Elizabeth Price2 said:Look, in the context you're laying out, what you're saying just doesn't track at all—it makes zero sense! But honestly, that’s exactly where the kicker is: why is incest strictly off-limits while homosexuality is being pushed so hard now (even though, let's be real, that used to be illegal too)? To me, it feels like someone—heaven knows whose agenda or motives are driving this—just decided to draw a line in the sand at a totally nonsensical spot. They basically just said, "Okay, homosexuality is fine, but other sexual deviations? Hard pass." (And hey, I've got more to say about this later in the post!)
Look, I’ve already laid this out for you—my whole thing isn't even about reproduction or being "pro" or "anti" homosexuality. It’s about being consistent! You can't play the big-shot liberal role, preaching all this tolerance and being pro-homosexuality, while simultaneously drawing the line at incest. That just doesn't add up—it’s pure hypocrisy, plain and simple. Or maybe we’re all just waiting for the wind to shift? Like, maybe one day the mainstream media and the folks in Washington will decide that incest is actually "progressive" and start pushing it as something positive? And then everyone will just flip their stance because suddenly it’s "in" and "trendy"? And if you don't fall in line with that, you're labeled as primitive or intolerant? It’s wild, honestly.
Exactly! Honestly, I feel like a massive chunk of the people siding with the "AGAINST" crowd are only doing it because it's trendy—like, there's zero actual logic behind it. They just follow the herd. Someone basically whispered in their ear that being against it makes them look progressive and civilized, you know? And then they've been fed this whole stereotype that anyone on the "FOR" side is just some uneducated, primitive thug or a total wreck—basically a caricature of a low-life—and boom, that’s how they distance themselves from actually thinking things through. It's wild!
So, why am I personally against homosexuality? Honestly—it’s because I view it as a disorder, just another type of sexual deviation. To me, it sits right up there with things like incest or polygamy.
So, okay... transgender people (I'm not even sure if that's the right way to put it, my bad!). I honestly just cannot wrap my head around how anyone can look at someone else and say, "Yeah, it’s totally fine and completely normal that you don't feel comfortable in your assigned gender and want to be something else." Like, seriously? They go through all of it—hormone treatments, surgeries, and basically everything else imaginable. I am trying *so* hard here to figure out how someone looking in from the outside can find this acceptable—and where exactly should our tolerance as a society end? Where do we need to draw the line and say, "Okay, this is fine, but this is where we stop"? Why? And what does "tolerance" even actually mean anyway? 😁
Just look at how things play out in the Netherlands, for example. And hey, look, I’m not calling it hypocrisy—it’s actually just being consistent, and honestly, props to them for that. But here's the kicker for all you folks who are totally fine with homosexuality and don't see anything wrong with it: would you be down to follow the Netherlands' lead to the absolute extreme? Like, are you all for gradually lowering the legal age of consent? Or maybe even legalizing public sex? I mean, heck, maybe they even have incest legalized too (I did a quick Google search and—lo and behold—it looks like they might!):
From what I've been seeing in this debate so far, it feels like a lot of people on the "AGAINST" side have this massive mental block. They won't even try to look at the bigger picture or consider different angles; they just flat-out refuse to draw any comparison between homosexuality and other deviations... man, I honestly have no clue why it's like that. 🤷
Look, maybe there’s a bit of hypocrisy coming from your side of the fence here, but I’m not going to play that game. Honestly? I get the impression your thinking is incredibly shallow. You keep circling back to how people call you names or label you a primitive, but all I see is you doing the exact same thing—labeling anyone who disagrees with you, attacking their ability to reason, and recycling that tired old argument about "consistency." It’s exhausting. All you’ve done is parrot the standard script your crowd loves to spout: that anyone on the "other side" is brainwashed, just following some trendy "modern" fad, or simply incapable of independent thought. It’s a predictable loop. And let’s get real for a second—you don't actually know me. You have no clue who I am or what I stand for. So, really, where do you get off deciding that I don't think for myself? Since when did you become the authority on my own brain?
Look, here’s some friendly advice: maybe try using that brain of yours just a little bit more before you start slapping labels on everyone you talk to. A little more civility and actually backing up your arguments would go a long way. Seriously, can we try having a real conversation for once?
You probably think you're making some grand point by coming out here and claiming that homosexuality or polygamy are "disorders" (whatever that's even supposed to mean to you). But let’s be real for a second—unless you happen to be holding a medical degree or have any actual authority to diagnose anyone, you're just talking. Usually, when people lack the credentials, they just fall back on "common sense," right? I know exactly how these debates go. They assume their specific upbringing or whatever they personally find incomprehensible is somehow synonymous with universal common sense. Honestly, you really ought to show some respect for the professionals who actually have the qualifications to speak on these things.
So, let me get this straight—can you actually explain, in plain English, how polygamy or polyamory is considered some kind of psychological disorder? Are you seriously trying to claim that falling for more than one person at the same time is a mental illness?! Or is it just that you find the idea of someone wanting to be married to multiple people completely incomprehensible and unacceptable?
If that’s really how you see it, then yeah, I’m totally with you—it’s pretty mind-boggling. But look, I’m not going to go throwing around heavy labels like "disorder" just to make a point. At the end of the day, this stuff is baked into the culture of certain societies. You probably already know that there have been plenty of cultures throughout history that managed to thrive even while practicing polygamy. If you aren't familiar with that, I can definitely send over some links so you can see for yourself.
And finally, let me address the core issue here. No—regardless of what you think or whatever logic you’ve managed to cook up in your head, there is absolutely no reason why someone who supports the LGBTQ+ community should automatically be expected to back every single possible type of community out there. Good grief. I’ve already written about how hollow that whole "consistency" argument really is.
Look, I’ll be honest—I don't even have to be a proponent of polygamy to see where this is going. You don't need to be "pro" to look at the logic here. For starters, let's get one thing straight: polygamy isn't a sexual orientation. It shouldn't even be categorized that way. Then there's the practical side of things; honestly, does that sound manageable? Given the legal framework we're working with in the States, trying to regulate something that chaotic would be a total nightmare from a legal standpoint. And finally, am I right in thinking this would trigger massive social shifts? I’m convinced that legalizing polygamy would cause far more seismic changes to our social fabric than the regulation of same-sex marriage ever did. It’s just a different level of complexity entirely, isn't it?
If we actually legalized same-sex marriage, I honestly don't see how it would change anything for the rest of society. It’s not like heterosexual people are suddenly going to start rushing out to sign up for same-sex marriages just because they can, right? That doesn't make any sense. For those who are already part of the LGBTQ+ community, it would simply give them a stronger incentive to feel integrated into the fabric of our society, nothing more. At the end of the day, it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on traditional heterosexual marriages.
On the other hand, if polygamy were actually legalized, you have to consider that a massive number of straight people might suddenly opt into polygamous communities—not just the folks who’ve been asking for it from day one. We're talking about a total reorganization and restructuring of our entire social fabric here, which honestly sounds pretty radical to me. Still, at the end of the day, I realize we're talking about individual free will. I wouldn't go around trying to stop anyone from doing what they want, but it would probably lead to some pretty wild shifts in how everything works.
Honestly, I wouldn't even cast a vote either way on a change like that. I’m not really pro-polygamy, but I’m not anti-polygamy either. In principle, I’m perfectly happy with our current social structure, but then again, I don't see why anyone should be forbidden from doing what they want.
At the same time, I completely get those folks who argue that marriage should strictly be reserved for heterosexual unions because of the fundamental differences in relationship dynamics. (Just so you know, I'm against this referendum for several other strong reasons that I won't get into right now). That approach avoids any kind of radicalization, allowing both the more conservative and the more liberal perspectives to coexist peacefully.
I think I’ve rambled enough. I was just trying to signal to you that maybe you should take a moment to reflect on your own stances and not take everything for granted. On top of that, I wanted to clarify how someone could reasonably support one side while rejecting the other, given that we are essentially talking about two entirely different issues here.
