Are LGBT groups and their lobbyists making inappropriate statements?

bluecyclist64 said:Yeah, and?
Where exactly is the hate speech in that?
What, if someone said they wanted to drain Central Park, would you call that hate speech too?

It’s nothing more than mindless bluster. Calling that hate speech is a stretch, for heaven's sake...

It feels like this whole movement by these small activist groups is really just about spreading animosity and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
For instance, labeling someone the "homophobe of the year"—that’s basically just a media lynching, isn't it?
Then there's the disrespect toward religious beliefs, like using an image of Madonna in that way.
It creates this atmosphere of fear where if you don't join in the loud chanting of "gay is okay," your opinion is treated as unacceptable, or even criminal.

Why are people who don't value traditional marriage or faith trying to force their worldview onto those who do—even pushing for gay marriages within the church?

The bottom line is that none of this actually helps the LGBTQ+ community. All it does is stir up more resentment among everyday Americans who aren't even directly involved in these debates.

Reverse psychology is a total game changer if you play it right. These days, calling out a chauvinist for being a chauvinist is somehow treated like hate speech, even when they’re busy spewing all those typical bigoted views toward some minority group.

bluecyclist64 said:I’ve been scrolling through this entire thread, and frankly, I haven't encountered a single instance of hate speech coming from any of the LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.

Could someone please rename this thread? The current title is completely devoid of logic.

Real hate speech is dressing LGBTQ+ people up in old-school youth camp uniforms, putting them in those vintage paramilitary outfits, and waving flags with fascist symbols like the five-pointed star. That is actual hate speech.☕

bluerider63 said:Reverse psychology is a total game changer if you play it right. These days, calling out a chauvinist for being a chauvinist is somehow treated like hate speech, even when they’re busy spewing all those typical bigoted views toward some minority group.

It’s the same deal when you call people who burned down towns and terrorized Americans what they actually were—terrorists—instead of labeling them "rebels."
Calling for an immediate purge of anyone who held office under the old regime at KPH and removing them from public life is apparently considered hate speech too. Not to mention demanding that we prosecute former FBI informants and undercover agents through the courts.🙄

redbear12 said:comparing it to Central Park 🙄

But how is it "nonsense" now when everyone was all about marriage before? ☕

To me, that sounds like "we're gonna destroy marriage," and then next thing you know, they're calling anyone who disagrees a fascist. Does nobody actually agree with that?

EDIT: maybe I should actually sit down and watch the whole video. I think he’s arguing that making same-sex marriage a right is just a pre-political move designed specifically to tear down the institution of marriage.

Does this group even realize what they're doing? They were whining about their rights being taken away, and now they're out here pushing an initiative to wreck marriage in the exact same month. Can anyone here actually do basic math? ☕

Who exactly are we talking about? Do you honestly believe that a handful of individuals appearing in the media can possibly represent the entire community—or are they merely representing one tiny, insignificant fraction of them? It’s worth questioning how small that group actually is.

It’s the same old tired script: they label any dissenting opinion as "hate speech," claiming we’re going to dismantle the very foundation of marriage itself. Then, once they’ve finished that particular crusade, they pivot to accusing everyone of being a fascist. It’s become a predictable cycle. In their eyes, if you don't fall perfectly in line with their specific brand of morality, you're automatically branded a fascist. Honestly, it’s exhausting to watch this binary logic play out in public discourse.

And what exactly gives you the authority to sit there and decide what qualifies as hate speech and what doesn't? You’ve made it abundantly clear that you don't have the slightest clue what the term actually means, yet you continue to hammer away at it relentlessly, applying it to situations where it simply doesn't belong. It's quite a performance.

I might actually make an effort to sit down and watch the entire video. From what I gather, the speaker is arguing that the push for same-sex marriage is essentially a pre-political maneuver—just another tactical item on the agenda designed specifically to dismantle the traditional institution of marriage.

Given his reputation as such a staunch defender of traditional marriage, I honestly expected a much more rigorous approach to this issue. It’s frankly baffling how he hasn't even sat down to watch the full video yet.
Utterly ridiculous.

Does anyone else find this group completely baffling? The same people who were just wailing about their rights being stripped away are now making statements in the exact same month that there was an initiative to dismantle the very concept of marriage. Honestly, I’m struggling to see how they can claim such blatant hypocrisy. It feels like they can't even perform basic arithmetic. ☕

Good grief, why on earth would you let those peasants and their mindless rambling get to you?

Steven Wood72 said:Of course their hate speech needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms—that's non-negotiable. It’s just as obvious that their ultimate goal is the destruction of marriage and traditional values. But let's be real: these various LGBT organizations have been quite frankly manipulated—others are using them as a front to push their own agendas, but it won't work. It shouldn't, and it won't.

Here we go again. Another absolute genius at work.
What exactly do you mean by hate speech? Could you provide an actual example?

It is just as painfully obvious that their ultimate objective is the systematic dismantling of marriage and the erosion of our traditional values.

Well, they can certainly get away with it. We live in a democracy, after all, where such actions are considered entirely legal and legitimate. If we’re suggesting that certain activists have the power to dismantle the sanctity of marriage, then we’re bordering on pure absurdity. It’s like saying a group of fruit enthusiasts managed to lobby the government to ban every single food source except for fruit. It’s complete nonsense.

Let's be realistic: various LGBT organizations have been thoroughly manipulated. They serve as nothing more than vehicles for outside interests trying to push their own agendas, but they won't succeed. It shouldn't happen, and frankly, it won't.

Who else are we talking about here? The Masons? Reptilians? Reticulans? 🍿

Bradley Scott2 said:It feels like this whole movement by these small activist groups is really just about spreading animosity and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
For instance, labeling someone the "homophobe of the year"—that’s basically just a media lynching, isn't it?
Then there's the disrespect toward religious beliefs, like using an image of Madonna in that way.
It creates this atmosphere of fear where if you don't join in the loud chanting of "gay is okay," your opinion is treated as unacceptable, or even criminal.

Why are people who don't value traditional marriage or faith trying to force their worldview onto those who do—even pushing for gay marriages within the church?

The bottom line is that none of this actually helps the LGBTQ+ community. All it does is stir up more resentment among everyday Americans who aren't even directly involved in these debates.

Not by a long shot. I don't consider it hate speech, an insult, or some kind of moral outrage to point out that people like Markićka are nothing more than primitive, reactionary agitators. It isn’t an opinion; it’s a plain fact. These are the types of individuals who dedicate their lives to trying to strip away the fundamental freedoms and rights of everyone else.

Take, for instance, this whole spectacle of crowning some poor soul the "homophobe of the year." If you ask me, it’s nothing more than a calculated media lynching designed to tear someone down under the guise of social justice.

What a media lynching. Honestly, in a country where nearly 90% of the population identifies as Catholic, being branded "Homophobe of the Year" is actually quite the achievement—if you look at it realistically, it’s almost a badge of honor.

It’s one thing to challenge tradition, but it’s quite another to be deliberately provocative by using imagery like two Madonnas locked in an embrace to insult religious sensibilities. It feels less like art and more like a calculated attempt to stir up resentment.

That poster is truly exceptional; it captures the essence of the play’s plot perfectly. However, we have to contend with a certain subset of people who lack the capacity to grasp either the fundamental nature of art or the nuance of what actually constitutes an offense.
Even the most devout follower of Madonna wouldn't be offended by a poster like that, no matter how provocative it might seem. But her cult of personality? Those devotees... they’re the ones who take offense at everything.

We are witnessing the rise of a sort of ideological climate terror. It has reached a point where any opinion that doesn't involve enthusiastically shouting "being gay is fine" from the rooftops is treated as something unacceptable—if not outright criminal.

A climate of terror? Are we seriously suggesting that activists are patrolling the streets to harass heterosexual people? Or that companies are handing out pink slips to anyone who refuses to march in a Pride parade?
What kind of hallucinations are we even talking about? Honestly, I find the term a bit hyperbolic when applied to these situations. It’s more like a fundamental disagreement on reality than anyone actually seeing things that aren't there. I remember back when I was working in downtown Chicago, dealing with some particularly delusional project managers—they weren't hallucinating, they were just willfully ignoring the data right in front of them. We seem to be following that same pattern here.

I find myself constantly wondering why those who hold no regard for the sanctity of marriage or traditional faith feel such an intense compulsion to impose their worldview on everyone else. It seems to be an endless cycle where people who reject these foundational pillars of society insist that those who cherish them must somehow validate their own shifting moral landscape—even going so far as to demand that religious institutions permit same-sex ceremonies within their sacred walls.

It’s because they’re a bunch of complete amateurs who don't have the slightest clue what they actually want.
On the other hand, you have those people who take issue with same-sex couples marrying in a church. I honestly don't understand why anyone would find that offensive. If we are all expected to share the same grocery stores, hospitals, and sidewalks, why draw a line at a religious ceremony? How exactly is a same-sex marriage supposed to diminish the sanctity or the validity of my own marriage, or yours? It just doesn't follow.

The crux of the matter is that none of this actually serves the interests of the gay community, nor does it contribute anything meaningful to their overall well-being. In reality, all this posturing just fuels a growing sense of resentment among the average American citizen—people who aren't even particularly affected by these issues, yet find themselves increasingly alienated by them.

It stands as it is. I know several members of the LGBTQ+ community who would agree with you completely on this point. And even if I were part of that community myself, the idea of participating in such counterproductive displays would never even cross my mind.

bluerider63 said:Reverse psychology is a total game changer if you play it right. These days, calling out a chauvinist for being a chauvinist is somehow treated like hate speech, even when they’re busy spewing all those typical bigoted views toward some minority group.

Exactly. It’s quite a fascinating dynamic. You tell someone who is loudly broadcasting fascist sentiments that they are, in fact, a fascist, and suddenly you're the one facing the social sanctions.
In my experience, the most exhausting group consists of these young, radicalized internet types who throw around terms like communism, fascism, totalitarianism, and hate speech like they’re playing a game of Mad Libs—they toss them around with the reckless abandon of a rookie linebacker charging blindly into a line of scrimmage, yet none of them actually possess a fundamental understanding of the concepts they're weaponizing. It is genuinely disheartening to witness just how uneducated the younger generations have become regarding basic political theory.

granitefalcon26 said:Real hate speech is dressing LGBTQ+ people up in old-school youth camp uniforms, putting them in those vintage paramilitary outfits, and waving flags with fascist symbols like the five-pointed star. That is actual hate speech.☕

Please, spare us the endless rambling. Pick up an actual textbook and learn the definition of hate speech.

bluerider63 said:Reverse psychology is a total game changer if you play it right. These days, calling out a chauvinist for being a chauvinist is somehow treated like hate speech, even when they’re busy spewing all those typical bigoted views toward some minority group.

Of course it does, mostly because the word "chauvinist" has been diluted so much it’s basically used to describe everything and nothing at once.

Bradley Scott2 said:It feels like this whole movement by these small activist groups is really just about spreading animosity and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
For instance, labeling someone the "homophobe of the year"—that’s basically just a media lynching, isn't it?
Then there's the disrespect toward religious beliefs, like using an image of Madonna in that way.
It creates this atmosphere of fear where if you don't join in the loud chanting of "gay is okay," your opinion is treated as unacceptable, or even criminal.

Why are people who don't value traditional marriage or faith trying to force their worldview onto those who do—even pushing for gay marriages within the church?

The bottom line is that none of this actually helps the LGBTQ+ community. All it does is stir up more resentment among everyday Americans who aren't even directly involved in these debates.

The most interesting part of this whole saga is how people argue that marriage is something that needs to be dismantled.
When you consider that most of the gay community doesn't even care about marriage—and that political focus on gay marriage is inversely proportional to their actual interest—it’s easy to connect the dots when you add in all those statements from movement leaders and pseudo-ideologues calling for the destruction of marriage.

And the second a large group of people stands up to defend marriage, they immediately start throwing around labels like "chauvinism" to try and shut everyone up.

bluerider63 said:Reverse psychology is a total game changer if you play it right. These days, calling out a chauvinist for being a chauvinist is somehow treated like hate speech, even when they’re busy spewing all those typical bigoted views toward some minority group.

Are you actually playing dumb on purpose?☕

Anyway, I read the whole article covering what went down at the conference.

The guy wants to tear down marriage and nobody's even stopping him. And we aren't talking about the gay community here; it's about gender ideology. It's true, Judas, they don't represent the views of the entire gay population.

Someone asked how such a tiny percentage of people can threaten the majority. Well, it all depends on what kind of positions those few people hold within the country.

It really just comes down to the fact that some people flat-out refuse to accept reality. They just keep spinning and spinning even though everything is crystal clear. Total pros at gaslighting and making excuses. ☕

Jessica Kelly4 said:The most interesting part of this whole saga is how people argue that marriage is something that needs to be dismantled.
When you consider that most of the gay community doesn't even care about marriage—and that political focus on gay marriage is inversely proportional to their actual interest—it’s easy to connect the dots when you add in all those statements from movement leaders and pseudo-ideologues calling for the destruction of marriage.

And the second a large group of people stands up to defend marriage, they immediately start throwing around labels like "chauvinism" to try and shut everyone up.

I honestly don't get how they aren't embarrassed to still be pushing these views.

Are people really that blind?

It's funny, because if you actually dug into the truth of it, they'd do anything to avoid talking about it.

Judas; said:What do you mean "everyone"? You really think a handful of guys in the spotlight represent the ENTIRE LGBTQ+ community—or even just a tiny slice of it? It’s a question.

They aren't representing the whole gay population; they're pushing an agenda.

Quincy:

And what makes you an expert on what counts as hate speech and what doesn't? You clearly have no clue what that term actually means, but hey, it sounds fancy, so you just throw it around until you're blue in the face where it doesn't even belong.

Maybe I don't. 🤷

Trying to tear down the institution of marriage isn't just hate speech; it's a blueprint for hatred itself.

Quincy:

I expected a much more serious approach from someone claiming to be such a defender of marriage. How is it possible you haven't even watched the full video yet? Totally ridiculous.

I read the article that tracks the whole debate.

The statement at the 1:29 mark is crystal clear.

Quincy:

What on earth does their whining and nonsense have to do with you?

It has everything to do with me. They're talking about destroying marriage, yet all this time they've been painting us as the ones infringing on people's rights.

So if that's not the case, then the other participants need to step up and publicly distance themselves from that talk about destroying marriage.

Alright, I'll actually try to be serious for a second.
The idea of redefining marriage—or just watching the whole institution vanish—isn't some new invention by the LGBTQ+ movement; it actually stems from feminism.
A certain wing of the feminist movement views traditional marriage as nothing more than a cage for women, a system designed to reduce them to mere biological functions like motherhood or childcare.
Since the LGBTQ+ community and feminist activists occupy the same side of the political spectrum, they’ve become natural allies, constantly backing one another up.
Back when the "marriage equality" movement first kicked off, there was a massive debate over whether pursuing it was worth it. Some argued it was just giving more legitimacy to an outdated institution, while others felt like we were essentially "betraying our sisters."
Ultimately, the consensus landed on equality being the priority. Everyone should have the right to enter into a marriage if they choose, even if they aren't doing it out of any specific ideological motivation.

rowdytiger13 said:Alright, I'll actually try to be serious for a second.
The idea of redefining marriage—or just watching the whole institution vanish—isn't some new invention by the LGBTQ+ movement; it actually stems from feminism.
A certain wing of the feminist movement views traditional marriage as nothing more than a cage for women, a system designed to reduce them to mere biological functions like motherhood or childcare.
Since the LGBTQ+ community and feminist activists occupy the same side of the political spectrum, they’ve become natural allies, constantly backing one another up.
Back when the "marriage equality" movement first kicked off, there was a massive debate over whether pursuing it was worth it. Some argued it was just giving more legitimacy to an outdated institution, while others felt like we were essentially "betraying our sisters."
Ultimately, the consensus landed on equality being the priority. Everyone should have the right to enter into a marriage if they choose, even if they aren't doing it out of any specific ideological motivation.

This might be the most blatant attempt to dodge the actual point

I gotta hand it to you, 👍

So basically, we just have to shut up and swallow it because our feminist friends say so, right? 🤔

Bolden. Seriously, why is anyone even asking for the right to join an outdated institution? 🤔

Looking at the video, it’s obvious: everyone is on board with tearing marriage down. Everyone agrees, even if they’re just staying quiet about it. PERIOD.

Now you're claiming it's an obsolete institution (or are you just parroting what they say?). If it's so "outdated," why the hell were they whining so much about the right to marry in the first place? VERY INTERESTING.

rowdytiger13 said:Alright, I'll actually try to be serious for a second.
The idea of redefining marriage—or just watching the whole institution vanish—isn't some new invention by the LGBTQ+ movement; it actually stems from feminism.
A certain wing of the feminist movement views traditional marriage as nothing more than a cage for women, a system designed to reduce them to mere biological functions like motherhood or childcare.
Since the LGBTQ+ community and feminist activists occupy the same side of the political spectrum, they’ve become natural allies, constantly backing one another up.
Back when the "marriage equality" movement first kicked off, there was a massive debate over whether pursuing it was worth it. Some argued it was just giving more legitimacy to an outdated institution, while others felt like we were essentially "betraying our sisters."
Ultimately, the consensus landed on equality being the priority. Everyone should have the right to enter into a marriage if they choose, even if they aren't doing it out of any specific ideological motivation.

You're right. Those feminist roots are obvious, along with the aggressive rhetoric. The drive to dismantle marriage is much stronger than the actual pursuit of equality, as you noted. It’s even more apparent because they clearly have zero interest in marriage as a practice. For them, marriage is just a tool used to tear down tradition.

Marriage is inherently discriminatory by definition. If it weren't, the concept would lose all meaning—if marriage is everything, then it's nothing. In its current form, it has symbolism, legal structure, practical utility, and the reasonable assumption that it provides the best environment for raising children while following biological complementarity.

Questioning things isn't bad, but if you want to redefine something this fundamental, you need much better arguments than what we're seeing.

So, I suppose we're just going to pretend there was absolutely no hate speech involved here.

Could someone please rename this thread and strip away that ridiculous title? As it stands, it’s nothing more than a blatant smear campaign against LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.

bluecyclist64 said:So, I suppose we're just going to pretend there was absolutely no hate speech involved here.

Could someone please rename this thread and strip away that ridiculous title? As it stands, it’s nothing more than a blatant smear campaign against LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.

Personally, I think wearing old-school fascist paramilitary uniforms and waving the flags of failed, totalitarian regimes counts as hate speech.☕

Jessica Kelly4 said:You're right. Those feminist roots are obvious, along with the aggressive rhetoric. The drive to dismantle marriage is much stronger than the actual pursuit of equality, as you noted. It’s even more apparent because they clearly have zero interest in marriage as a practice. For them, marriage is just a tool used to tear down tradition.

Marriage is inherently discriminatory by definition. If it weren't, the concept would lose all meaning—if marriage is everything, then it's nothing. In its current form, it has symbolism, legal structure, practical utility, and the reasonable assumption that it provides the best environment for raising children while following biological complementarity.

Questioning things isn't bad, but if you want to redefine something this fundamental, you need much better arguments than what we're seeing.

I don't follow the feminist scene too closely, but I think the goal is for marriage to be a contract between two individuals without those stereotypical roles being imposed... especially on women.
Traditional marriage places women in a subordinate position to men, and that’s exactly what they want to eliminate.
Recently, feminist groups have been protesting the stereotypical portrayal of women in elementary school textbooks, where women are shown exclusively as mothers or wives stuck in the kitchen while the father works and brings home the paycheck. That’s the degradation they're talking about.
They’ve also pushed back against the idea that only women should have maternity leave (which was the standard practice until recently), viewing that as another form of degradation. Why shouldn't a man stay home to raise the kids, cook, and clean while the woman builds a career and provides the income?
And why does a woman have to be a mother to achieve fulfillment as a person? That’s another stereotype forced by traditional marriage—that a woman's primary role is motherhood and the sole purpose of marriage is offspring.
That’s what they are trying to redefine.
Many lesbian activists are also feminists—not all, but it's common for the two movements to share views. One of the most prominent activists here in the States is also a feminist.
By the way, I found that girl's commentary on the distancing from the labor movement and union struggles quite interesting, and that movement sits on the same side of things. However, that solidarity often gets overshadowed by snobbery and salon leftists.

redbear12 said:This might be the most blatant attempt to dodge the actual point

I gotta hand it to you, 👍

So basically, we just have to shut up and swallow it because our feminist friends say so, right? 🤔

Bolden. Seriously, why is anyone even asking for the right to join an outdated institution? 🤔

Looking at the video, it’s obvious: everyone is on board with tearing marriage down. Everyone agrees, even if they’re just staying quiet about it. PERIOD.

Now you're claiming it's an obsolete institution (or are you just parroting what they say?). If it's so "outdated," why the hell were they whining so much about the right to marry in the first place? VERY INTERESTING.

Well, I already gave you my answer.
Because at the end of the day, the fight for equality for the LGBTQ+ community is the top priority.

On topic: You often hear feminists rambling about subordination within a marriage, but let’s be realistic—it all comes down to the private agreements made between partners. In this country, there isn't some legal mandate forcing a woman to handle the laundry, nor is there a law compelling a man to split the firewood.
From a purely logical standpoint, though, I find my wife is more than happy to take care of the laundry when she sees me out there handling the heavy lifting around the house.
Furthermore, I want to make one thing clear: I am fundamentally opposed to this modern nonsense regarding "Parent A" and "Parent B." If it isn't Mom and Dad, then it's Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad; anything else is just unnecessary social engineering.

bluecyclist64 said:On topic: You often hear feminists rambling about subordination within a marriage, but let’s be realistic—it all comes down to the private agreements made between partners. In this country, there isn't some legal mandate forcing a woman to handle the laundry, nor is there a law compelling a man to split the firewood.
From a purely logical standpoint, though, I find my wife is more than happy to take care of the laundry when she sees me out there handling the heavy lifting around the house.
Furthermore, I want to make one thing clear: I am fundamentally opposed to this modern nonsense regarding "Parent A" and "Parent B." If it isn't Mom and Dad, then it's Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad; anything else is just unnecessary social engineering.

So, what? Are you trying to ignore the will of the American people who believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman??☕