Are LGBT groups and their lobbyists making inappropriate statements?

rowdytiger13 said: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.

You’re overestimating feminism.
It was hardworking, modest engineers who actually got women out of the house.
A washing machine did more for women's rights than the entire feminist movement combined.
But that’s a whole different conversation...

Jessica Kelly4 said:You’re overestimating feminism.
It was hardworking, modest engineers who actually got women out of the house.
A washing machine did more for women's rights than the entire feminist movement combined.
But that’s a whole different conversation...

That sounds like a typical take from Vatican City, an institution that, if history is any indication, rarely understands the reality of the world it comments on.

In an edition dedicated to International Women's Day in The New York Times, the publication noted how the invention of the washing machine effectively "liberated generations of women from the drudgery of domestic labor."

Link: http://www.fx-files.com/zanimljivost...go-pilula.html

Jessica Kelly4 said:You’re overestimating feminism.
It was hardworking, modest engineers who actually got women out of the house.
A washing machine did more for women's rights than the entire feminist movement combined.
But that’s a whole different conversation...

The feminist movement actually accomplished quite a bit for women's rights, considering they weren't allowed to become those "diligent and humble engineers" in the first place; back then, people assumed women lacked the intellectual capacity for it.
Women were barred from attending universities because the prevailing logic was that you don't need an education just to raise kids. Women changed all of that themselves by proving they were just as smart and capable as men—making them the true original feminists.
And that’s not even mentioning the right to vote.

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.

That’s such a spicy take! I actually wanted to post something similar myself but chickened out because I didn't want to get roasted and have to spend hours Googling links to prove my point. But seriously, do you think today's feminists are even qualified to talk about what women actually go through in marriage?

rowdytiger13 said: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.

I don't know, traditional marriage isn't quite what it used to be. It still has its core essence, but it’s modernized without losing its soul. Women aren't just stuck in the kitchen anymore; they work just like men do, they're financially independent, or at least they have that choice. If someone *wants* to be a stay-at-home mom, why shouldn't they? Today's version of a traditional marriage isn't that old-school setup where the woman was confined to the house and a stove.

Quincy:

True story, there are hardly any "real" traditional marriages left, at least here in the States, mostly because women themselves pushed back against those forced roles—and they did it through, well, the feminist movement.

Women fought against the roles society shoved on them, and they won that battle. That's why we have this modern version of traditional marriage now, where both the husband and wife work, split the chores, and raise kids together (that doesn't mean their parenting roles are identical—it's impossible and wouldn't even make sense, since one is a mother and one is a father).
Women stood up for themselves through feminism, found more fulfillment, and hit their goals. But they stayed feminists, and now they're fighting battles that usually have nothing to do with what an average heterosexual woman actually wants.
Modern feminism is basically just a lesbian movement at this point; it has zero connection to the modern family woman.

bluecyclist64 said: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!

Nowadays, if you even mutter a single word that doesn't sit right with the activists, they immediately slap an "homophobe" label on you—or toss in "fascist" or "religious extremist" just to make the smear stick.
Am I one of those people just because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman?

We saw these groups and their tactics back in 1930s Germany, so anyone with half a brain can see the fascist methods at play here.

Look, I'm educated—I actually have a Master's degree—and the only "fascist method" I see is trying to paint me as backwards or stupid just because my views differ from yours, even though I'm not infringing on anyone's rights.

I'm not sure if I should even bother debating Ms. Mark enough to call it an honor, but this is classic her. To add to that—it's typical fascist, Goebbels-style propaganda where facts get twisted and lies are just repeated like a broken record.

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH, YOU COWARDS!

There's your example! It didn't go your way, so I'm done.

Since you brought up Ms. Mark, let's look at her approach—which really applies to anyone with similar views: Which facts is she twisting? What lies is she repeating like a parrot?

Kate Harris50 said:That sounds like a typical take from Vatican City, an institution that, if history is any indication, rarely understands the reality of the world it comments on.

In an edition dedicated to International Women's Day in The New York Times, the publication noted how the invention of the washing machine effectively "liberated generations of women from the drudgery of domestic labor."

Link: http://www.fx-files.com/zanimljivost...go-pilula.html

Thanks for the link.
They clearly know their stuff—centuries of experience, after all... 🙂

Boldano is pretty fascinating. I actually thought about writing this myself but decided against it just so I wouldn't get crucified and forced to spend all day Googling links to prove my points. Anyway, considering Boldano's take, are today's feminists actually qualified to speak on the status of women in marriage?

They are. Just because there are lesbians within the feminist movement doesn't disqualify them. Even as a man, I talk about the feminist movement and support it.
By the way, most feminists—both historically and currently—are straight women.

Traditional marriage isn't what it used to be, but at its core, it's still there—it’s just modernized without losing its essence. Women aren't just homemakers anymore; they work just like men do, they're financially independent, or they have the option to be if they want to. Those who choose to stay home can certainly do so. Today's traditional marriage isn't that old-school version that locked a woman in the house and handed her a spatula.

I agree, though some would argue that was the beginning of the end for marriage—that its redefinition started the moment women stopped being exclusively housewives.

Women fought for their rights through the feminist movement, becoming more satisfied and achieving their goals, yet there remain feminists who continue a struggle that often has nothing to do with what a heterosexual woman actually wants. Modern feminism is essentially just a lesbian movement; it has nothing to do with the modern family woman.

Whoa.
That's just your opinion, but I can guarantee not every woman feels that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias during hiring compared to men, they're frequently paid less, and they deal with workplace harassment and various forms of sexual coercion.
Can you even name any lesbian feminist activists? No, Sanja Juras isn't one; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't a feminist activist.

rowdytiger13 said:The feminist movement actually accomplished quite a bit for women's rights, considering they weren't allowed to become those "diligent and humble engineers" in the first place; back then, people assumed women lacked the intellectual capacity for it.
Women were barred from attending universities because the prevailing logic was that you don't need an education just to raise kids. Women changed all of that themselves by proving they were just as smart and capable as men—making them the true original feminists.
And that’s not even mentioning the right to vote.

Yet today, women make up a tiny fraction of the engineering workforce.
It isn't an issue of intellect. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier. Their interests lie elsewhere.

Gender differences are real. Instead of sweeping them under the rug or forcing equality through quotas, we should acknowledge them and use them to benefit society. Feminism and gender ideology just muddy the waters. They might even succeed in clouding everything entirely if they ever reach their holy grail—artificial wombs.

rowdytiger13 said:

Boldano is pretty fascinating. I actually thought about writing this myself but decided against it just so I wouldn't get crucified and forced to spend all day Googling links to prove my points. Anyway, considering Boldano's take, are today's feminists actually qualified to speak on the status of women in marriage?

They are. Just because there are lesbians within the feminist movement doesn't disqualify them. Even as a man, I talk about the feminist movement and support it.
By the way, most feminists—both historically and currently—are straight women.

Traditional marriage isn't what it used to be, but at its core, it's still there—it’s just modernized without losing its essence. Women aren't just homemakers anymore; they work just like men do, they're financially independent, or they have the option to be if they want to. Those who choose to stay home can certainly do so. Today's traditional marriage isn't that old-school version that locked a woman in the house and handed her a spatula.

I agree, though some would argue that was the beginning of the end for marriage—that its redefinition started the moment women stopped being exclusively housewives.

Women fought for their rights through the feminist movement, becoming more satisfied and achieving their goals, yet there remain feminists who continue a struggle that often has nothing to do with what a heterosexual woman actually wants. Modern feminism is essentially just a lesbian movement; it has nothing to do with the modern family woman.

Whoa.
That's just your opinion, but I can guarantee not every woman feels that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias during hiring compared to men, they're frequently paid less, and they deal with workplace harassment and various forms of sexual coercion.
Can you even name any lesbian feminist activists? No, Sanja Juras isn't one; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't a feminist activist.

Just like most men.
Politics and upper management require a specific cocktail of traits, and being overly ambitious, aggressive, or ruthless is high on that list. Those are traditionally male characteristics, and the competition there is cutthroat. Most of it is garbage. Women who actually make it deserve their spots, but they aren't typical representatives of their gender. Pushing for forced equality and affirmative action isn't the answer. I once sat through a lecture where they talked about trying to force equal enrollment in engineering programs at major US universities—trying to hit a 50/50 split while ignoring everything else. To be blunt, they screwed up.

Once again, the gender ideology pushed by feminists and the LGBTQ+ movement won't hold up in the long run, and we need to fight against it.

It’s not about intelligence, obviously. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier—their focus tends to be on entirely different areas.

It's because society forces them to feel incomplete, like they aren't even functioning normally unless they're mothers. They aren't naturally wired that way, but society pushes them toward it; while they're home raising kids, men are out building their careers.
Well, you know, in some parts of the US, it's becoming perfectly normal for women to build careers while the alpha males handle things at home... and honestly, the country keeps spinning just fine.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Nowadays, if you even mutter a single word that doesn't sit right with the activists, they immediately slap an "homophobe" label on you—or toss in "fascist" or "religious extremist" just to make the smear stick.
Am I one of those people just because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman?

We saw these groups and their tactics back in 1930s Germany, so anyone with half a brain can see the fascist methods at play here.

Look, I'm educated—I actually have a Master's degree—and the only "fascist method" I see is trying to paint me as backwards or stupid just because my views differ from yours, even though I'm not infringing on anyone's rights.

I'm not sure if I should even bother debating Ms. Mark enough to call it an honor, but this is classic her. To add to that—it's typical fascist, Goebbels-style propaganda where facts get twisted and lies are just repeated like a broken record.

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH, YOU COWARDS!

There's your example! It didn't go your way, so I'm done.

Since you brought up Ms. Mark, let's look at her approach—which really applies to anyone with similar views: Which facts is she twisting? What lies is she repeating like a parrot?

That's a lie. You didn't provide an example.
And right there, we see a textbook case of spin—the kind you know all too well, so I won't bore you by repeating myself.

None of you in the Mark's circle, not even you, ma'am, have provided a single instance of hate speech originating from LGBT organizations.
The way you treat them is reminiscent of how the Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s—fabricating accusations and leveling false charges.

Then you act surprised when the LGBTQ+ community calls you out.

rowdytiger13 said:

It’s not about intelligence, obviously. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier—their focus tends to be on entirely different areas.

It's because society forces them to feel incomplete, like they aren't even functioning normally unless they're mothers. They aren't naturally wired that way, but society pushes them toward it; while they're home raising kids, men are out building their careers.
Well, you know, in some parts of the US, it's becoming perfectly normal for women to build careers while the alpha males handle things at home... and honestly, the country keeps spinning just fine.

Just ignore those bitter feminist talking points.

rowdytiger13 said:

It’s not about intelligence, obviously. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier—their focus tends to be on entirely different areas.

It's because society forces them to feel incomplete, like they aren't even functioning normally unless they're mothers. They aren't naturally wired that way, but society pushes them toward it; while they're home raising kids, men are out building their careers.
Well, you know, in some parts of the US, it's becoming perfectly normal for women to build careers while the alpha males handle things at home... and honestly, the country keeps spinning just fine.

The world kept spinning during Hitler's regime, too. Not exactly a winning argument.

Just ignore all that noise from frustrated feminists.

Actually, those claims hold water. Even if they're fading in some places, they're still pretty prevalent here in the States.
If a woman reaches a certain age without being married or having kids, society still treats her like a failure—or if she’s focused on her career, she’s labeled an outlier.
Of course, it's socially conditioned from day one, starting right in our elementary school textbooks.

People were saying stuff like that even during Hitler's era... not exactly a winning argument.

Fair enough. But honestly, kids raised under those values aren't any better or worse than those raised with traditional ones.

bluecyclist64 said:That's a lie. You didn't provide an example.
And right there, we see a textbook case of spin—the kind you know all too well, so I won't bore you by repeating myself.

None of you in the Mark's circle, not even you, ma'am, have provided a single instance of hate speech originating from LGBT organizations.
The way you treat them is reminiscent of how the Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s—fabricating accusations and leveling false charges.

Then you act surprised when the LGBTQ+ community calls you out.

Don't get worked up now; save that energy for referendum day. Which is obviously coming, much to your dismay.

http://www.nytimes.com/news/US-referendum-on-marriage

Congress won't hide behind the Supreme Court: Marriage referendum to be called soon

I think we’re about to see the real hate speech once those radical activist groups start going all out, publicly labeling anyone who votes to include this provision in the Constitution as a fascist or a bigot. It’s going to be a mess.

rowdytiger13 said:

Boldano is pretty fascinating. I actually thought about writing this myself but decided against it just so I wouldn't get crucified and forced to spend all day Googling links to prove my points. Anyway, considering Boldano's take, are today's feminists actually qualified to speak on the status of women in marriage?

They are. Just because there are lesbians within the feminist movement doesn't disqualify them. Even as a man, I talk about the feminist movement and support it.
By the way, most feminists—both historically and currently—are straight women.

Traditional marriage isn't what it used to be, but at its core, it's still there—it’s just modernized without losing its essence. Women aren't just homemakers anymore; they work just like men do, they're financially independent, or they have the option to be if they want to. Those who choose to stay home can certainly do so. Today's traditional marriage isn't that old-school version that locked a woman in the house and handed her a spatula.

I agree, though some would argue that was the beginning of the end for marriage—that its redefinition started the moment women stopped being exclusively housewives.

Women fought for their rights through the feminist movement, becoming more satisfied and achieving their goals, yet there remain feminists who continue a struggle that often has nothing to do with what a heterosexual woman actually wants. Modern feminism is essentially just a lesbian movement; it has nothing to do with the modern family woman.

Whoa.
That's just your opinion, but I can guarantee not every woman feels that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias during hiring compared to men, they're frequently paid less, and they deal with workplace harassment and various forms of sexual coercion.
Can you even name any lesbian feminist activists? No, Sanja Juras isn't one; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't a feminist activist.

Look, I’m all for different opinions, but my gut tells me most feminists today who are out there fighting tooth and nail against marriage are actually lesbians.

I hear you, but some people would argue that was basically the beginning of the end for marriage—the moment it started getting redefined once women stopped being just housewives.

Women fought for a better, more equal spot in society, and yeah, that naturally modernized marriage by shifting roles, but that isn't "redefining" it. At its core, marriage stays what it’s always been: a man, a woman, kids, and family. Saying that women gaining rights means the end of marriage is just nonsense. Honestly, I think those claims are just sneaky spins from people trying to devalue and tear down the whole institution.

Whoa!
That might be how you see it, but definitely not all women feel that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias when applying for jobs, get paid less than men, deal with workplace bullying, and even sexual harassment.
Name one lesbian feminist activist for me. Go ahead. No, Sanja Juras isn't a feminist activist; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't an activist for the cause itself.

There's a huge difference between fighting for labor rights, against harassment, or against exploitation... and using those fights as a cover to mess with the sanctity of marriage, which has nothing to do with the first stuff. Everything you mentioned can be achieved without touching the definition of marriage. Marriage adapts to changes in women's rights, but that doesn't change what marriage truly is at its heart.

edit: I'll list some lesbian feminist activists in my next post.

bluecyclist64 said:That's a lie. You didn't provide an example.
And right there, we see a textbook case of spin—the kind you know all too well, so I won't bore you by repeating myself.

None of you in the Mark's circle, not even you, ma'am, have provided a single instance of hate speech originating from LGBT organizations.
The way you treat them is reminiscent of how the Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s—fabricating accusations and leveling false charges.

Then you act surprised when the LGBTQ+ community calls you out.

Look, I tried my best to show where I see hate speech coming from activists and LGBT orgs. If you don't see it the way I do, that's fine. I don't know what you want from me... like, am I supposed to find a quote saying "we need to go kill this person" just for you to believe it's actual hate speech? 🙄

So, you call my attempt to explain what I see as hate speech "spin," while you just keep insisting you're right. Mark twists things and lies, and you just say that because I said so. When anyone asks you to actually explain *how* he's twisting or lying (regardless of whether I agree with you), you've got nothing. You just say "he did it" and that's that. To you, that isn't spinning, making things up, or lying. 🙄

rowdytiger13 said:

Just ignore all that noise from frustrated feminists.

Actually, those claims hold water. Even if they're fading in some places, they're still pretty prevalent here in the States.
If a woman reaches a certain age without being married or having kids, society still treats her like a failure—or if she’s focused on her career, she’s labeled an outlier.
Of course, it's socially conditioned from day one, starting right in our elementary school textbooks.

People were saying stuff like that even during Hitler's era... not exactly a winning argument.

Fair enough. But honestly, kids raised under those values aren't any better or worse than those raised with traditional ones.

Exactly. That’s just reality. And it applies to men too, not just women.
You're delusional if you think this is some uniquely American issue.

Women fought for a better, different standing in society, which naturally modernized marriage by shifting how spouses interact, but that isn't a redefinition of marriage itself. At its core, marriage remains what it has always been: a man, a woman, children, and family. Suggesting that women gaining more agency means the end of marriage is nonsense; I see those claims as nothing more than a sneaky spin from people who want to redefine marriage just to devalue and destroy it.

I'm not so sure about that.
I constantly hear traditionalists making claims like, "Everything went wrong once women got the right to vote."

There is a massive difference between fighting for labor rights, against workplace harassment, or sexual exploitation, and using those struggles as a cover to interfere with and dismantle the fundamental intuition of marriage, which has nothing to do with any of those issues.

Yeah, I figured we’d end up here.
You mentioned that women have already secured enough rights, yet clearly they haven't, as there's still plenty of room for the feminist movement to push forward.
It would be much more helpful if an actual feminist explained the goals and reasoning behind the movement; personally, I feel like a bull in a china shop in this arena, so things tend to get misinterpreted—as they obviously have here.
The feminist movement isn't actually interested in redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. All this noise was stirred up by organizations on the other side of the aisle, and since LGBTQ+ advocacy groups felt directly threatened by certain initiatives, they stepped in to support feminist organizations.
What the feminist movement is actually pushing for is a redefinition of the roles within a traditional marriage, rather than the definition of the institution itself. From what I gather, the actual definition isn't their concern.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Look, I tried my best to show where I see hate speech coming from activists and LGBT orgs. If you don't see it the way I do, that's fine. I don't know what you want from me... like, am I supposed to find a quote saying "we need to go kill this person" just for you to believe it's actual hate speech? 🙄

So, you call my attempt to explain what I see as hate speech "spin," while you just keep insisting you're right. Mark twists things and lies, and you just say that because I said so. When anyone asks you to actually explain *how* he's twisting or lying (regardless of whether I agree with you), you've got nothing. You just say "he did it" and that's that. To you, that isn't spinning, making things up, or lying. 🙄

No, you didn't make an effort.
You haven't cited a single instance of hate speech from any LGBTQ+ group. You’ve simply continued spinning a narrative that they are doing it—but they aren't, and you are lying.

Frankly, I couldn't care less how YOU perceive it; the reality is that the cited hate speech simply DOES NOT EXIST.

And you, Željkica, are the one persistently pushing this spin, trying to force words into the mouths of gay people that they never actually uttered. Wouldn't you say that puts you on the same level as those you're criticizing?

Well, damn—your little spin tactic just failed. You're lying.

So, when I try to explain where I see the hate speech, you call it spinning, while you just insist it's there. Markić distorts the truth and lies, and that's just because I say it is. When asked to clarify exactly how someone is lying or distorting things (regardless of whether I accept that opinion), there is no answer. You just state that it's true, and therefore it is, without it being spinning, making things up, or false accusations. 🙄

Please, let's not pretend here.
I am under no obligation to explain myself to someone who is being dishonest.
Once you admit that you fabricated this supposed hateful rhetoric, then perhaps we can move on to the next point, Željkica—pardon me—my little mouse, so charming and clever...
I wonder what Željko's Master's degree was in again? 🍿

Jessica Kelly4 said:Exactly. That’s just reality. And it applies to men too, not just women.
You're delusional if you think this is some uniquely American issue.

Well, at least I can't call you a complete Neanderthal or an idiot.

Look, friend, here is what actually interests me.

About fifty years ago, a man could earn enough to support a family of four, while the wife stayed home as a 🤣 homemaker.

Think about how much of a scam that really is—women have the right to work now too, so now both the husband and the wife have to grind away for the EXACT SAME PAYCHECK!

Hello???