Is it now "in style/cool" for teen girls to be in romantic relationships with other girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A lipstick lesbian is a girly girl "lesbian" who most true lesbians feel is doing it for attention, trying it out or to impress guys. No more, no less.

Good grief. No. A lipstick lesbian is a lesbian who wears lipstick and has other stereotypically feminine aspects to her appearance. Like a femme, as opposed to a butch. There is no secret lesbian law requiring "true" lesbians to have short hair, eschew make-up, and wear man-tailored shirts (or overalls).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just to let you know I was the poster of the comparing polygamy to gay marriage. I did not post the government condoning etc.. post. I am actually not opposed to gay marriages. I just don't understand the hatred agenda for complete equality in everything. They want to get married in churches, sue and destroy people if a company doesn't want to make their wedding cake, force it down everyone's throats. If they were content with a civil marriage and be fine not everyone is going to like them, then fine. Because not everyone is going to be okay with it. It was taboo for so long and for many very religious people, it is considered a sin. My point being if that they want it all forms of government, state and church to consider it normal, if transgender and cross dressing is now becoming normal, why not a push for polygamy, for adult compliant incest, pedophilia etc.... Where is the line in the sand if everyone can claim "I can't help who I am or who I fall in love with?" How can we say it is okay to be gay but not the others? You keep telling me there are reasons for it but there really isn't.

You say you're not opposed to gay marriage. That's good. But your full argument seems to be -- it's ok for gay people to get married, but it should also be ok to discriminate against gay people. That's not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing these girls aren't really bi or lesbians but rather 'lipstick lesbians.' Perhaps they think they'll be more attractive to boys if they act that way. There is so much girl on girl porn nowadays that the kids have access to.. Probably think that's the 'cool' thing to do.

This is one of many reasons that my kids will never set foot in a public school.

I don't understand. Do you think that the kids are watching "girl-on-girl porn" in public school?

No. But they will go to schools where it is clearly understood and taught that this behavior is wrong.

Which will only make it more tantalizing and alluring... Ah, teenagers.

Or worse. Make them a statistic. Children who are raised to believe that being LGBTQ is "wrong" are at very high risk of suicide if they are LGBTQ, especially during those teen years. The risk is highest for transgender people - something like 34% of transgender people attempt suicide. My children (and we have five) were raised to believe that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being gay. It's not an illness or a character defect. It is no different that being heterosexual. It just is. Mine are all grown and all five are straight. However, one of my daughters (college senior) is very involved in the LGBTQ movement because she has a close friend who experienced severe bullying in high school and tried to end her life. Our church is offering diversity classes every month to try to improve acceptance and understanding. I feel so passionately about this because I've seen up close how hurtful words and behaviors affect teens who are already struggling.

Just as an aside - One of my oldest and dearest friends is very Fundie Southern Baptist. Her three kids were in private Christian Schools from preschool through 12th grade. Her kids were taught to "pray away the gay" and all that other nonsense. Her oldest (now 19) came out about six months ago. To me. I'm thankful he felt safe coming to me. I cannot image the struggle he must have gone though.

I'm not asking for the ugly posters to learn tolerance or compassion. There are people who just are not ready for that path. However, if you can't be tolerant, can you at least try to shut the hell up about things you don't understand. Sometimes it's better to remain silent and be assumed ignorant than it is to open your mouth and confirm it. Lives are at risk. You hurt people with your intolerance. Just keep your narrow-minded opinions to yourself so that the rest of us can focus on supporting those who are struggling.

Some of us have a different idea of what "supporting those who are struggling" entails. It does not necessarily mean telling a 14 year old girl, oh sure, honey, go ahead. If you want to be a lesbian for a few years, have at it!! IT's all cool.

Because it is NOT all cool, or OK. And please don't tell me this is something that I do not understand. I understand just as much about it as you do. Just because you raised 5 kids who are straight and so compassionate (so you say), does not make you an authority on anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of us have a different idea of what "supporting those who are struggling" entails. It does not necessarily mean telling a 14 year old girl, oh sure, honey, go ahead. If you want to be a lesbian for a few years, have at it!! IT's all cool.

Because it is NOT all cool, or OK. And please don't tell me this is something that I do not understand. I understand just as much about it as you do. Just because you raised 5 kids who are straight and so compassionate (so you say), does not make you an authority on anything.

Not that PP but my idea of support means telling my kids I will always love them whether they fall in love with a man or woman. 14 year olds are attracted to and have crushes- it happens. Think back to your first crush- how old were you, who was it, and did you CHOOSE to be attracted to that person? When did you consider the merits of being gay, the pros and cons of being straight, and at what point did you decide your own sexual orientation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing these girls aren't really bi or lesbians but rather 'lipstick lesbians.' Perhaps they think they'll be more attractive to boys if they act that way. There is so much girl on girl porn nowadays that the kids have access to.. Probably think that's the 'cool' thing to do.

This is one of many reasons that my kids will never set foot in a public school.

Ha ha, I went to private school and knew much more about lesbians back in the 90s than the public school kids did. "Lipstick lesbian" does not mean what the poster above think it means.

Then I went to a private college where there was the whole "LUG" thing (lesbian until graduation.) I still don't get that, but a larger number of college girls at my school had only lesbian relationships until they graduated--then most went on to marry guys and have kids. One or two were actually lesbian. Part of the fun of college social life was dating different guys for me, but being a LUG seemed to offer protection for some girls from the pressure to date guys until they were ready.

A lipstick lesbian is a girly girl "lesbian" who most true lesbians feel is doing it for attention, trying it out or to impress guys. No more, no less.

+1 however maybe the term differs depending where you live since so many people on here think it means something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some of us have a different idea of what "supporting those who are struggling" entails. It does not necessarily mean telling a 14 year old girl, oh sure, honey, go ahead. If you want to be a lesbian for a few years, have at it!! IT's all cool.

Because it is NOT all cool, or OK. And please don't tell me this is something that I do not understand. I understand just as much about it as you do. Just because you raised 5 kids who are straight and so compassionate (so you say), does not make you an authority on anything.

What does your idea of "supporting those who are struggling" entail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, even if this were true, why does it bother you so much? Most people don't fall in love with their relatives (there are strong biological reasons that prevent this), just as most people aren't interested in a committed relationship with more than one person at the same time (trying to maintain a relationship with just one is complicated enough). So how does it affect you if the rare brother and sister, or Tom, Dick and Jane who feel this way about each other are able to get married?

Because it is the government condoning, and therefore forcing all of us to accept, a deviant, perverted behavior. That is not healthy for any sane society.

Aha. You think that same-sex marriage should be illegal because you think that same-sex relationships are deviant and perverted. Why not just say so? Why all the irrelevant distraction about incest, polygamy, and group sex with squirrels?

In any case, luckily for you, the government is not actually forcing you to accept anything besides the fact that a legal marriage is a legal marriage.

Just to let you know I was the poster of the comparing polygamy to gay marriage. I did not post the government condoning etc.. post. I am actually not opposed to gay marriages. I just don't understand the hatred agenda for complete equality in everything. They want to get married in churches, sue and destroy people if a company doesn't want to make their wedding cake, force it down everyone's throats. If they were content with a civil marriage and be fine not everyone is going to like them, then fine. Because not everyone is going to be okay with it. It was taboo for so long and for many very religious people, it is considered a sin. My point being if that they want it all forms of government, state and church to consider it normal, if transgender and cross dressing is now becoming normal, why not a push for polygamy, for adult compliant incest, pedophilia etc.... Where is the line in the sand if everyone can claim "I can't help who I am or who I fall in love with?" How can we say it is okay to be gay but not the others? You keep telling me there are reasons for it but there really isn't.

The line in the sand is simple. Equal protection under the law. Period.

So you think gays, transgenders, cross-dressers, polygamists, incest marriages should all have the same equal protection under the law? okay then....

And you also think people with religious beliefs against same-sex marriages should be forced to marry them, have to make them wedding cakes and perform at their weddings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you think gays, transgenders, cross-dressers, polygamists, incest marriages should all have the same equal protection under the law? okay then....

And you also think people with religious beliefs against same-sex marriages should be forced to marry them, have to make them wedding cakes and perform at their weddings?

Yes, that's exactly what equal protection means. Otherwise it would be unequal protection.

I also think that people with religious beliefs against same-sex marriage should have to follow the same anti-discrimination laws as everybody else -- again, because that's what equal protection means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lipstick lesbian is a girly girl "lesbian" who most true lesbians feel is doing it for attention, trying it out or to impress guys. No more, no less.

Good grief. No. A lipstick lesbian is a lesbian who wears lipstick and has other stereotypically feminine aspects to her appearance. Like a femme, as opposed to a butch. There is no secret lesbian law requiring "true" lesbians to have short hair, eschew make-up, and wear man-tailored shirts (or overalls).

No, lipstick lesbians are bi or claim they are bi - and like I said, are girly girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you think gays, transgenders, cross-dressers, polygamists, incest marriages should all have the same equal protection under the law? okay then....

And you also think people with religious beliefs against same-sex marriages should be forced to marry them, have to make them wedding cakes and perform at their weddings?

My opinion-
gay- yes
trans- yes
cds- yes
polygamist- yes, where legal
incest- no, not legal. although first cousins can marry...

Yes- I think people who are opposed to gay marriage cannot discriminate. In my opinion, its no different than having a "whites only" sign out front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lipstick lesbian is a girly girl "lesbian" who most true lesbians feel is doing it for attention, trying it out or to impress guys. No more, no less.

Good grief. No. A lipstick lesbian is a lesbian who wears lipstick and has other stereotypically feminine aspects to her appearance. Like a femme, as opposed to a butch. There is no secret lesbian law requiring "true" lesbians to have short hair, eschew make-up, and wear man-tailored shirts (or overalls).

No, lipstick lesbians are bi or claim they are bi - and like I said, are girly girl.

Girly girl, yes. Bi, no. It's lipstick lesbian, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So you think gays, transgenders, cross-dressers, polygamists, incest marriages should all have the same equal protection under the law? okay then....

And you also think people with religious beliefs against same-sex marriages should be forced to marry them, have to make them wedding cakes and perform at their weddings?

Cross-dresser marriage? What is a cross-dresser marriage? Are you saying that the government should not allow men who wear skirts or women who wear pants to get married? What if they wear pants/skirts when they get their wedding license, but then later it turns out that they also wear skirts/pants -- does that annul the marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some of us have a different idea of what "supporting those who are struggling" entails. It does not necessarily mean telling a 14 year old girl, oh sure, honey, go ahead. If you want to be a lesbian for a few years, have at it!! IT's all cool.

Because it is NOT all cool, or OK. And please don't tell me this is something that I do not understand. I understand just as much about it as you do. Just because you raised 5 kids who are straight and so compassionate (so you say), does not make you an authority on anything.

What does your idea of "supporting those who are struggling" entail?

Lots and lots of love. And help. And therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just to let you know I was the poster of the comparing polygamy to gay marriage. I did not post the government condoning etc.. post. I am actually not opposed to gay marriages. I just don't understand the hatred agenda for complete equality in everything. They want to get married in churches, sue and destroy people if a company doesn't want to make their wedding cake, force it down everyone's throats. If they were content with a civil marriage and be fine not everyone is going to like them, then fine. Because not everyone is going to be okay with it. It was taboo for so long and for many very religious people, it is considered a sin. My point being if that they want it all forms of government, state and church to consider it normal, if transgender and cross dressing is now becoming normal, why not a push for polygamy, for adult compliant incest, pedophilia etc.... Where is the line in the sand if everyone can claim "I can't help who I am or who I fall in love with?" How can we say it is okay to be gay but not the others? You keep telling me there are reasons for it but there really isn't.

You say you're not opposed to gay marriage. That's good. But your full argument seems to be -- it's ok for gay people to get married, but it should also be ok to discriminate against gay people. That's not good.

No my argument is that I am not against it but then how can I or anyone else not be against any other type of taboo marriage? Shouldn't they all have equal protection. Why just gays/lesbians? Because they fight and push for it, march for it, sue people who feel it is not right and don't want to be part of it. That bothers me. It should be all or nothing. You can marry anyone or anything and the whole world has to be accepting. 30yr old man and consenting 14yr old - sure. Aunt and nephew, sure. Cousins - sure. Man and 4 wives sure. All the same equal protection. Polygamists make up 1.4% of the American population which is almost equal to 1.6% of gays in America. So why is now one legal and another is illegal? How is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just to let you know I was the poster of the comparing polygamy to gay marriage. I did not post the government condoning etc.. post. I am actually not opposed to gay marriages. I just don't understand the hatred agenda for complete equality in everything. They want to get married in churches, sue and destroy people if a company doesn't want to make their wedding cake, force it down everyone's throats. If they were content with a civil marriage and be fine not everyone is going to like them, then fine. Because not everyone is going to be okay with it. It was taboo for so long and for many very religious people, it is considered a sin. My point being if that they want it all forms of government, state and church to consider it normal, if transgender and cross dressing is now becoming normal, why not a push for polygamy, for adult compliant incest, pedophilia etc.... Where is the line in the sand if everyone can claim "I can't help who I am or who I fall in love with?" How can we say it is okay to be gay but not the others? You keep telling me there are reasons for it but there really isn't.

You say you're not opposed to gay marriage. That's good. But your full argument seems to be -- it's ok for gay people to get married, but it should also be ok to discriminate against gay people. That's not good.

No my argument is that I am not against it but then how can I or anyone else not be against any other type of taboo marriage? Shouldn't they all have equal protection. Why just gays/lesbians? Because they fight and push for it, march for it, sue people who feel it is not right and don't want to be part of it. That bothers me. It should be all or nothing. You can marry anyone or anything and the whole world has to be accepting. 30yr old man and consenting 14yr old - sure. Aunt and nephew, sure. Cousins - sure. Man and 4 wives sure. All the same equal protection. Polygamists make up 1.4% of the American population which is almost equal to 1.6% of gays in America. So why is now one legal and another is illegal? How is that right?

Hollywood is gay - that is it. Nothing more than a liberal push by entertainers.