfully boring and all they talk about is themselves.

He even told me all about bears and other animal names the gay community give each other and he even told me that masculine gays dont like sissy gays and often exclude each other from events etc , Im guessing toxic masculinity exists in the LGBT community as well

So much for the LGBT "community" when they argue amongst themselves, they are not as united as everyone would have you believe.

I have heard similar stories from my lesbian friends.

I think in general society is at a stage where we have over indulged in materialism and the identity of self .

a reply to: Nyiah

How about the real connection, sharing blood, sharing genes... most I go on?

I must say, I am in no way trying to offend and I understand life adapts and can be full of love and happiness no matter what path is chosen.

a reply to: Nyiah
I agree, his argument is not well thought out and I say that as being somewhat sympathetic towards (what I think is) his end game.

I'd take it a step further and say that even if it was a disadvantage, it doesn't matter. There are many people who are brought up in disadvantaged homes. Now you could move into adoption territory (if a disadvantage was proven) and say we don't let x adopt because of the inherent disadvantages they'd have, so we shouldn't let y adopt for the inherent disadvantages they'd have. But you couldn't move on and say they can't get a surrogate, raise kids from a previous relationship, etc.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I appreciate "your" perception.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: Nyiah

How about the real connection, sharing blood, sharing genes... most I go on?

I must say, I am in no way trying to offend and I understand life adapts and can be full of love and happiness no matter what path is chosen.

As Dfairlite just pointed out, are you insinuating adoptees are at a marked disadvantage of not being able to connect with their adoptive families because they are not biological children? Should people not adopt at all then?

Countless adoptees over the ages have grown up never knowing they're adopted (or even the product of adultery) They're none the wiser, and still have and maintain the bonds you seem to think are rooted in genes/blood cells.

You haven't thought this out too well beyond a romanticized & incorrect notion of what makes loving someone happen.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

I actually think we agree on a lot about this issue, but I just don't find the way you're approaching it to be convincing. You can go ahead and bark up that tree if you'd like. No skin off my back.

a reply to: Nyiah

I don't need to think anything out... it's like reading the manual.

I have adoptees in my family. What about the ones that do find out??

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

I have adoptees in my family. What about the ones that do find out??

Then you ask them, if it's permissible to talk about, how it does or does not change feelings for them and why.
My father spent over 60 years thinking the woman he called mom was his biological mother. She wasn't, his mother died after he was born. My grandfather remarried quickly and he grew up knowing her as his mother, not his adoptive stepmother. When she did tell him after his dad died, it did not bother him to know like she was afraid of. "You're still my mom, and I still love you. Why would you think I wouldn't?"

a reply to: Dfairlite

I wasn't trying to convince, just stating the design.

I am just as loving as everyone else.

a reply to: Nyiah

You cant ask them anything when there gone.