Conservative DCUM'ers: how far back do you want LGBTQ rights rolled back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When our nation expanded gay rights-- and I was an early adopter to this notion-- it was because I thought it would be good for families. Gay people could have marriages, kids, and normal lives. In the past couple years, this has changed into an overtly "sexual revolution" message that places an emphasis on personal sexual fulfillment rather than emphasizing the importance of family unity. I think this is harmful to society, and while we should certainly tolerate people who choose to live promiscuous, self-indulgent lifestyles (straight or gay), this shouldn't be celebrated and promoted in the form of state sponsored parades with public nudity or otherwise salacious dress, books in public schools for children, and the White House declaring this lifestyle the "bravest and most courageous." We don't celebrate families in this way, and raising a family is both difficult and essential for society. I think using taxpayer money to promote sexual promiscuity is a step too far and too "Brave New World" ("promiscuity is a citizen's duty"-- literal quote from the book). One way to destroy a culture is to weaken personal relationships, and I am highly suspicious of the intent behind the assault on families (again, gay or straight) and the extreme emphasis on individual sexual gratification as the ultimate good. Biden's recent comments about how all kids are everyone's kids is, again, straight out of Brave New World ("everyone belongs to everyone"). Just like when you prioritize everything, nothing is a priority-- when you make everyone belong to everyone, then no one belongs to anyone. As they say, when people show you who they are- believe them. We all saw them disrobe in front of the white house, in a crowd of likeminded revolutionaries, and shake their bare chests on a video.
In front of Biden, the secret service, etc. I believe them; they intend to destroy our culture and our values by debasing what we used to find important (the American dream) and replace it with a new priority of sexuality as the supreme value. In other words, to me, this isn't about being gay or being straight. It's about an insidious attempt to destroy our society from the inside out in order to gain control. So, what limits do I want on gay people? None. What limits do I want on l the government promoting gender confusion, while also baking in parental alienation as an actual policy? Limits on the use of elected positions to promote sexual promiscuity? I want total cessation of this.

Well said. I have been thinking about that book a lot lately.

I 100% support equal rights for all people. But like others above said, I think most people are tired of hearing people yap about it all the time. I think sadly for the LGBT community, the extremists in their community are hurting them.

Do you know why people are "yapping about it all the time?" Because trans people are dying! A trans acquaintance of mine just had his drink spiked with Fentanyl at a random bar and he is now in the hospital with kidney failure.

"That's an isolated incident. It's not happening on a large scale " Right?

The thing is protections for trans people are being eroded and if we "stop yapping about it" the worse it will get and the freer people will feel to discriminate. We can't be silent because our lives LITERALLY DEPEND ON IT.

Please provide any statistics that trans people are victims of violent crime (excluding domestic partner (generally also trans-identifying partners) and sex-worker violence) at a higher rate than afabs. Thanks!

DP. I have no idea what afabs means (were you trying to type Arabs???).

But here is an easily findable stastistic:

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime

Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, households with a transgender person had higher rates of property victimization than cisgender households.

Sorry, thought you were more up to date with the lingo - my bad. AFAB is assigned female at birth and AMAB is assigned male at birth. The language was co-opted from intersex people. Anyway, looking forward to your stats! TIA (that’s an acronym for thanks in advance)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here

I’ve worked for gay candidates in the past. They were great. They weren’t in your face about being gay.

The trans thing is too much. Pride has gone way over the top

What is "the trans thing", pray tell?

The guy who bared his breasts at the White House.

I thought topless man is legal in DC. If female breast not legal, then crime should be prosectuted.

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/22/chapters/22

[Anonymous]

Wow, I am shocked by the number of closed minded bigots, particularly those who purport to be on the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here

I’ve worked for gay candidates in the past. They were great. They weren’t in your face about being gay.

The trans thing is too much. Pride has gone way over the top

What is "the trans thing", pray tell?

The guy who bared his breasts at the White House.

But you'd be cool with that person doing it at the beach, right? Because you see that person as a man and men can bare their breasts at the beach. Want to make sure you are totally fine with that.

You believe that there is no such thing as dressing for the occasion. You will not be content until every custom in western culture is torn down and replaced with a bunch of topless people running around the halls of power, Qanon Shaman style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here

I’ve worked for gay candidates in the past. They were great. They weren’t in your face about being gay.

The trans thing is too much. Pride has gone way over the top

What is "the trans thing", pray tell?

The guy who bared his breasts at the White House.

But you'd be cool with that person doing it at the beach, right? Because you see that person as a man and men can bare their breasts at the beach. Want to make sure you are totally fine with that.

Don't want to see a guy with boobs at the beach either. If he wants to be female, then act in a respectable way. Please note he was disinvited from the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here

I’ve worked for gay candidates in the past. They were great. They weren’t in your face about being gay.

The trans thing is too much. Pride has gone way over the top

What is "the trans thing", pray tell?

The guy who bared his breasts at the White House.

But you'd be cool with that person doing it at the beach, right? Because you see that person as a man and men can bare their breasts at the beach. Want to make sure you are totally fine with that.

You believe that there is no such thing as dressing for the occasion. You will not be content until every custom in western culture is torn down and replaced with a bunch of topless people running around the halls of power, Qanon Shaman style.

Gee, it was a simple question. Why can't you answer it. If Rose Montoya went topless at a beach do you think that should be legal? Yes or no? Very simple to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here

I’ve worked for gay candidates in the past. They were great. They weren’t in your face about being gay.

The trans thing is too much. Pride has gone way over the top

What is "the trans thing", pray tell?

The guy who bared his breasts at the White House.

I thought topless man is legal in DC. If female breast not legal, then crime should be prosectuted.

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/22/chapters/22

DC code doesn't apply to federal property. Also, lots and lots of things are legal and yet inappropriate. You are honestly taking the position that we should celebrate people shaking their tats on the WH lawn, while also asking why we are resistant. You're the one with the burden of proof for why this is a great thing to celebrate. It's not self evident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here

I’ve worked for gay candidates in the past. They were great. They weren’t in your face about being gay.

The trans thing is too much. Pride has gone way over the top

What is "the trans thing", pray tell?

The guy who bared his breasts at the White House.

But you'd be cool with that person doing it at the beach, right? Because you see that person as a man and men can bare their breasts at the beach. Want to make sure you are totally fine with that.

You believe that there is no such thing as dressing for the occasion. You will not be content until every custom in western culture is torn down and replaced with a bunch of topless people running around the halls of power, Qanon Shaman style.

Gee, it was a simple question. Why can't you answer it. If Rose Montoya went topless at a beach do you think that should be legal? Yes or no? Very simple to answer.

No. Rose can go to Mallorca like everyone else. We don't have topless beaches as a standard in the US. You can take your Marxist Freiköperkulture garbage and shove it. There's a reason that Freiköperkulture proliferated in the East of Germany but not in the freer West. Free nipples don't tend to free minds-- or strippers would be our most enlightened class instead of falling into addiction and dysfunction at disproportionate levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When our nation expanded gay rights-- and I was an early adopter to this notion-- it was because I thought it would be good for families. Gay people could have marriages, kids, and normal lives. In the past couple years, this has changed into an overtly "sexual revolution" message that places an emphasis on personal sexual fulfillment rather than emphasizing the importance of family unity. I think this is harmful to society, and while we should certainly tolerate people who choose to live promiscuous, self-indulgent lifestyles (straight or gay), this shouldn't be celebrated and promoted in the form of state sponsored parades with public nudity or otherwise salacious dress, books in public schools for children, and the White House declaring this lifestyle the "bravest and most courageous." We don't celebrate families in this way, and raising a family is both difficult and essential for society. I think using taxpayer money to promote sexual promiscuity is a step too far and too "Brave New World" ("promiscuity is a citizen's duty"-- literal quote from the book). One way to destroy a culture is to weaken personal relationships, and I am highly suspicious of the intent behind the assault on families (again, gay or straight) and the extreme emphasis on individual sexual gratification as the ultimate good. Biden's recent comments about how all kids are everyone's kids is, again, straight out of Brave New World ("everyone belongs to everyone"). Just like when you prioritize everything, nothing is a priority-- when you make everyone belong to everyone, then no one belongs to anyone. As they say, when people show you who they are- believe them. We all saw them disrobe in front of the white house, in a crowd of likeminded revolutionaries, and shake their bare chests on a video.
In front of Biden, the secret service, etc. I believe them; they intend to destroy our culture and our values by debasing what we used to find important (the American dream) and replace it with a new priority of sexuality as the supreme value. In other words, to me, this isn't about being gay or being straight. It's about an insidious attempt to destroy our society from the inside out in order to gain control. So, what limits do I want on gay people? None. What limits do I want on l the government promoting gender confusion, while also baking in parental alienation as an actual policy? Limits on the use of elected positions to promote sexual promiscuity? I want total cessation of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here

I’ve worked for gay candidates in the past. They were great. They weren’t in your face about being gay.

The trans thing is too much. Pride has gone way over the top

What is "the trans thing", pray tell?

The guy who bared his breasts at the White House.

But you'd be cool with that person doing it at the beach, right? Because you see that person as a man and men can bare their breasts at the beach. Want to make sure you are totally fine with that.

You believe that there is no such thing as dressing for the occasion. You will not be content until every custom in western culture is torn down and replaced with a bunch of topless people running around the halls of power, Qanon Shaman style.

Gee, it was a simple question. Why can't you answer it. If Rose Montoya went topless at a beach do you think that should be legal? Yes or no? Very simple to answer.

No. Rose can go to Mallorca like everyone else. We don't have topless beaches as a standard in the US. You can take your Marxist Freiköperkulture garbage and shove it. There's a reason that Freiköperkulture proliferated in the East of Germany but not in the freer West. Free nipples don't tend to free minds-- or strippers would be our most enlightened class instead of falling into addiction and dysfunction at disproportionate levels.

Okay, so you recognize her as a trans-woman. Thanks for answering.

p.s.Freiköperkultur is a German thing dating back to the late 19th century and if you think West Germans didn't partake of it and that Germans as a whole don't partake in it still to this day you clearly don't know Germany and Germans, lol. Also I doubt Marx had an opinion about it or even knew much about it since he died before the movement really started taking root. And it's not about political ideology. The ideology has always been about health and well-being. Now I guess you can make arguments that German is not "the west" but that's a different topic. But I would agree that Germans in general have less qualms about nudity than other cultures.

[Anonymous]

I just want you to keep it in the bedroom. I don't want it blasted in my face 24/7. I don't want to talk about it all the time. I want to know you as Larlo who makes a mean hamburger, not Larla the flamboyant lesbian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want you to keep it in the bedroom. I don't want it blasted in my face 24/7. I don't want to talk about it all the time. I want to know you as Larlo who makes a mean hamburger, not Larla the flamboyant lesbian.

Dylan Mulvaney didn't blast anything in your face. The conservative media you follow is who did that. Place blame where it belongs, and stop following dumb conservative outlets that amplify it in your face if you don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want you to keep it in the bedroom. I don't want it blasted in my face 24/7. I don't want to talk about it all the time. I want to know you as Larlo who makes a mean hamburger, not Larla the flamboyant lesbian.

Yeah well we can have that once there are no longer people trying to eradicate the LGBTQ community. And please say those people don't exist. There are still huge swaths of people, mostly from conservative religious communities, who think that it is sinful to be LGBTQ, that they are subhumans, that they don't deserve all the rights that heteros have, that they should be able to discriminate against that community.

And no one is "making" you talk about this. Sorry if you think it's blasting it in your face to watch a film or tv show with a gay couple. Or to see someone in drag. Or to see a trans person. It clearly makes you uncomfortable. What if your very being and appearance made others uncomfortable and you were asked to change the way you dressed/presented yourself because of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want you to keep it in the bedroom. I don't want it blasted in my face 24/7. I don't want to talk about it all the time. I want to know you as Larlo who makes a mean hamburger, not Larla the flamboyant lesbian.

Dylan Mulvaney didn't blast anything in your face. The conservative media you follow is who did that. Place blame where it belongs, and stop following dumb conservative outlets that amplify it in your face if you don't like it.

DP. She was the face of the ad campaign. She made a big splash - that was exactly what Bud Light wanted. But then it didn't have the positive effect they were looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When our nation expanded gay rights-- and I was an early adopter to this notion-- it was because I thought it would be good for families. Gay people could have marriages, kids, and normal lives. In the past couple years, this has changed into an overtly "sexual revolution" message that places an emphasis on personal sexual fulfillment rather than emphasizing the importance of family unity. I think this is harmful to society, and while we should certainly tolerate people who choose to live promiscuous, self-indulgent lifestyles (straight or gay), this shouldn't be celebrated and promoted in the form of state sponsored parades with public nudity or otherwise salacious dress, books in public schools for children, and the White House declaring this lifestyle the "bravest and most courageous." We don't celebrate families in this way, and raising a family is both difficult and essential for society. I think using taxpayer money to promote sexual promiscuity is a step too far and too "Brave New World" ("promiscuity is a citizen's duty"-- literal quote from the book). One way to destroy a culture is to weaken personal relationships, and I am highly suspicious of the intent behind the assault on families (again, gay or straight) and the extreme emphasis on individual sexual gratification as the ultimate good. Biden's recent comments about how all kids are everyone's kids is, again, straight out of Brave New World ("everyone belongs to everyone"). Just like when you prioritize everything, nothing is a priority-- when you make everyone belong to everyone, then no one belongs to anyone. As they say, when people show you who they are- believe them. We all saw them disrobe in front of the white house, in a crowd of likeminded revolutionaries, and shake their bare chests on a video.
In front of Biden, the secret service, etc. I believe them; they intend to destroy our culture and our values by debasing what we used to find important (the American dream) and replace it with a new priority of sexuality as the supreme value. In other words, to me, this isn't about being gay or being straight. It's about an insidious attempt to destroy our society from the inside out in order to gain control. So, what limits do I want on gay people? None. What limits do I want on l the government promoting gender confusion, while also baking in parental alienation as an actual policy? Limits on the use of elected positions to promote sexual promiscuity? I want total cessation of this.

This is not persuasive. Conservatives are famously opposed to sexual shenanigans in the WH, and impeached Bill Clinton for it. Showing that yet another democrat president did it, too, isn't going to change our minds.