Do you agree with Minority rights should be recognised and protected everywhere regardless the fact it would form a big problem if the minority became a majority?
I'm just going to ignore this one and leave a public service message instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just for educational purposes... How many blacklists did you gain just from this thread? This reminds me of konrads' threads in the past, even he didn't come up with something like Zoophilia oh man...
Btw, you are worried about the extinction of the human kind, but the world is already overpopulated, according to the studies optimum human population is 1.5 to 3 billion people (according to a study by Paul Ehrlich it is 1.5 to 2 billion), yet the current population is 7.8 billion. We are getting close to the maximum number of people Earth can sustain which is about 10 billion according to the scientists.
Maybe LGBT can be the cure if it could actually have any impact on birth rate, but actually there is no evidence it has any effect at all...
Anyway, human beings live like the meaning of life is to reproduce and make babies... Worst part of it is; in developed nations, educated individuals don't have more children than they can look after, the overpopulation almost always comes from the uneducated people from underdeveloped nations... Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Maybe this is the future waiting for us ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey those huge, flashy explosions look so cool, let's make a bigger one!
To be honest, I'm surprised how humans suddenly got considerably smarter with using their toys of destruction after WWII and somehow, magically the civilization survived to this day!
Comment has been collapsed.
I voted without without taking into account part that starts with "regardless....etc" as that seems nonsense, its like "what if", lots of hypothetical things, and again even if what if happens then they are protected as majority, but still not going much into that as it seems like it was put in there to mess with voting and based on biased opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
That poll is actually like: Do you agree with LGBT+ people having human rights such as marriage, adoption, being allowed to live; even though it will mean everyone becoming gay and world population decreasing in unforeseeable future?
And i'm completely baffled how many people said "No, LGBT people shouldn't have rights". Like, at the moment i'm writing this, it has the majority of the votes. Didn't know half of this website consisted of homophobes.
(I did reread that poll in order to make sense of it, please feel free to correct me if i'm interpreting it wrong -if you are not OP-. I do think OP intentionally wrote it in a confusing manner to make people vote for what they stood for.)
edit: Okay, i didn't consider the possibility of people only reading the poll without reading the thread and vote according to the poll. So i'm sorry if you are one of them. Which only shows what a shitty thing OP did, they clearly worded their poll question so people would have to agree with it. Shame on you OP. Please get educated.
Comment has been collapsed.
It only means that if you read his whole post, just reading the poll question the obvious answer would be No.
Yeah, I also think it is intentionally made that way, you can only answer the question from his perspective if he asks it like that...
The thing is there is no such thing as the minority being a big problem to the majority in the reality if he is talking about LGBT rights, yet he claims it would lead us to the extinction of the human kind in his post...
Comment has been collapsed.
yes sorry, i didn't consider people just reading poll and answering without reading the thread attached to it. Still, it's clearly done so they can push their statement in a good light.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally, I refused to answer the poll since the question doesn't have a clear meaning. The thing in his post is based on the claims in his mind which don't have connection to the reality and the poll question without reading the post has an obvious answer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except the poll is attached to the thread. So to me it is obvious what OP meant in the poll. If it was a thread-less poll, i would have agree. But it is not. The context for the poll is right there, in the thread.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against your decision. Your opinion is completely understandable.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never even looked at the results, personally I didn't vote because not a single option fit my thoughts and views.
Comment has been collapsed.
poll question is general, discussion is about LGTBQ.
please don't put things in my mouth i didn't say and also try not to judge my intention nor motives based on imagination, if you want me to elaborate on something feel free to point it out.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is the minority going to become the majority as you say?
Let's look at this from two viewpoints (I'm not assuming either of them is true, it's just that I don't know what your viewpoint on this is).
1st, homosexuality is a choice (I'm not talking about bisexuality, just "absolute" homosexuality). In this case, what do you feel would compel the majority of the population to become homosexual? If we look at it this way, sure, a small minority of the global population chose to become homosexual, but have you chosen that? How many people around you made this choice? What would make someone make this choice?
2nd, homosexuality is genetic, people are born homosexual. If this is the case, we can see that only a small part of the population was born with this orientation. There are those who are "in the closet", okay, but even some of the people in this situation end up forming (straight) families. I'm only making a supposition, but I doubt that even if you considered that people who are "in the closet" suddenly ceased to lie to society about who they truly are, that they would form a sizable part of the population.
If you don't know how the minority could become the majority, I'll face this as a pure thought experiment, and say that there is no reason to believe that what you say could happen, will happen. Should we then base laws around thought experiments?
Regarding the poll, I'll just mark "not sure", because I don't think your question could be more loaded than it is.
(This reminded me of Kant's Categorical imperative really, and why it has so many criticisms)
Comment has been collapsed.
2nd, homosexuality is genetic.
is there any formal authorised scientific or medical research that supports that claim?
Comment has been collapsed.
Search that up on Google, and you'll get differing responses. Academia's probably divided on this subjec and/or research about it has been inconclusive thus fart. I only brought it up because I honestly don't know what OP's stance on the matter is.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, the typical bullshit of a muslim, just as expected.
🏳️🌈
Comment has been collapsed.
Please avoid such generalization as it is bordering on hate speech. Labeling muslims as ignorant or hateful is no better than adressing the LGBTQ community as "unnatural". There are ignorant people in every part of society, and the cure is education, not insults.
Personal attacks or hate speech. Threats, harassment, and slurs (e.g. insults towards a user's race, sexual orientation, or gender) are not allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
this guy is blaming overpopulation and human extinction on LGBT members and putting them at the same level as animal abusers, yet you didn't warn him about "hate speech" and spreading misinformation about a group of people.
does religion have diplomatic immunity on sg?
Comment has been collapsed.
you would've gotten a more solid ground to support your claim if you could point out anything like that from any of my comments or main post :) cuz maiking your words bold isn't enough and BTW, we're not talking religion here.
Comment has been collapsed.
It sure seems so. I guess I'll have to start my church of Hitler to become a holy Nazi and then there is literally nothing anyone can do about me. Would make as much sense as covering all that hatred and evil behind a religion.
If an imaginary man on top of a cloud says it's OK to hate and kill people that are different, this is completely fine.
If a real man on top of a podium says it's OK to hate and kill people that are different, this is completely evil.
If an imaginary man on top of a podium says it's OK to hate and kill people that are different, this is completely insane.
To me all 3 look exactly the same level of insane hatred. To some they look so much different that they are ready to make bullshit excuses about how they differ in imaginary ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
OP's discourse clearly comes from misinformation and a lack of understanding. However, they've shown themselves to be open (at least in appearance) to being educated by the many users who took the time to calmly explain to them the fallacies in their post.
Multiple members of the support team had chimed in already before I even saw the thread, and the truly hateful comments have been dealt with.
does religion have diplomatic immunity on sg
Religion is not exempt from criticism, but it should never come as an attack on the individuals who practice it. One should not make the mistake of lumping everyone who practice a particular religion as a single like-minded group.
Comment has been collapsed.
So is it the official opinion of a Super Mod that it's perfectly fine to use horrible hate speech against some communities that aren't religious? And that requires no action at all, not even a warning? And in fact that's so protected because of the assumed religion of the hate speaker that everyone who disagrees with the hate requires to be warned about it?
If you choose to belong to an organization, you accept that by bearing its flag you also stand by everything and anything that organization has done. If you don't, you quit instead of making excuses.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not going to go into what people have already gone into. Homosexuality isn't a problem and low birth rate is actually a good idea in this world.
(Edit: Thinking about it, most gay couples I know have children, so there doesn't seem to be any problem on that front.)
why polygamy isn't legal when it's totally consensual?
It is in Muslim countries. It isn't in Christian countries. IMO it all has to do with religion. Of course, polygamy by itself is single sided, gender-wise, so not something that would be accepted in a modern non-religious society, but my personal feeling is that polyamory in general shouldn't be illegal.
Edit:
Of course, the problem with polygamy is that it's often not consensual, or just pseudo-consensual. For example in societies which practice arranged marriages, marriages aren't truly consensual, and if such a society also supports polygamy, then it has the tendency to turn women into property. There is also a problem when one partner attracts many others due to being charismatic, and the relationship being one sided.
These are things that the laws of a country which puts personal freedom up front should consider. However, I don't think it should be cause enough to disallow 'marriages' of more than two people. A man + two women or woman + two men or two men + two women should be a reasonable, legal marriage, as I see it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is in Muslim countries. It isn't in Christian countries. IMO it all has to do with religion. Of course, polygamy by itself is single sided, gender-wise, so not something that would be accepted in a modern non-religious society, but my personal feeling is that polyamory in general shouldn't be illegal.
definitely i wasn't refering to Polygamy from a religious point of view and it seems like it was a wrong choice of words (sorry for that english is not my mother tongue) and there is more comprehensive word to represent what i meant in a better way which is "Polyamory", thanks for that.
Of course, the problem with polygamy is that it's often not consensual, or just pseudo-consensual. For example in societies which practice arranged marriages, marriages aren't truly consensual, and if such a society also supports polygamy, then it has the tendency to turn women into property. There is also a problem when one partner attracts many others due to being charismatic, and the relationship being one sided.
Polygamy is the part of Polyamory that some religions or cultures accept but in an ideal circumstances under civil law that ensures human rights and freedom, why Polyamory isn't legal when it meets the same criteria that LGTBQ meets? that's my questiong and we both seem to agree that it shouldn't be illegal.
thanks for your contribution, it was reallly helpful.
Comment has been collapsed.
The way I see it, one reason polyamory isn't accepted is that it's a new battle that's yet to be started.
As I see it, it all comes down to religion and tradition. LGBT goes pretty much against all monotheistic religions, and polyamory is also a serious problem (with the exception of polygamy for Muslims). The LGBT issue mostly goes against homosexual practices which were common in the ancient world, where I guess Jews wanted to distinguish themselves from those cultures, and the monogamy issue is one which developed over time (in the bible polygamy was common).
These days there's we're still in general far from accepting that people of the same sex can have a relationship, so there's focus on that, alongside some other gender issues. Polyamory is slightly more complicated, but if we ever get to where LGBT is accepted by all, I'd expect polyamory to be discussed too.
Comment has been collapsed.
but if we ever get to where LGBT is accepted by all, I'd expect polyamory to be discussed too.
if LGBT got partially accepted then at least would be fair if polygamy gets the same level of acceptance so everybody can be happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Polygamy is only used in certain countries to make sure only the rich boys have all the girls. Then the rest have no other choices than to die as martyrs to get those 30 Star Trek fans or steal slave girls of other religions. This is nothing anyone sane wants and least of all does it make anyone other than the rich boys happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, congrats on this thread.
Let me throw some more ashes to the fire:
First of all, I think racism is a stupid idea, because we can only judge each person by his beaviour.
If we check in most of the african countries where the majority of the population is black, white people are a minority and suffer as much racism or even more when related to "developed" countries as USA for example, but we don't get to see the same "movement" of protection related to those minorities (white, asian and so on).
It's sad to watch the news about those black lives matter movements in USA and see a huge crowd of black people burning cars (and they don't know if the owner is black or white, as long as it's not their car), breaking stores, destroing everything. I think that's not the way of making their point.
When that police officer was choking that black man with his knee, the partner is an asian, so belongs to a minority that very often suffers racism from white and black people and I don't see any movement like "asian lives matter" or "latin lives matter".
So it's a very complex issue, If in that cop case we had the opposite situation (black cop choking a white/asian/latin man) would we see the same movemente or would it be treated as a bad cop killing "someone" ?
Comment has been collapsed.
So it's a very complex issue, If in that cop case we had the opposite situation (black cop choking a white/asian/latin man) would we see the same movemente or would it be treated as a bad cop killing "someone" ?
I think it's more of a built up anger people have because of how often those incidents happens when it could've been avoided comparing to the example you made but we should stop racial categorising and look at it as an excessive use of force if proven so and try to reform the regulations regarding to this matter without the use of violence, damaging properties is also very bad and has nothing to do with the cause but yea, black lives matter and so does the public order and properties, there is also a possibility that the violence promoters has nothing to do with the cause and they are just taking advantages of the situation therefor the cause supporters should step aside and don't mix with those to make it easier for law enforcement to do thier jobs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I cringe a bit even today at seeing 2 guys kiss, and get happily uncomfortable seeing 2 woman kiss. Both of these reactions are not wrong, but simply true. So I dont want to watch men kiss, and I need to be careful about enjoying seeing 2 woman kiss, thus I can make decisions going forward.
But when it comes to trying to tell someone else how they should feel about something, or what they can and can't do, I'm not interested, and find it forceful to the point of being synonymous with rape!
If someones actions arent directly effecting me why do I care? People on Wall Streets actions constantly effect many people for the worse, but we dont stop them, because it's more difficult.
The bottom line is LGBTQ is normal, and simply more prevalent in a heavily over-populated world.
If there is no pressure to make babies, then why wouldnt the main focus be on someone you love regardless of baby making bits?
Comment has been collapsed.
Religion mostly. As is 99% of the problems with the world, it's religion.
I just get upset when someone gets offended cause I "misgenderd" them... Come on, I don't know you how am I supposed to know?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't believe in absolute freedom, and it can be hard to draw the line sometimes, but I want minimal government involvement in my life. As for humans being intelligent, well that claim could be disputed, but even smart people do dumb things. And people do lots of things because they enjoy them, not for some greater propose. Sex is for love, pleasure, babies, and maybe other stuff if you're into that, but nobody gets all of those things every time. Bat soup as cause for covid seems discredited, and I think there were many more issues that made it turn into a global pandemic. Gay people still have kids just not usually through sex, and I imagine their birth rate would grow if there are no orphans in stock. But that's just a theory - a gay theory
Comment has been collapsed.
So all of this was just for one guy to be able to marry more than 1 pig and feeling threatened about his rights to do so if gay people are allowed to marry too. Makes complete sense now.
Comment has been collapsed.
So after you were done with other shit earlier now you've made you're way to a new kind of shit referring to women as pigs, that's as bad as calling lgbtq community freaks and faggots, i advice you to educate yourself about Pragma-dialectics to increase your ability to keep up a decent conversation.
BTW, we're not talking about polygamy here but rather Polyamory, you're not making a good track of where the discussion has escalated to and you're dragging it back.
Comment has been collapsed.
You seem to have used the wrong "Reply" button and have been replying to yourself.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never referred to anything other than pigs as pigs, that's all in your imagination. You're the one who's trying to get more rights for polygamorous zoophiles all the time so what else could you be after? What I still don't get is how are the other sexual minorities dragging your right to do that down?
A decent conversation is not based on dehumanizing some people and trying to take away their rights because of your own superstitions.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's only in your imagination, i didn't take anyboy's rights i was just asking questions to find out what is the take of the community about it, chill man and give me a break please
Comment has been collapsed.
And I'm not taking away your rights to marry several pigs or just have fun with them. I'm just asking questions to find out what is the take of the community about it. I'm always chill and give breaks to people who see their errors and repent their evil ways.
You literally didn't know that gay etc people are humans too and have the same rights as anyone else? That your own beliefs have absolutely no right to have any effect on their rights? Or anyone else's for that matter no matter what community they are part of.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did know they are humans and deserve human rights not specific and customized rights.
Comment has been collapsed.
What exactly do you imagine are these specific and customized rights? To have sex? Do they really need permission from you or any community for that? What specific customized rights do you have to be able to choose for others what they can or can't do?
Comment has been collapsed.
The topic of this thread is a controversial one, and everyone has varying opinions about the topic, sometimes at odds with one another. While Support Staff discourages such threads due to the temptation they present for flame wars and personal attacks, we have noticed that (for the most part) people have been keeping the discussion civil. We do what we can to protect freedom of speech so long as that freedom is not abused, so this thread continues to remain open. However, this does not constitute a validation of anyone's expressed opinion(s), nor does it guarantee that Support will not close this thread in the future.
To provide additional guidance regarding controversial discussions, Support is currently working on a post for our community. We will hopefully have that ready in the near future, so keep an eye out for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't this implied with any discussion on the forums? You don't need to make this quip in every "controversial" thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Minority rights is in danger or, is it?
is there any other reasons why LGBTQ rights should be protected and recognised?
Yes.
Because they are people.
I wasn't going to respond to your post because I find it so incredibly simple-minded and inflammatory. However, I just recently watched a documentary that you might find instructive: Welcome to Chechnya
I highly recommend it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Freedom is good but should it be absloute? is mocking people out of freedom is acceptable act? is telling people things they hate to hear about themselves a fair use of freedom? Am i free as long as i don't hurt anybody? how about LGBTQ, is it a fair use of freedom?
LGBTQ supporters claims that it's a natural behaviour that is not happening only in humans but in animals too and therefore we should accept that but question is, is it enough that because animals is doing it we humans should do it or accept it among our race? aren't we an intelligent race and other races isn't? is there any other reasons why LGBTQ rights should be protected and recognised?
Covid 19 is a result of humans eating what they are not supposed to be eating and if you wanna know the crieteria of what we should eat safely you can at least eat what is known to be safe. now my wife has Covid 19 just because someone felt free to eat whatever he/she wants to eat on the other side of the planet.
i believe sexual intercourse where it's not supposed to be can have a disastrous impact on our race, if it's not medical-related then it's gonna lead to a slow exctintion of our race if LGBTQ became the global orientation due to the very low birth rate that is going to happen because someone don't have appetite towards the opposite sex,
if WHO decided to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illness then i geuss Zoophilia should get the same acceptance and recognition or is it double standards?with all respect to all human beings regarldess of sexual orientations, i'm just wondering about things hopefully i'll get some convincing answers.
let me know what you think, fellow human :)
Edit: #2
due to the considrable amount of awesome comments finding it irreasonable for Zoophilia to be recognised for it's not consensual -which i'm totally convinced with and it's totally different than LGTB- i had to take it back but talking about consenst, why
polygamyPolyamory isn't legal when it's totally consensual?Comment has been collapsed.