Here is what I don't like about LGBTQP+

What I don't like about LGBTQP+ is that it isn't logical.

Ignorance isnt logical either.

If there is no reason for me to be gay, then there is no reason for anyone to be gay.

That's not logical. Maybe you're not gay, but it doesn't follow to assume a universal standard because of that.

You simply cannot use logical deduction to deduce that you should be gay.

True. Sexual orientation is not a logical deduction or choice.

So not only that they can't logically deduce conclusion that they should be gay, but they are also racist against straight people.

As a straight person, Ive never felt threatened by gay people. If I were vocally anti-LGBTQ, I might find reason to be paranoid...not good reason though. By far, gay people have reason to be concerned about bigots though.

That's not logical. Maybe you're not gay, but it doesn't follow to assume a universal standard because of that.

False, there is no reason for anyone to be gay.

True. Sexual orientation is not a logical deduction or choice

So you concede that being gay is not logical. We agree there.

So if anyone else wants to answer why should I be gay, they can try.

False, there is no reason for anyone to be gay.

There is no logical reason for you to make that claim.

So you concede that being gay is not logical. We agree there.

Being gay is not a choice and, as such, looking for a 'logical reason' is nonsensical. Its like looking for a logical reason to be 10 foot tall. Good luck with that!

So if anyone else wants to answer why should I be gay, they can try.

I am not arguing for you to change your preferences. Thats not how sexual orientation works. I do sincerely hope you find a way to be yourself, though.

In all honesty, there is no proof that being gay is a choice, nor is there any proof that being gay isn’t a choice. I personally believe that having some people who are homosexual is just a product of being in the animal kingdom. Although there is no evidence of specific genes that may cause this same-sex sexual attraction, it most likely is just a matter of diversity in the human race. I like to think that homosexuals exist in the animal kingdom in general to control population, but I haven’t seen anything that justifies this claim. Also, there are quite a few individuals in the LGB community who do indeed make out straight ‘cis’ people in general to be something bad, disgusting, or invalid. Not saying that everyone in the LGB community does it, but I do come across that viewpoint a lot.

There is no logical reason for you to make that claim.

Yes, there is, I want knowledge.

Being gay is not a choice and, as such, looking for a 'logical reason' is nonsensical. Its like looking for a logical reason to be 10 foot tall.

I can see logical reasons for being 10 foot tall. But you seem to be insisting that being gay isnt a choice, which it is.

But anyway, my question is why should person be gay? Shouldnt person try to cure himself of it, because its not what person wants.

In all honesty, there is no proof that being gay is a choice

Even if being gay isnt a choice, acting on it is. But I think there is no proof that being gay isnt a choice.

What I don't like about queerphobes is that it isn't logical.

When I say that it isn't logical, I am saying that there is no logical reason why person should be straight.

Why should I be straight?

If there is no reason for me to be straight, then there is no reason for anyone to be straight.

You simply cannot use logical deduction to deduce that you should be straight.

I don't think I should be straight. I don't feel straight. So I don't support queerphobes, because they don't support me as a perfectly queer girl, they didn't add "empathy" to their dictionary.

So not only that they can't logically deduce conclusion that they should be straight, but they are also racist against queer people.

The reason most anyone is straight is for the sexual reproduction of the human race. If everyone was homosexual or most everyone was homosexual, we’d be a pretty fast dying species and we probably wouldn’t have made it this far if this were the case. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not homophobic. I don’t care who people feel attracted to in all honesty, I just wanted to give the logical thinking that goes on in a lot of the heads of those who disagree with LGB. They feel it is illogical to be anything other than straight because that goes against sexual reproductive norms. So while illogical thinking in your mind, it is logical thinking in theirs.

When I say that it isn't logical, I am saying that there is no logical reason why person should be straight.

Yeah, but same issue exists in LGBTQP+-.

The reason most anyone is straight is for the sexual reproduction of the human race.

Cool, IVF and surrogacy. Next excuse?

Yeah, but same issue exists in LGBTQP+-.

Ahh, so the standard "criticisms apply to thee but not to me" line of thinking. Nice.

Alyssa wrote:

Cool, IVF and surrogacy. Next excuse?

To many who feel it is more logical to be heterosexual rather than homosexual, the mere thought of IVF and surrogacy is immoral, especially if said person does not think that homosexual individuals should have kids in the first place, as most believe that a mother and father figure is important when raising a child. Plus, IVF and surrogacy only support the rationalization on why it’s more logical in their minds to be straight, because it proves that only a man and a woman is capable of conceiving children.

To many who feel it is more logical to be heterosexual rather than homosexual, the mere thought of IVF and surrogacy is immoral,

Ah, so it's not about sexual reproduction, then because otherwise that complaint would fall through (if anything, it would be lauded as a moral success story because it allows couples who wouldn't have the ability to reproduce the opportunity to). It's just very badly disguised hate. Cool.

because it proves that only a man and a woman is capable of conceiving children.

Not really? A fertilized egg cell is required for conception. The list of ways to get there is expanding over time.

Alyssa wrote:

Ah, so it's not about sexual reproduction, then because otherwise that complaint would fall through (if anything, it would be lauded as a moral success story because it allows couples who wouldn't have the ability to reproduce the opportunity to). It's just very badly disguised hate. Cool.

That is what IVF at least was originally meant for. To allow women who were ‘infertile’ in a sense to still be able to have biological children. However surrogacy is generally seen as bad all around since it’s using another woman’s body essentially as a human container. But a lot of people who do not agree with homosexual individuals will not agree with them having children, especially using these methods

because it proves that only a man and a woman is capable of conceiving children.

Not really? A fertilized egg cell is required for conception. The list of ways to get there is expanding over time.

There is no other way to fertilize an egg without sperm. Even through artificial means such as IVF, they still need sperm to fertilize the egg, and sperm is found in male reproductive systems, so it does prove that only men and women can conceive women. Eggs cannot fertilize other eggs and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm. It is not possible, and most likely won't be possible in our generation.

However surrogacy is generally seen as bad all around since it’s using another woman’s body essentially as a human container.

I mean sure, but if consent is there and we protect that consent then let people do whatever they want.

But a lot of people who do not agree with homosexual individuals will not agree with them having children, especially using these methods

So, y'know, back to the original point of badly disguised hate. Got it.

There is no other way to fertilize an egg without sperm.

Any egg? Dolly says hello. Obviously not tried with humans (and for good reasons), but the line exists if people wanted to push it.'

There are also lab cases of using other cells to simulate sperm cells in lab rats. Again, not human, but enough to doubt the claim that only human sperm from a male will work.

Alyssa wrote:

However surrogacy is generally seen as bad all around since it’s using another woman’s body essentially as a human container.

I mean sure, but if consent is there and we protect that consent then let people do whatever they want.

But a lot of people who do not agree with homosexual individuals will not agree with them having children, especially using these methods

So, y'know, back to the original point of badly disguised hate. Got it.

A mother figure and father figure is very important in raising a child. I say mother/father figure because I personally feel as long as the homosexual couple have maybe a friend or uncle or whatever of the opposite sex of whatever they are, that is fine, however, others are not that lenient about it and do not believe in the idea of a homosexual relationship having any kids at all.

There is no other way to fertilize an egg without sperm.

Any egg? Dolly says hello. Obviously not tried with humans (and for good reasons), but the line exists if people wanted to push it.'

There are also lab cases of using other cells to simulate sperm cells in lab rats. Again, not human, but enough to doubt the claim that only human sperm from a male will work.

This is irrelevant considering you completely ignored my point about how eggs cannot fertilize other eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm. Furthermore, we are fundamentally different in almost every way to other species in the animal kingdom considering our cognitive, structural, etc. functions (yes, even to monkeys, even though we are closely related to them). We are not talking about whether the fertilization of a female human egg can be caused by the sperm of other male species, we are talking about the objective fact that again, eggs cannot fertilize eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize sperm. You cannot conceive a human child without both egg and sperm. A female cannot conceive with another female, and same goes for males. That has stayed true, even with all the alternative artificial ways found in fertilizing eggs without needing copulation.

A mother figure and father figure is very important in raising a child. I say mother/father figure because I personally feel as long as the homosexual couple have maybe a friend or uncle or whatever of the opposite sex of whatever they are, that is fine,

LMAO. Oh, that's where this is going. I see now. Regardless, I'll bite. Why can two women or two men not successfully raise a child, without falling back on traditional familial standards?

This is irrelevant considering you completely ignored my point about how eggs cannot fertilize other eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm.

Because that's only how reproduction works if you're wearing blinders?

A human child comes from a fertilized egg that is carried to term. A fertilized egg that is carried to term is the end goal, then. Traditionally, that has been done by introducing sperm cells, sure. So if there are other ways to reach the end goal of a fertilized egg other than introducing sperm, then the classical view of man + woman = baby falls flat. And there's enough evidence out there to suggest something like that is possible. Not guaranteed, not likely, just possible. Granted, there's a ton of legal and ethical issues with doing human variants of the Dolly experiment, but the concept is there if some ethically bankrupt mad scientist wanted to take a crack at it.

No where did I make the claim that egg + egg = kid. Same with sperm. Save the strawmen for the farms.

Like, there's a reason I'm not suggesting something like parthenogenesis, where egg cells just start dividing on their own absent any kind of fertilization, or the experiments where doctors can introduce electrical shocks to prompt the egg to start dividing without any kind of fertilization. Those don't result in actual babies being born.

But anyway, my question is why should person be gay?

Again, you wrongly assume a person can decide to be different than things completely outside their control prescribed.

But you seem to be insisting that being gay isnt a choice, which it is.

Did you choose to be straight? If not, why would you think anyone does? Are you relying on your own limited experience here or are you open to being informed by a consensus of experts? If the latter, the American Psychological Association does not endorse the notion that orientation is a choice. [X]

Alyssa wrote:

A mother figure and father figure is very important in raising a child. I say mother/father figure because I personally feel as long as the homosexual couple have maybe a friend or uncle or whatever of the opposite sex of whatever they are, that is fine,

LMAO. Oh, that's where this is going. I see now. Regardless, I'll bite. Why can two women or two men not successfully raise a child, without falling back on traditional familial standards?

I’m not saying that two women or two men cannot successfully raise a child, however, a good influence that is the opposite sex should be introduced. If you’ve ever heard the phrase ‘daughters often marry their fathers/sons often marry their mothers’, that is sorta what I’m referring to. It’s all about setting a good example of what the child should expect of the opposite sex (and no, I don’t mean gender roles/stereotypes. I mean basic things like consent, kindness, respect, etc.), because if they are only introduced to these things through their two moms/two dads, they may not know what to expect from the opposite sex, or may experience bad influences of the opposite sex through public school. There’s also the fact that most kids do not grow up with two dads or two moms, so once the child begins to realize that other kids have both a mom and a dad, they may feel curious or envious about what that experience of having a father/mother figure may feel like. That’s why I do believe an adult of the opposite sex should be there as an influence, not to take away from the actual guardians/parents of the child, but to provide the child with as many good influences as possible with many different people, and that includes allowing the child to interact with an adult of the opposite sex. Literally anyone could do, as I said, a family friend, a godparent, an auntie/uncle, etc. I hope that clarifies what I mean a bit more.

This is irrelevant considering you completely ignored my point about how eggs cannot fertilize other eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm.

Because that's only how reproduction works if you're wearing blinders?

A human child comes from a fertilized egg that is carried to term. A fertilized egg that is carried to term is the end goal, then. Traditionally, that has been done by introducing sperm cells, sure. So if there are other ways to reach the end goal of a fertilized egg other than introducing sperm, then the classical view of man + woman = baby falls flat. And there's enough evidence out there to suggest something like that is possible. Not guaranteed, not likely, just possible. Granted, there's a ton of legal and ethical issues with doing human variants of the Dolly experiment, but the concept is there if some ethically bankrupt mad scientist wanted to take a crack at it.

But the only way that could most likely be possible is basically taking the sperm of another species and using that to fertilize the egg (im only addressing the rat example you gave because I do not know what the Dolly experiment is), which is still introducing sperm to the egg, it’s just of a different species. That would only break the classical view by making it human woman + male (whatever species) and vise versa. In general, it doesn’t actually break the classical view of man + woman = human baby because it’s requiring species other than human. A man is a human adult male, and a woman is a human adult female, so by using the sperm of other species to fertilize a human egg or vise versa with using human sperm to fertilize another species' egg, you aren’t breaking the classical view, you are simply making it clear that it is somehow possible to mix the human species with another species.

No where did I make the claim that egg + egg = kid. Same with sperm. Save the strawmen for the farms.

By bringing up the idea of finding other ways to fertilize an egg through other means that are not human, you are avoiding the fact that generally a human female and another human female cannot conceive a child together. There has to be sperm somewhere in the equation, whether that means through the sperm of other species, through somehow making artificial sperm (which seems much more likely than humans being able to conceive with other species), or something else. Human Egg + human sperm = human baby is the same as man + woman = baby.

I’m not saying that two women or two men cannot successfully raise a child, however, a good influence that is the opposite sex should be introduced.

Why do good influences need to be of opposite sexes? Traits like kindness and empathy aren't gender coded.

are only introduced to these things through their two moms/two dads

Why do good influences need to be part of the familial structure? Hell, I took more example of how to be a good person (and a good father figure) from my soccer coach growing up than I did my own dad.

may experience bad influences of the opposite sex through public school.

They're going to experience bad influences in the public space regardless of what their familial support structure looks like. That's just how the world is. Why is that relevant to their child rearing capabilities?

Hell, why do positive influences even have to be real fucking people? I took more queues on how to be a good person from Sora and Kairi from Kingdom Hearts (a video game) than I did from most of the members of my family.

There’s also the fact that most kids do not grow up with two dads or two moms, so once the child begins to realize that other kids have both a mom and a dad, they may feel curious or envious about what that experience of having a father/mother figure may feel like.

Why does that affect whether or not someone grows up to be a good or bad person?

Literally anyone could do

Yes, but you need to actually internalize and process this. LITERALLY ANYONE can be a good role model for someone. Doesn't matter how old they are, what gender they identify as, what race they belong to, or any other "key defining" factor you want to bring up. People pick and choose who they model their beliefs after and what examples they follow. So trying to enforce some arbitrary gender requirement on familial upbringing is nonsense that's just rooted in queerphobic rhetoric.

But the only way that could most likely be possible is basically taking the sperm of another species and using that to fertilize the egg (im only addressing the rat example you gave because I do not know what the Dolly experiment is),

We'll start with the Dolly example because that's easier to Google.

Dolly was a sheep that was created by removing the nucleus from an unfertilized egg and replacing it with the nucleus from an adult sheep's mammary cell, then medically stimulated into developing an embryo, then implanted in a surrogate mother and carried to term and birth. This effectively 'cloned' the sheep, but the key point for this discussion is that at no point in this process were sperm cells introduced.

Extremely ethically problematic in humans, but again, ethically bankrupt mad scientist.

The lab mice example, which has had a few different iterations in it's methodology, took cells from male mice, changed them into stem cells, then converted those stem cells into egg cells, which were fertilized and carried to term. Technically uses both sperm and egg cells, but no female mice were used. The egg cells originated from stem cells that were created from male mice which, again, not human, but a more more ethically cooperative concept.

Both illustrate the concept that the traditional concept of male + female = baby isn't necessarily the only way to get there, and that it's possible other avenues exist that would allow queer couples that don't follow the traditional family dynamic to naturally have kids.

Alyssa wrote:

I’m not saying that two women or two men cannot successfully raise a child, however, a good influence that is the opposite sex should be introduced.

Why do good influences need to be of opposite sexes? Traits like kindness and empathy aren't gender coded.

That’s what I’m saying. It’s about giving children a wide array of diverse adult figures so that they know that traits such as kindness and empathy aren’t only found in only one sex, and that it’s universal. If a child does not have any influence from the opposite sex in their life, and goes to school and experiences a bad experience with the opposite sex, they might think that those traits are only found in the people who are the same sex as the parents. Giving them diverse adult figures to interact with helps them know what the universal traits of a person should be and what to expect out of everyone rather than just one sex.

are only introduced to these things through their two moms/two dads

Why do good influences need to be part of the familial structure? Hell, I took more example of how to be a good person (and a good father figure) from my soccer coach growing up than I did my own dad.

And that’s completely normal. Having a diverse array of adult figures of all backgrounds gives children of both heterosexual and homosexual parents people they can look up to despite any minor differences such as skin color, sex, etc.

may experience bad influences of the opposite sex through public school.

They're going to experience bad influences in the public space regardless of what their familial support structure looks like. That's just how the world is. Why is that relevant to their child rearing capabilities?

It’s relevant because if they have not been exposed to a good influence from the opposite sex, they may come to believe that the opposite sex is bad or dangerous to talk to based off of experiences from school life and whatnot, rather than coming to the conclusion that someone may just be a jerk just for the sake of being one.

Hell, why do positive influences even have to be real fucking people? I took more queues on how to be a good person from Sora and Kairi from Kingdom Hearts (a video game) than I did from most of the members of my family.

There’s also the fact that most kids do not grow up with two dads or two moms, so once the child begins to realize that other kids have both a mom and a dad, they may feel curious or envious about what that experience of having a father/mother figure may feel like.

Why does that affect whether or not someone grows up to be a good or bad person?

Literally anyone could do

Yes, but you need to actually internalize and process this. LITERALLY ANYONE can be a good role model for someone. Doesn't matter how old they are, what gender they identify as, what race they belong to, or any other "key defining" factor you want to bring up. People pick and choose who they model their beliefs after and what examples they follow. So trying to enforce some arbitrary gender requirement on familial upbringing is nonsense that's just rooted in queerphobic rhetoric.

I’m not saying that a certain group of people can’t be a good role model for someone. I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I’m saying that providing different models/influences of different identities, including of the opposite sex, is extremely beneficial for the child. A child can have multiple figures to look up to. Saying that a child should be introduced to someone of the opposite sex of their parents to allow them someone else to look up to isn’t bad. Both heterosexual and homosexual parents have children that do this. It doesn’t mean the child loves them any less. It just gives them the idea that anyone, despite of the minor differences, can have universal traits such as kindness, empathy, etc.

But the only way that could most likely be possible is basically taking the sperm of another species and using that to fertilize the egg (im only addressing the rat example you gave because I do not know what the Dolly experiment is),

We'll start with the Dolly example because that's easier to Google.

Dolly was a sheep that was created by removing the nucleus from an unfertilized egg and replacing it with the nucleus from an adult sheep's mammary cell, then medically stimulated into developing an embryo, then implanted in a surrogate mother and carried to term and birth. This effectively 'cloned' the sheep, but the key point for this discussion is that at no point in this process were sperm cells introduced.

Extremely ethically problematic in humans, but again, ethically bankrupt mad scientist.

The lab mice example, which has had a few different iterations in it's methodology, took cells from male mice, changed them into stem cells, then converted those stem cells into egg cells, which were fertilized and carried to term. Technically uses both sperm and egg cells, but no female mice were used. The egg cells originated from stem cells that were created from male mice which, again, not human, but a more more ethically cooperative concept.

Both illustrate the concept that the traditional concept of male + female = baby isn't necessarily the only way to get there, and that it's possible other avenues exist that would allow queer couples that don't follow the traditional family dynamic to naturally have kids.

Thank you for clarifying this, because the original mention of these did have me confused. The only thing that kinda worries me about these is that it does seem to be some form of cloning, which would probably beg a lot of questions considering the ethical, legal, social, moral, etc. aspects of it. It sounds more like an asexual way of reproducing, which also may bring forth many concerns on genetic mutations and whatnot since the cloning aspect means that it may be harder or close to impossible to try and purge mutations over time, but that’s another conversation for another day.

Anyways, I kinda feel like this has been going on for a long time and I’m kinda mentally drained from going back and forth and everything. I think this was generally a good talk despite some of the misinterpretation/miscommunication we had. I hope I was able to clear up my stance a little better. That’s my fault for not being able to clarify better, so I apologize for that. If you still disagree with me, that’s okay. It’s just one of those times where we have to agree to disagree. Thank you for taking the time to indulge in this conversation with me, I know this is very time consuming so I appreciate it. Have a wonderful day/night 🙏🏾

It's just socio-psychological non-sense...When if all that is needed is to achieve a specific recreational outcome, then masturbation will suffice...5 minutes and then get on with something more useful perhaps, like grooming the designer puppy.

Whereas if the intended outcome is gamete fusion, then at some point it will be necessary to fuse male and female gametes.

Even so, at the end of the day the base drive is always procreation...Whereas the fitted kitchen, mega-TV and strap on dildo is just overthink.

Ahh, so the standard "criticisms apply to thee but not to me" line of thinking. Nice.

No, it applies to both by default, until we figure out if person should be straight or gay or without sexual orientation.

SkepticalOne wrote:

But anyway, my question is why should person be gay?

Again, you wrongly assume a person can decide to be different than things completely outside their control prescribed.

But you seem to be insisting that being gay isnt a choice, which it is.

Did you choose to be straight? If not, why would you think anyone does? Are you relying on your own limited experience here or are you open to being informed by a consensus of experts? If the latter, the American Psychological Association does not endorse the notion that orientation is a choice. [X]

First, I don't care much about what your "experts" say, so you just wasted your time finding that link.

Second, yes being straight is a choice too. So is being gay. Person can choose not to act on it.

When if all that is needed is to achieve a specific recreational outcome, then masturbation will suffice

Yes, there is no reason why gay people should act on their urges, because its harmful.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) experience higher rates of certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). For example, MSM are disproportionately affected by syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and HIV.

This demographic remains the most significantly affected by HIV. According to the NIH HIVinfo fact sheet, male-to-male sexual contact accounts for over 65% of new HIV diagnoses.

Whereas if the intended outcome is gamete fusion, then at some point it will be necessary to fuse male and female gametes.

Yeah, I am a perfectly straight white male. Perfectly straight. that means I am attracted to females. And yes, male and female produce a baby. Male and male produce nothing.

First, I don't care much about what your "experts" say, so you just wasted your time finding that link.

Willfully ignorant, then? Okay.

Second, yes being straight is a choice too. So is being gay. Person can choose not to act on it.

If you think being straight is a choice, then you're probably not straight. Fwiw, choosing not to have sex isn't the same as choosing sexuality.

Willfully ignorant, then? Okay.

No, just rejecting fake experts.

If you think being straight is a choice, then you're probably not straight.

False conclusion.

Fwiw, choosing not to have sex isn't the same as choosing sexuality.

Maybe, but I have no problem with gays who choose to never have sex and keep their gayness secret and never tell anyone about it, and also work to cure their sexual attraction. So choosing to express homosexuality is still a choice. But being a homosexual is also a choice, because man can stop being attracted to men if he chose not to look at them ever and just focus on observing women. then his sexual attraction would adapt over years.