Homophobic slurs when not directed at LGBT individuals

Something to keep in mind when we're talking about homosexuals exercising restraint and heterosexuals exercising restraint there is a framework for which heterosexuals are required to exercise restraint. They still operate within the framework when you come out as gay you absolutely throw out the entire framework so there's no religious reason to exercise restraint there's no biological reason to exercise restraint you're not going to get anybody pregnant, and you're not going to be devalued if you've had sex a couple times before you meet your heteronomitive life partner. And as far as religion is concerned if you say you're gay you're just out so there is no one left to impress they've already thrown you out.

Then there's parts of the so-called community that act against you I mentioned it above. Concepts like heteronomative exist where you're seeing similar to and Uncle Tom if you choose not to be a bug chaser or something psychotic like that.

So there are different pitfalls and things for homosexuals that don't exist for heterosexuals. And there is a need to restrain oneself to remain part of a religion whereas homosexuals have been kicked out already.

The framework that our culture setup that makes sense. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing it's just creating a problem now that we have advanced to the point where homosexuality is not a taboo.) It just fails for this demographic and I think they desperately need this. They aren't really going to come up with it on their own. There are enough people within the demographic that want to be absolute hedonists.

I think there is a way to set up a framework to say maybe not encourage people to be gay but still address some of these issues that gay people deal with.

 

It's a shame that the essential psychological negatives associated with having multiple partners, from a young age, hasn't registered in the community. Because it sure as hell does impact the psyche, quite significantly. And has dire effects on future long term relationships (as Ritter points out - the more partners you have before 'marriage', the less likely you'll be to stay married). That should really be stressed, I think.

 

much Flack and hatred as I'm going to get for this there is a truth 2 being a young homosexual man and that is that you are going to be exploited by older men. The same is true for women and heterosexual men but again there's a framework there that helps in controlling both the men and the girls in these situations like I pointed out earlier that framework is just all cast out when you come out.

So as a result young gay men particularly are sexualized.

Not to mention the types that kind of ride the fence they want to find out if they really are gay so they go out for a hookup. Because there is no framework that tells a young gay or questioning man his personal worth he doesn't recognize any.

And a person in that state is very easily taken advantage of.

I think there is a complicating Factor when you add in homosexuality to this mix because they are already the disposed of people when it comes to morality because Western culture is so deeply Christian (not that there is anything wrong with that.)

I think the major issue that is really not a personal one is the politicization of sexuality. Everything else restraint willpower self control giving yourself the amount of time you need to deal with your sexual orientation and so forth are all personal issues that maybe your family has failed to provide you with or you just don't have the ownership to claim responsibility for these problems.

So from my point of view the only thing that we should be focusing on socially with regard to this is the politicization of sexuality

 

My state, prior to the passage of the marriage equality law, had civil unions. Back then the LGBT activists orignally said they only wanted equal rights and that they would be satisfied if the civil union parameters allowed for equal rights.

No sooner did that pass that the LGBT activists aggressively went after the passage of gay marriage. It was labeled marriage equality, which the activists said they would be satisfied with.

As soon as that passed, they aggressively tried to pass legislation to require public schools to teach how families are mom and dad, or that families can be LGBT mom and mom, or dad and dad. They also aggressively went in to change sex education to teach about LGBT, but they wanted to exclude statistics about how LGBT have more instances of STD's, etc.

So in my state, the trojan horse was equal rights and led to society must normalize and celebrate the lifestyle of the minority or be labeled as bigots if we don't.

 

Why schools and media do not talk about this is beyond me. It is a very serious issue and one of the few useful things one could include in the sex-ed programme. The fact that "free sex" is being upheld as one of the greatest signs of "individual liberation" is a clear sign that these people hate children.

 

Oh I’m not doubting differential variations in population size. That’s happen with 100% certainly. I do not presume to know what causes or changes attraction but even on a low end of scale at 2.7% that is still almost double the national average of rates of autism. The high end is over 12%. So I am not seeing any place that would statistically have a density that is less than autism.

Also you assume to know the sexuality of 1200 people - which is absurd unless you have conducted unbiased and imperial research to quantify that.

 

Civil unions and marriage like unions were made illegal across the country and the rights of a civil union are much less than those of a marriage.

Yes, that is one step toward equal treatment by the law. Not the end.

While I disagree about not teaching risks, there is nothing wrong with teaching kids that gay people exist.

No one cares if you celebrate, they care when they are refused service like blacks were at lunch counters. When they can be fired, refused adoption (even though their taxes are being used to fund the program), there is a problem.

 

Because having sex (prior to marriage) is insisted upon. There is no room for it being optional - at all. And it doesn't need to be spelled out as compulsory, the mere fact that it's treated as an inevitability, is all it takes to reinforce the message. Another disastrous side effect of sexualising children in this way, is that it can be very damaging to the self esteem of kids who, for reasons of preference, awkwardness, or lack of 'appeal', are not doing it. It's basically telling them that they should be - without spelling that out. What a despicable thing to do to kids who, in another cultural setting, would not feel even the slightest sense of inadequacy.

There is zero liberation in the soul destroying and family wrecking impacts of easy sex.

Edited to add: If sex ed is going to keep being a thing in western nations, it should work from the default position of abstinence, and address sex in the same way that drugs are addressed. IOW, "best avoided .. but if you do take that unfortunate path, there are ways you can reclaim your self-respect and learn to abstain" (until adulthood).

 

I was one of those kids, but - obviously - my issues where not solely the result of a hedonistcally oversexualised culture. Although that did play a part in it.

 

Had you grown up in Asia, you'd have been the norm.

 

Having issues with my self-esteem, you mean?

Joke aside... What differs Asia from West is that the previous still puts heavy emphasis on the family and marriage. Overhere, both concepts are heckled and deemed "outdated" by Feminists, described as a "mantrap" by the MRA's and almost always depicted negatively in pop culture. Even marginalised ***** like Nazis (who claim to be traditionalists) look down on marriage because "muh, muh, muh White Women mix!"

 

Yeah, nope

I mean, they don't tell teenagers that sex (during teen years) is 'normal'. There is no sense of inadequacy for the virgins, since almost everyone is a virgin. No adults are talking to them constantly about nookie, or even vaguely referring to it on a semi-regular basis. Asian kids are not making sex a priority during high school, like so many western kids unfortunately do (at the expense of their education, quite often).

This idea that monogamous life relationships are problematic was a nutty idea, hatched by a few white Ivory Tower dwelling elitist intellectuals, who had no experience of ordinary life at the coalface. In the 19 freaking 60s. It was a stupid and vacuous notion, which for some perverse reason caught hold. I suspect because we had just enough listless children of the rich looking for causes and purpose, to ensure it got legs. It's as silly as Swingers Parties, but at least those are now strictly the province of dysfunctional old (and almost always ugly) people!

 

Polygamy is definitely the norm now. The culture has created a very unnatural market where the supply is extremely high; step into a nightclub and see the crowd or browse through Tinder or any other similar app and see the amount of profiles. For "Chad", who is both handsome and assertive, it is heaven - He can get any girl he wants without even having to put down one second to get to know her. She will think she has gotten confirmation for her beauty and admiration for her value. The problem is that she will not be 20 forever and in no time, "Chad" will move on to the next "college babe" whereas she ends up frustrated, desperate and sad because she is lonely. In many ways, women are the biggest losers here yet, society tells them they are "liberated", "strong" and "independent" for "not needing a man" and for "owning their bodies".

Some men might even feel they do not even need to try find a woman because they find comfort and saftey in pornography. Something that in the long run - obviously - is not healthy. The very fact that the demand for pornography is so huge that it generates millions should be a huge red flag. Are we really that blind?

In the past, society was much more down to Earth and families, neighbours and friends actually had a social life. Very few boys are completely useless and just as few girls are completely undesireble. If a man/woman was exiting their early 20's and was still single, the community would come together to try to sort things out.

These days there are not even any natural social spots where young people can meet and interact with other people their own age. Almost all these places have moved online. Sure, one can always go to a nightclub, but that is a very loud and degenerated environment anyways where no one goes to meet new people.

It is obvious that society is ill when young men seek themselves to groups such as Incel and MGTOW and where young women find comfort in Feminism that tells them men hate them.

If you use your search engine correctly, it is not very hard at all to find post after post on countless different sites from all over the world where young people express genuine worry about never having had a girl-/boyfriend, about still being virgins and also about their appearence, not only facial and body type, but also for every single body part they possess. This is not normal. It is often waved off as a "teenage phase" which I believe is a very dangerous thing to do and the insane part is that at least half of these Internet postings are not even from teens anyways, but from people in their 20's(!!!!)

 

I agree with most of that. It's not healthy to remain single after a certain age. It ALWAYS visits dysfunction upon a life (if not your own, then the lives of those around you), when you attempt to remain a teenager forever. "Medically" speaking, we don't do well as singles after age 25, so we should probably all be married by about 27/28. The pace of creeping dysfunction increases dramatically after age 30, and if we're still single at 40, we're a bona fide mess. No longer worthy of (and possibly incapable of) a commitment, almost.

 

I do not feel any pressure at all.

 

Whoops!

Soooo .... when are you turning 40?

 

In 15 years. It was more the part of your post mentioning that optimal is if one is married before 30 that I was referring to.

 

Oh jeez, you have eons!!

Seriously, at 25 you're right at the best age to start looking at potential mates in terms of their potential as life partners. Don't forget, now!

 

It doesn't really worry me that much. I am well aware I have got a few years to do accomplish that.

 

Exactly my point. You're in a good position.

 

Equally or fairly?

 

What act of Trump do you consider treason?

 

Someone refusing to bake you a cake isnt violence.

 

Not really. Nothing in the video said being gay was bad. It simply was pushing the idea that Trump protects Putin because he's gay and in love with Putin.

 

Did Obama influence America? Not everyone shares the belief that his tone was beneficial, in fact, it eroded America. Very embarrassing so many fell for the verbal diarrhea Obama spewed over 8 years.