Controversial General Political Discussion

[RyoQ]

I won't debate more on this subject with you as you seem completely uneducated on the subject. I'm willing to put my axe down, but you gonna need to stop defending that fascist.

You're uneducated.

Yes, there is possible being "moderate" on an issue like LGBT+, if you are against transgenderism but OKAY or even vote for gay marriage are you really an enemy to LGBT+?

even many gays oppose transgenderism in 2025 and are hostile to it
[automerge]1759197949[/automerge]

I don't think we should base laws off of religions that not everyone follows and are very subjective in general

Again, it is a natural law evil first that is reaffirmed by religion. It is not something religion creates a rule condemning, but reaffirms that it is evil

So gay marriage could be outlawed entirely distinct from Christian observance. Even if I was not Christian I would still oppose it like I oppose other natural evils such as murder, incest, theft, things like that
[automerge]1759198031[/automerge]

You are really underestimating the mental gymnastic that right winger do to satisfy their fetish. The reality is that it can be all the cases. In reality, there is no logic in place here. Someone in denial will create a form of completely weid behavior in regard to sex and gender, sometimes completely incoherent and in complete contradiction with itself.

"someone in denial will create a new behavior based on"

isn't our behavior based on what we believe? Why a so called right-winger is engaging in homosexual/pro transgender actions if he is opposed to it?

 

[CoC: Color of Clowns]

National security was never about the security of the nation's people.

National security was always about the lying, evil, criminal government protecting itself from the people's justice.

 

[Logiko]

You're uneducated. Yes, there is possible being "moderate" on an issue like LGBT+, if you are against transgenderism but OKAY or even vote for gay marriage are you really an enemy to LGBT+?

No it's no possible lmao

It's 1 or 0. Either you are aknowledging and accepting their existence or you don't and oppose them. It's not that difficult. It's the fact of being a piece of shit against the fact of being just a normal human with empathy.

I think you do not understand that heteronormativity and cisnormativity are ALL a result of the domination system that is patriarchy. As such, these oppression are fondamentally linked and when Trans stop being the target:

LGB people are the next in line.


As such being against a group is being against the ENTIRE group.

And yes, this includes people who are gay and fighting against trans people. They are fighting themselves. Not easy to understand when you are a rightist, but perfectly logical when you are a leftist.

 

[RyoQ]

It's 1 or 0. Either you are aknowledging and accepting their existence or you don't and oppose them. It's not that difficult. It's the fact of being a piece of shit against the fact of being just a normal human with empathy.

"their existance" what do you mean? LGBT+ encompasses several "existances" or type of person

What if you support the lesbian, gay and bisexuals but oppose transgenders? (this is very common these days in America)?

Or in other words, "1" on L, G, and B, and "0" on transgenders?

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

You're uneducated.

Yes, there is possible being "moderate" on an issue like LGBT+, if you are against transgenderism but OKAY or even vote for gay marriage are you really an enemy to LGBT+?

even many gays oppose transgenderism in 2025 and are hostile to it
[automerge]1759197949[/automerge]


Again, it is a natural law evil first that is reaffirmed by religion. It is not something religion creates a rule condemning, but reaffirms that it is evil

So gay marriage could be outlawed entirely distinct from Christian observance. Even if I was not Christian I would still oppose it like I oppose other natural evils such as murder, incest, theft, things like that
[automerge]1759198031[/automerge]


"someone in denial will create a new behavior based on"

isn't our behavior based on what we believe? Why a so called right-winger is engaging in homosexual/pro transgender actions if he is opposed to it?

Do you have an argument on how homosexuality is detrimental in comparison to things like murder, incest, theft, and so on, outside of "Muh bible told me so!"?

 

[RyoQ]

Do you have an argument on how homosexuality is detrimental in comparison to things like murder, incest, theft, and so on, outside of "Muh bible told me so!"?

None of my arguments against homosexuality would be biblical or even mention God at all. They also would not be based on "detriment", that is utilitarian and morals do not derive from what is merely useful, or practical vs detrimental.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

None of my arguments against homosexuality would be biblical or even mention God at all. They also would not be based on "detriment", that is utilitarian and morals do not derive from what is merely useful, or practical vs detrimental.

I personally don't see a reason to ban or vehemently hate something that isn't actually hurting anyone, which is why I said that

 

[RyoQ]

I personally don't see a reason to ban or vehemently hate something that isn't actually hurting anyone, which is why I said that

Yes, a moral framework based "morally ok = what does not hurt anyone", that is a utilitarian and filled with holes. One could easily give examples for actions that don't hurt anyone but are morally evil

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Yes, a moral framework based "morally ok = what does not hurt anyone", that is a utilitarian and filled with holes. One could easily give examples for actions that don't hurt anyone but are morally evil

okay so why is it evil to be gay though

 

[RyoQ]

okay so why is it evil to be gay though

Even this line of reasoning of yours is inherently nihilistic. Your support for homosexuality comes from a negative angle that seeks to avoid evil vs doing good, thinking of it in terms of "this isn't harmful to people", rather than, "this is good for people".

But, to answer your question, homosexual actions are fundamentally evil because the human body has a nature, this nature can either be fulfilled or misused, homosexual actions are one type of misuse of the sexual aspect of our body, and an extreme one at that.

 

[Uncle Van]

Wait...someone actually thinks being gay is evil, and one the same level as murder? Looks like we got another one

 

[RyoQ]

Wait...someone actually thinks being gay is evil, and one the same level as murder? Looks like we got another one

It's not as evil as murder. I was saying it being evil is in the same category of murder, theft, lying (all natural evils), compared to something like blasphemy or profanation (divine law evils). In Christian teaching these are the two categories that immoral actions fall inside

 

[Jew D. Boy]

Wait...someone actually thinks being gay is evil, and one the same level as murder? Looks like we got another one

Am I allowed to call him a Nazi again?? @AL sama @Zenos7

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Wait...someone actually thinks being gay is evil, and one the same level as murder? Looks like we got another one

I mean he did tell us upright he's got more extreme views than people like Kirk..

Even this line of reasoning of yours is inherently nihilistic. Your support for homosexuality comes from a negative angle that seeks to avoid evil vs doing good, thinking of it in terms of "this isn't harmful to people", rather than, "this is good for people".

But, to answer your question, homosexual actions are fundamentally evil because the human body has a nature, this nature can either be fulfilled or misused, homosexual actions are one type of misuse of the sexual aspect of our body, and an extreme one at that.

What exactly is the crime of two consenting men engaging in sex if they've both properly prepared for it?
Why is it considered a "misuse" of the body? Do you believe the only thing our bodies are good for is making babies?

 

[RyoQ]

Am I allowed to call him a Nazi again?? @AL sama @Zenos7

😹😹😹😹😹😹

[automerge]1759200566[/automerge]

I mean he did tell us upright he's got more extreme views than people like Kirk..

Yes for fucks sake, that's not exactly difficult considering Kirk was pro-H1B, a hardcore Zionist and pro-homosexual. He isn't even right wing my guy. Lmfao

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Kirk was pro-H1B, a hardcore Zionist and pro-homosexual. He isn't even right wing my guy. Lmfao

 

[RyoQ]

What exactly is the crime of two consenting men engaging in sex if they've both properly prepared for it?

Is your argument that, as long as "two consenting adults who are prepared", and "doesn't hurt them", makes it moral or (as your framework inclines), not-immoral?

Why is it considered a "misuse" of the body? Do you believe the only thing our bodies are good for is making babies?

Well, before that I would ask you: is it possible to misuse to the sexual functions of the body, in your opinion? That is to say, is there even such a thing as sexual morals?

If the answer is yes, what are they? I believe I could define the boundaries much better than you can.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Is your argument that, as long as "two consenting adults who are prepared", and "doesn't hurt them", makes it moral or (as your framework inclines), not-immoral?

Yes. Why care about what they're doing as long as nobody's being hurt in anyway? And their mindset can't lead to anyone getting hurt either. They simply feel love and lust for people of the same gender as them. That's all.

 

[Logiko]

"their existance" what do you mean? LGBT+ encompasses several "existances" or type of person

What if you support the lesbian, gay and bisexuals but oppose transgenders? (this is very common these days in America)?

Or in other words, "1" on L, G, and B, and "0" on transgenders?

You need to be a materialist to understand what I'm saying here (I'm not joking). I could tell you "the fight of one protects the fight of others" but you wouldn't really get it. It's kind of an advanced leftist thinking.

Basically : The system of the oppression of LGBTQI+ is interconnected which means that there is no fighting one of these groups without oppressing the others, the fight against Trans people (because it's usually trans people that are targeted in the west) is deeply linked to the fight of against LGB people and IQ+ people in general. This is a simple logic of systemic oppression.

If you want a radical allegory, picture a cliff on a snowy mountain:

> LGBTQI+ people here are represented by the two red points (lgb > At the bottom & TQi+ on Top)
> All the snow scattered in an unstable manner on the face of the mountain is the entire spectra of right of ALL LGBTQI+.

Technically the red dots are separated. Right?

But when you look closer, you understand that the entire field is an interconnection of unstable snow (unstable rights). The ENTIRE face of the mountain is - in the case of this ex - connected together just like rights are connected in real life. One right opens the field for another, a liberty opens the window for another etc. And right are stacked up on top of each others as they form a mountain of snow and progress..

Now... What happens when you put an explosive on the top red dot ?? (representing Trans, Queers and Intersex people)

Little spoilers:

Spoiler: The result

In reality, the entire face of the mountain comes crashing down. Because what was the right stacked up just before the top of the "rights mountain" becomes the next visible target to fall.

And since right attacked by oppressive measure are linked by a bigger oppression that is actually an entire system of domination (patriarchy in this case) ...

The entire mountain falls. And the red dot at the bottom end up completely smashed by the domination system combined with the strenghtening of oppressive measures.

This is what I means when I say that you can't be for gay and against Trans.

If you are against one group, your are targeting ALL OF THEM.





And you know what is even worse ?

The mountain of the right of LGBTQI+ are just part of the unstable snow on the mountain of the rights of the entire population of the planets.

Because ... what do you think happens when Trans people are targeted because they are considered ill? Well.. people with mental situation like me get targeted as well and it's now THEIR turn to lose rights, and when we lose all our rights, it's disabled people LIKE ME who lose their rights... until the one losing their rights are cis white men working in their factories...

Attacking the rights of people who want to simply live in peace, means creating an instability for the right of the entire population of the planet.

Because oppression does no stop when it's finish. Oppression demands more oppression and control. Until the system breaks or reset.

 

[RyoQ]

Yes. Why care about what they're doing as long as nobody's being hurt in anyway? And their mindset can't lead to anyone getting hurt either. They simply feel love and lust for people of the same gender as them. That's all.

Again, an action can do no physical harm but still be immoral.

Relationships between consenting adults can do no physical harm and still be immoral.

For example, two people who are closely related may marry. Nobody may be harmed there, but we would still condemn that because we recognize it is not natural.
[automerge]1759201845[/automerge]

You need to be a materialist to understand what I'm saying here (I'm not joking). I could tell you "the fight of one protects the fight of others" but you wouldn't really get it. It's kind of an advanced leftist thinking.

Basically : The system of the oppression of LGBTQI+ is interconnected which means that there is no fighting one of these groups without oppressing the others, the fight against Trans people (because it's usually trans people that are targeted in the west) is deeply linked to the fight of against LGB people and IQ+ people in general. This is a simple logic of systemic oppression.

If you want a radical allegory, picture a cliff on a snowy mountain:

> LGBTQI+ people here are represented by the two red points (lgb > At the bottom & TQi+ on Top)
> All the snow scattered in an unstable manner on the face of the mountain is the entire spectra of right of ALL LGBTQI+.

Technically the red dots are separated. Right?

But when you look closer, you understand that the entire field is an interconnection of unstable snow (unstable rights). The ENTIRE face of the mountain is - in the case of this ex - connected together just like rights are connected in real life. One right opens the field for another, a liberty opens the window for another etc. And right are stacked up on top of each others as they form a mountain of snow and progress..

Now... What happens when you put an explosive on the top red dot ?? (representing Trans, Queers and Intersex people)

Little spoilers:

Spoiler: The result

In reality, the entire face of the mountain comes crashing down. Because what was the right stacked up just before the top of the "rights mountain" becomes the next visible target to fall.

And since right attacked by oppressive measure and linked by a bigger oppression that is actually an entire system of domination (patriarchy in this case) ...

The entire mountain falls. And the red dot at the bottom end up completely smashed by the domination system combined with the strenghtening of oppressive measures.

This is what I means when I say that you can't be for gay and against Trans.

If you are against one group, your are targeting ALL OF THEM.





And you know what is even worse ?

The mountain of the right of LGBTQI+ are just part of the unstable snow on the mountain of the rights of the entire population of the planets.

Because ... what do you think happens when Trans people are targeted because they are considered ill? Well.. people with mental situation like me get targeted as well and it's now THEIR turn to lose rights, and when we lose all our rights, it's disabled people LIKE ME who lose their rights... until the one losing their rights are cis white men working in their factories...

Attacking the rights of people who want to simply live in peace, means creating an instability for the right of the entire population of the planet.

Because oppression does no stop when it's finish. Oppression demands more oppression and control. Until the system breaks or reset.

I get your argument. You're saying that someone who is against transgenderism is against homosexuality because the former (socially) leads to the latter.

Trump doesn't intend to have gay marriage banned or desire it. Although you could argue he may do something that leads to it by banning transgenderism, but he is not formally guilty if he didn't intend it.

He may be materially guilty, but formally he is not guilty.

Same as someone who drives their truck but accidentally crashes into a car. They are materially guilty, but formally are not in that their will didn't want to do that.