Does refusing to wear Pride symbolism mean that you hate LGBT people?

No one has to wear it. But you are going to have to get used to seeing gay characters and representation in film, books, and general life.

I could say the same about your politics.

And human sexuality is much more than who you like to have sex with.

Sexuality in this instance is who someone partners with, builds a home with, potentially raises children with. It’s sad you don’t view your relationships are more than sex but not everyone has such a narrow view on that.

 

And they are the same people who would seek to ban, for instance, the thin blue line American flag in support of police from schools or any public space and shame those who display in private places. Put a thin blue line patch on their hockey uniforms and the team would likely be shamed for triggering all those black hockey fans who have been propagandized to believe the thin blue line flag represents white supremacy. League would probably issue one of those heartfelt groveling apology letters and announce that alll their white players will be subjected to 8 hours diversity training to better understand their whiteness.
Hell, a heterosexual pride patch would be condemned as homophobic.

 

What nonsense. NOTHING about homosexuality implies "builds a home with, potentially raises children with.". Heterosexual couplings produce children that require building a home to care for and raise children. Women who give birth and the men they are married to have a legal obligation to provide and care for their children. Two gay guys building a home have no such obligations. And the fact that they rub their genitals together just like mothers and fathers did, doesnt change that fact.

 

I have built a home with mine and two businesses. We also have two children. So… I am not sure where you are getting your information from but it doesn’t seem to be accurate

No one said they were obligated to anything — no one is. The only people with a legal obligation to children are their legal guardians. If a biological parent has been stripped of their rights by their courts everything you just said is irrelevant.

 

How much less can you care? Just curious.

 

The above has nothing to do with your sexuality. I built a home and one business with my brother. Has nothing to do with our sexuality.

 

If you were not related would you have done so?

It’s telling to see y’all attempt to devalue the relationships, marriages and families of same sex couples. They will still continue to be

 

1. There are 13 states that have bi-partisan or independent committees that draw district lines. On the other end of the spectrum there are states that have been so majorly gerrymandered that their districting plans have been found to be illegal.
2. Seriously? You have to ask that???
3. Of course it is racism when gerrymandering wipes out their representation by purposefully dividing their population between multiple predominantly white districts.

Read this thread. But, also read the news in general. There are race issues in each of those areas you mention.

Gerrymandering removes representation of the population that is the target of the gerrymandering - regardless of party.

It is a fact that gerrymandering has a strong partisan component wherever it exists. And, that in itself is a denial of representation.

 

You merely feel devalued because while heterosexual couplings are responsible for the perpetuation of the human race, homosexual couplings are not.

 

The example referenced was the book "And Tango Makes Three", a true story of two male penguins fostering a penguin chick that isn't genetically related in NY Central park zoo.

This book became the fourth-most banned book between 2000 and 2009, as well as the sixth-most banned book between 2010 and 2019.

 

I don’t feel devalued at all; we have two beautiful children, two successful business, are invested in our local community, and best of all we are not having to attempt to void the rights of others to give our own lives meaning and purpose where none actually exists.

Note the word attempt in my prior post — if you were successful I would have used a different phrase. You have already lost the battle and are now just showing everyone your character. People like you are the ones @ToughTalk talk believe we should vanish so you don’t hate us — I am sure both of you see how laughable that is.

 

I remember that. "gay penguins" was declared to the world, and then Silo hooked up with a hot lady penguin and began nesting with her. Reminds me of the often touted Hawaiian albatrose where they found lesbian couples who pair bonded for life, nesting together each year. Except, the two females never had sex with each other and at least one of them mated with a male every year to produce a chick.

 

Not sure what battle you are referring to but still, "NOTHING about homosexuality implies "builds a home with, potentially raises children with." and you havent presented anything to contradict. Just the accusation that its an attempt to devalue gays.

 

Gerrymandering techniques are WAY better than that.

Yes, efforts to counter that abject racism faced by minorities do not always work out to be perfectly fair. But, your example here DOES show that the resulting system was WAY less racist than it once was.

This has been true of other changes as well. Allowing blacks to attend public school. Allowing blacks to attend college. Allowing blacks to buy homes where they want to live. Allowing blacks to marry the person they want to marry. Allowing blacks to vote. Allowing the census to consider a black person as a full human being, requiring a constitutional change. Allowing blacks to have equal protection in employment. The list goes on and on.

And, the idea that equality now exists is just plain ridiculous, as any critical study of American society points out.

You are free to point those cases out.

Where did you find that last quote - "challenges the validity of ..."

I don't see challenges to concepts of rationality (such as rational choice theory in social work).

 

So this was about nothing at all.

 

The book has been widely banned for a long time.

You need to try to address why it was banned.

 

Having books banned is a serious issue.

Why was the book I mentioned banned?

You can't say it's "about nothing at all" when you can't say why it was banned.

 

Well I have not read the book, so I don't know if it's simply a cute little story or hardcore pornography. But in any case school boards have committees to review books to include in their libraries and they can't simply buy every single book.

I'm sure there were plenty of other books that were not bought or recommended that had nothing to do with gay penguins or whatever the story is, but that doesn't mean they were "banned." I rather doubt if you were on the committee you would allow the "Rush Revere" book series in your school. I suspect it would find itself "banned."

 

It was never racist and was instead discrimination against the poor. And the resulting home finance system collapsed in the mortgage crisis.

 

Excluding books from school isnt a banning.

 

It was never banned, it was excluded from schools.

 

At the link provided.

 

Well, show some evidence.

What I cited was that in FL all that is needed is for some citizen (not even a parent) to demand that some book be reviewed. And, that is being used for removing books about black history, sexuality (including when NO sex happens), and other such topics.

Of course, DeSantis is also including schools in his effort to normalize inequality.

 

The reason for the mortgage crisis was that bad loans were being commoditized, with the resultant investments in those commodities massively failing.

The government did not ask for loan companies to ignore all measures of ability to pay. But, Country Wide and others did exactly that.

 

How about some PROOF it has not been banned.

And Tango Makes Three (Classic Board Books): Richardson, Justin, Parnell, Peter, Cole, Henry: 9781481446952: Amazon.com: Books