Are LGBT groups and their lobbyists making inappropriate statements?

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.

True, but that misses the point; it's more about how kids are raised from day one with values that reinforce those traditional roles, effectively keeping women in a secondary position.
The stereotypical depiction of women in our school textbooks—like in biology class—is a perfect example of that kind of conditioning.

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.

Honestly, whenever activists start slapping labels like "homophobic" or "clerical fascist" on people just because they hold different values, that’s when you see real hate speech. They aren't defending anyone; they're just fueling the fire and creating massive intolerance by targeting anyone who doesn't jump through their hoops. It's all about driving a wedge between people.

The second these groups stop calling everything "hate speech" just because it disagrees with their agenda—and stop inciting hostility toward anyone with a different viewpoint—then maybe we can talk about changing the title.

rowdytiger13 said: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.

Bold move. We all get it—equality comes first. But apparently, that means we have to tear down marriage entirely and label anyone who disagrees as a fascist. Throw in some cancel culture on top for good measure.

Is one statement about destroying marriage really worth more than the fight for equal rights?

If this was actually about progress, why wouldn't a queer activist talk about "reforming" marriage to fit your logic? Instead, they go straight for the word "destroy." That’s a choice.

redbear12 said:Bold move. We all get it—equality comes first. But apparently, that means we have to tear down marriage entirely and label anyone who disagrees as a fascist. Throw in some cancel culture on top for good measure.

Is one statement about destroying marriage really worth more than the fight for equal rights?

If this was actually about progress, why wouldn't a queer activist talk about "reforming" marriage to fit your logic? Instead, they go straight for the word "destroy." That’s a choice.

That wasn't an official media statement made on behalf of an organization; it was just someone speaking at a panel where everyone is invited to share their own views.
It’s a classic example of that performative, high-society liberalism, but that’s beside the point.😁
As for why he phrased it that way, I couldn't tell you—you'd have to ask him.
The reality is that this is about redefining marriage, not destroying it. You're just hyper-focusing on a single word used during a discussion because it fits your narrative.

rowdytiger13 said: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.

Because reproduction is quite literally the foundation of society. It’s essential for biological survival and the preservation of any culture. There’s nothing wrong with promoting behavior that serves the greater good of the community. Activists, feminists, or whatever else can scream all they want, but millions of years of biological evolution have created deep physiological and psychological differences between men and women. You can't just toss out tens of thousands of years of cultural tradition built on that biology. Women carry, give birth, and nurture; men are more aggressive and play a fundamentally different role.

The idea that we should scrap all of this just because a tiny minority doesn't fit these roles is nonsense. I'm not buying it.

Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't organize or fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive gap between the political influence being wielded and the actual number of people who want to redefine marriage. It’s obvious something is off—all these organizations you mentioned, along with the concept of marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

rowdytiger13 said:True, but that misses the point; it's more about how kids are raised from day one with values that reinforce those traditional roles, effectively keeping women in a secondary position.
The stereotypical depiction of women in our school textbooks—like in biology class—is a perfect example of that kind of conditioning.

I’m convinced these differences run much deeper than just simple cultural conditioning.

I've read plenty of studies, most of which contradict each other, so I just try to look at the world through common sense instead of drowning in that chaos.

It isn't just about sex-specific traits or family genetics; I truly believe children are born as engineers, artists, or philosophers—they come with a core set of inclinations that we need to recognize and actually help guide.

The whole gender roles debate makes sense if you view equality as everyone in a partnership—including a marriage—sharing responsibilities, rights, and perks equally. Anything beyond that is just blowing smoke.

rowdytiger13 said:That wasn't an official media statement made on behalf of an organization; it was just someone speaking at a panel where everyone is invited to share their own views.
It’s a classic example of that performative, high-society liberalism, but that’s beside the point.😁
As for why he phrased it that way, I couldn't tell you—you'd have to ask him.
The reality is that this is about redefining marriage, not destroying it. You're just hyper-focusing on a single word used during a discussion because it fits your narrative.

It wasn't a media statement, so yeah, things were probably meant to be a bit more low-key.

The article claims they were framing the right to same-sex marriage as just a pre-political stepping stone for something even bigger.

If everyone is supposed to be free to share their views, then why didn't anyone else step up and say he went way too far?

Bolded. I love it because it’s living proof.

Go ahead, keep claiming we’ve got these wild conspiracy theories. Maybe that’s just what you need to hear to feel right.☕

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

A little bit of anti-gay math

Alright, so the goal here is to prove that 0=1.

That’s the mission.

(Same-sex = hetero)

0 is a constant representing same-sex unions, since there are no kids involved.

And a constant stays fixed, right? It doesn't budge.

1 is the variable, representing the hetero community because they have kids—it’s a changing value.

So, let's run the numbers.

0=1

We can tweak either the left side of the equals sign or the right.

If we mess with the left, we get 0+1=1, but that's impossible because a constant can't change.

So the only way out is 0=1-1.

Which means we can only manipulate the variable (the 1).

Basically, you have to shrink it until you end up with 0=1-1 ----> 0=0.

So, by equating same-sex and hetero communities, you end up draining or totally nuking the meaning of the hetero community (the variable).

Look, I'm not some math genius or anything, I don't know much about equations, but I just figured this out. Pretty wild stuff.☕

The article claims they were arguing that marriage equality is just a pre-political stepping stone toward some much larger agenda.

Where? I wasn't exactly hanging on every word since some of them were honestly pretty tedious. I don't recall hearing anything like that. Who actually said it?

If everyone is supposedly free to voice their opinions, why didn't anyone else speak up and say he was overstepping?

Because you’ve got a group of people there who all share the same views, just showing up to clap for one another. That's basically the first half of the twenty or so people there. The rest just showed up hoping to find a date; they couldn't care less about what these guys are rambling on about.

granitefalcon26 said: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??☕

Honestly, I couldn't care less.
Though, I have to admit, there’s a certain satisfaction in watching the bigots and the primitives lose.

bluecyclist64 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less.
Though, I have to admit, there’s a certain satisfaction in watching the bigots and the primitives lose.

You're spot on, 👍 You guys are going to lose. 😁

rowdytiger13 said:

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

I don't care about outliers that fall within a margin of error. That's just a social pathology that needs its space, but it shouldn't be setting the standards for society.

rowdytiger13 said:

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

Agreed, though we need to see if this is progress or regression. Right now, all we see is change. Change always happens, but sometimes it just drags an entire culture toward destruction or assimilation.

rowdytiger13 said:

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

In Cleveland, nurses run the shelters. 🙂

rowdytiger13 said:

The article claims they were arguing that marriage equality is just a pre-political stepping stone toward some much larger agenda.

Where? I wasn't exactly hanging on every word since some of them were honestly pretty tedious. I don't recall hearing anything like that. Who actually said it?

If everyone is supposedly free to voice their opinions, why didn't anyone else speak up and say he was overstepping?

Because you’ve got a group of people there who all share the same views, just showing up to clap for one another. That's basically the first half of the twenty or so people there. The rest just showed up hoping to find a date; they couldn't care less about what these guys are rambling on about.

So you're basically admitting there's a whole crowd in there dedicated to tearing marriage apart?

Casey Mitchell72 said:Honestly, whenever activists start slapping labels like "homophobic" or "clerical fascist" on people just because they hold different values, that’s when you see real hate speech. They aren't defending anyone; they're just fueling the fire and creating massive intolerance by targeting anyone who doesn't jump through their hoops. It's all about driving a wedge between people.

The second these groups stop calling everything "hate speech" just because it disagrees with their agenda—and stop inciting hostility toward anyone with a different viewpoint—then maybe we can talk about changing the title.

I have to disagree. If someone is actually a homophobe, a Catholicophobe, or a clerical-fascist, calling them by those names isn't hate speech. It’s only when you slap those labels on someone who doesn't fit the description that you're actually engaging in hate speech.

That behavior essentially provokes and incites hatred against those groups, fostering intolerance and fueling animosity through public discourse, which only serves to intensify and deepen the divide.

We saw these kinds of tactics used in Germany during the 1930s; noticing these fascist methods isn't something reserved solely for the uneducated or the uninformed.

The moment these organizations and activists stop falsely branding every statement that contradicts their agenda as "hate speech"—once they stop creating and inciting hostility toward anyone with a differing opinion—perhaps then we can rethink the title of this article.

It's a classic bit of spin, reminiscent of how fascists try to sell snake oil.
The headline is complete garbage, mainly because nobody has bothered to provide a single actual example of hate speech coming from any LGBTQ+ advocacy group.
I'm not even sure if I have the "honor" of debating this lady. I've dealt with Markić before, and this is her textbook approach. To be blunt, it's a very fascistic style—Goebbels-esque, really—where facts are twisted and lies are repeated like a parrot.

GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH, YOU SPIN DOCTORS!

redbear12 said:So you're basically admitting there's a whole crowd in there dedicated to tearing marriage apart?

It isn't about destruction, it's more about redefining it, which is exactly how I laid it out in one of my previous posts.
And sure, if you want to call it that, I have nothing to confess; it's hardly a secret that reshaping social structures is a core objective for most feminist movements in America.
Edit: When people throw around the word "destruction," they usually mean dismantling traditional marriage and specifically the roles it expects women to play.

redbear12 said:So you're basically admitting there's a whole crowd in there dedicated to tearing marriage apart?

Fine, I'll admit it: there is absolutely a dedicated group of people out there focused on liberating garden gnomes from their suburban yards.

What’s our next move, genius? Should we call in the National Guard, the FBI, the local precinct, or maybe some private militias?

Give me a break. This is a total nothingburger—some random fringe bunch supposedly wants to "destroy marriage." How, exactly? Through sheer willpower? Or perhaps by using spray bottles?

I’d love to see who’s going to come after my marriage, because unless it’s me, my wife, or my mother-in-law, I highly doubt anyone has the coordination to pull it off.

bluecyclist64 said:Fine, I'll admit it: there is absolutely a dedicated group of people out there focused on liberating garden gnomes from their suburban yards.

What’s our next move, genius? Should we call in the National Guard, the FBI, the local precinct, or maybe some private militias?

Give me a break. This is a total nothingburger—some random fringe bunch supposedly wants to "destroy marriage." How, exactly? Through sheer willpower? Or perhaps by using spray bottles?

I’d love to see who’s going to come after my marriage, because unless it’s me, my wife, or my mother-in-law, I highly doubt anyone has the coordination to pull it off.

A creepy mailman? 😉

Jessica Kelly4 said:Because reproduction is quite literally the foundation of society. It’s essential for biological survival and the preservation of any culture. There’s nothing wrong with promoting behavior that serves the greater good of the community. Activists, feminists, or whatever else can scream all they want, but millions of years of biological evolution have created deep physiological and psychological differences between men and women. You can't just toss out tens of thousands of years of cultural tradition built on that biology. Women carry, give birth, and nurture; men are more aggressive and play a fundamentally different role.

The idea that we should scrap all of this just because a tiny minority doesn't fit these roles is nonsense. I'm not buying it.

Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't organize or fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive gap between the political influence being wielded and the actual number of people who want to redefine marriage. It’s obvious something is off—all these organizations you mentioned, along with the concept of marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

It's a mutual sort of love: just as one group seeks out the first, that first group is also looking for the second.
Watching this unfold is honestly pretty depressing—it reminds me of someone standing before the children of victims from some old war zone, lecturing them about fascism, only to turn around and lecture Palestinians about religious extremism when there isn't even a historical basis for it.
Then there’s this drive to hand over tens of thousands of USD to some small association, while powerful lobbies provide the financial, political, or even military muscle to help dismantle the institution of marriage.
For people who started their careers by singing songs for the military that destroyed Memphis and the USA, these modern avant-garde movements are a great way to get some cash and a bit of fame—much like how Obama and Madonna benefit.
And these LGBTQ+ groups seem to get support from everyone because the goal is just to give them a hand; nobody bothers to critically analyze the aid they receive, unlike how they constantly dissect the heterosexual community from every angle.
The end result is this chaotic mess where one social group cheers whenever another group runs into trouble—like during a strike, for instance—without realizing that once everything becomes a private matter, things will get a lot more expensive and every word will carry much more weight.
In the end, the real goal is to win over influential figures from all walks of life, but that's a pipe dream. Most of those high-profile folks, aside from a few pretentious intellectuals, don't really take a side in their own countries unless it hits close to home.
😉

Alright... it feels like someone here is intentionally playing dumb about this one point.
In a traditional marriage, the wife stays home. She’s subordinate to her husband—at least financially—because in that setup, it’s actually considered standard and beneficial for the woman to be a homemaker.
We don't see many genuine traditional marriages anymore, at least in the West, because women themselves revolted against those imposed roles through—heaven help us—the feminist movement.
That's really what we're talking about...
The LGBT movement is aligned with feminism, whereas theoretically, they should be siding with the labor movement; instead, they share the exact same stance regarding traditional marriage and the role of women within it.