I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[promethean75]

alright I'd do it - have a daughter - only if I were wealthy enough to buy or build a compound on an island which would be isolated from society like some creepy religious cult shit... but it would be more like one of those x-men bases hidden under the tropical waterfall etc. when she came of age, my daughter would be presented with a small group of selected for young bachelors from prominent familes (also in the cult) around the world, and she would pick the young gentleman whom she most desired after briefly engaging in ritual martial art combat with him to test his skill. u know how the fight always has erotic overtones and they'll roll around and pin each other down almost kissing each other but then she pushes him off her and spins around, flipping him over etc. they're both all out of breath so when they're face to face in a pin and breathing heavily all over each other, it makes em even more hot and any second u just know they're gonna start fucking. stuff like that. think Pitt and Jolie in that one where the two assassins are married to each other. that's how I'd want my daughter to be. now if i keep her in regular society with the herd, she may end up a normie and i can't risk that.

[Constantine]

You are a sad little confused bunny. Do you think you might be a bit closeted?

What? A closeted Queer? A closeted Bigfoot or Alien? I don't think Queer exists, so you think that implies I'm secretly that in the closet? Should I square the circle while hanging out in the queer closet as well? Hover on Aladdin's carpet for a bit if I find it rolled up in the back?

You could try moving beyond your simplistic views. The following is a reasonable enough place to start:
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/ap ... uestioning

Why do you and so many others insist on holding onto simplistic views? Just because you've always held them shouldn't make them sacrosanct like it does with children and other immature individuals.

I hold to simplistic views because I hold to Aristotle's Square of Opposition and dislike the endless alphabet train. I want it as simple as possible. I'm -Q because I don't think Q exists. I know G exists. No doubt. Q is in severe doubt. I'm not going to teach kids to be inclusive of things that don't exist.

[Sculptor]

What? A closeted Queer? A closeted Bigfoot or Alien? I don't think Queer exists, so you think that implies I'm secretly that in the closet? Should I square the circle while hanging out in the queer closet as well? Hover on Aladdin's carpet for a bit if I find it rolled up in the back?

You could try moving beyond your simplistic views. The following is a reasonable enough place to start:
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/ap ... uestioning

Why do you and so many others insist on holding onto simplistic views? Just because you've always held them shouldn't make them sacrosanct like it does with children and other immature individuals.

I hold to simplistic views because I hold to Aristotle's Square of Opposition and dislike the endless alphabet train. I want it as simple as possible. I'm -Q because I don't think Q exists. I know G exists. No doubt. Q is in severe doubt. I'm not going to teach kids to be inclusive of things that don't exist.

Constantine does not not exist. He has too many factors shared by other things, but nothing unique or distinctive. The word train"Constantine" is clearly not unique and its use here is obviously borrowed, nothing more than a word train in which the signifier bears no relationship to the signified and where it could just as well have a relationship with any and all entities that are similar.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What? A closeted Queer? A closeted Bigfoot or Alien? I don't think Queer exists, so you think that implies I'm secretly that in the closet? Should I square the circle while hanging out in the queer closet as well? Hover on Aladdin's carpet for a bit if I find it rolled up in the back?

You could try moving beyond your simplistic views. The following is a reasonable enough place to start:
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/ap ... uestioning

Why do you and so many others insist on holding onto simplistic views? Just because you've always held them shouldn't make them sacrosanct like it does with children and other immature individuals.

I hold to simplistic views because I hold to Aristotle's Square of Opposition and dislike the endless alphabet train. I want it as simple as possible. I'm -Q because I don't think Q exists. I know G exists. No doubt. Q is in severe doubt. I'm not going to teach kids to be inclusive of things that don't exist.

Of course it doesn't exist. Just as 'non binary' doesn't exist (unless it's a synonym for 'blue haired'). Or 2S doesn't exist. It's just a way for some people to feel 'different' and 'special'. Just more tribal bullshit. The punks did it so much better in the 80s and they never preached or demanded that everyone else pander to them with 'special pronouns' etc.
'Queer' used to be another way of saying 'gay' or 'homosexual', but clearly that is no longer the case or it wouldn't have its own designated letter in the ever-expanding 'special person acronym'. It started off as just LGB. I've observed it getting longer and longer over the decades and always felt instintively that something was 'off' about that but couldn't quite work out what it was or what the motive behind it could be. It's like everything else; just follow the money. To dare suggest this back then would have invited accusations of 'cynicism' and 'homophobia' (not sure if anyone used 'transphobia' back then. I don't think it was considered a 'thing' yet). I'm pretty sure that no one saw what was coming. No doubt gays back then thought it was harmless and an act of kindness without being aware of who was really pulling the strings.

[Consul]

'Queer' used to be another way of saying 'gay' or 'homosexual', but clearly that is no longer the case…

"As the very word implies, "queer" does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. "Queer," then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative—a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her or his sexual practices: it could include some married couples without children, for example, or even (who knows?) some married couples with children—with, perhaps, very naughty children. "Queer," in any case, does not designate a class of already objectified pathologies or perversions; rather, it describes a horizon of possibility whose precise extent and heterogeneous scope cannot in principle be delimited in advance. It is from the eccentric positionality occupied by the queer subject that it may become possible to envision a variety of possibilities for reordering the relations among sexual behaviors, erotic identities, constructions of gender, forms of knowledge, regimes of enunciation, logics of representation, modes of self-constitution, and practices of community—for restructuring, that is, the relations among power, truth, and desire."

(Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. p. 62)
——————
"…Nor is the name queer an umbrella for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered." (p. 344)

"[Q]ueer work wants to address the full range of power-ridden normativities of sex. This endeavor has animated a rethinking of both the perverse and the normal: the romantic couple, sex for money, reproduction, the genres of life narrative." (pp. 345-6)

(Berlant, Lauren, and Michael Warner. "What Does Queer Theory Teach Us About X?" Publications of the Modern Language Association [PMLA] 110/3 (1995): 343–349.)
——————
"…a new style of "queer" politics that, no longer content to carve out a buffer zone for a minoritized and protected subculture, has begun to challenge the pervasive and often invisible heteronormativity of modern societies." (p. 3)

"The task of queer social theory…must be to confront the default heteronormativity of modern culture with its worst nightmare, a queer planet." (p. 16)

(Warner, Michael. "Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet." Social Text 29 (1991): 3–17.)
——————
"…[A] nonoppressive gender order can only come about through a radical change in sexuality." (p. viii)

"The essays in this volume go beyond calling for tolerance of lesbians and gays. They assert the necessarily and desirably queer nature of the world." (p. xxi)

"The preference for "queer" represents, among other things, an aggressive impulse of generalization; it rejects a minoritizing logic of toleration or simple political interest-representation in favor of a more thorough resistance to regimes of the normal.
…
"Queer" is also a way of cutting against mandatory gender divisions, though gender continues to be a dividing line." (p. xxvi)

(Warner, Michael. Introduction to Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, edited by Michael Warner, vii-xxxi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.)

[Consul]

You could try moving beyond your simplistic views. The following is a reasonable enough place to start:
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/ap ... uestioning

"Queer, when applied in an affirming manner, is an umbrella term to describe sexual orientation or gender identity that does not conform to dominant societal norms (e.g., straight/heterosexual) and does not match conventional labels like gay, lesbian, or bisexual."

This is a purely negative definition telling us what queer people are not rather than what they are.
Aren't "transsexual" and "intersexual" conventional labels too, such that transsexuals and intersexuals aren't queer according to this definition?
If "Q" in the acronym "LGBTQIA" is to have any distinct meaning, queer people cannot be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, intersexual, or asexual. But there are no possible sexual orientations other than heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual; so "Q" doesn't have a distinct meaning. (Transsexuality and intersexuality aren't sexual orientations, but sex-related mental/physical conditions.)

[Consul]

"As Janet Jakobsen outlines, we can differentiate the uses of “queer” in three ways (1998, 516-517 ["Queer Is? Queer Does? Normativity and the Problem of Resistance"]):

* As a noun (example: “this is the queer space”).
* As an identity that resists traditional categories (example: “I identify as queer”).
* As a verb (example: “let’s queer gender!”).

These ways of using “queer” are often in tension with one another. Jakobsen suggests that the last option – queer as a kind of doing rather than being – holds the most political potential because it focuses on resistance (rather than description) and practice (rather than identity).
To undertake “queering” is to deploy queer as a verb, to challenge and resist expectations or norms. For example, “queering femininity” might mean thinking about how femininity can be more than an oppressive gender ideal, and can be embodied in non-normative ways (McCann 2018 [Queering Femininity: Sexuality, Feminism and the Politics of Presentation])."

(McCann, Hannah, and Whitney Monaghan. Queer Theory Now: From Foundations to Futures. London: Red Globe Press, 2020. p. 3)

Well, "nonbinary", "genderfluid", and "demiboy/-girl" are surely examples of non-traditional, non-conventional categories; and so is this one:

"My gender is cactus. A while back I complained about wanting to replace my gender with a set of outward-facing spikes. I've been feeling prickly, wanting the space between me and other people to be delineated and defended, and some of that prickliness has been about gender. I've also been bonding with the desert, and spending time (though not as much as I'd like) among cacti and thorny trees and tiny flowers and birds and lizards. And I realized that... actually cactus works way better than male or female as a gender for me. It's a little tongue in cheek…"

(Dillon, Rax E. "My Gender is Cactus." 2007: https://rax.livejournal.com/104836.html)

[Constantine]

You could try moving beyond your simplistic views. The following is a reasonable enough place to start:
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/ap ... uestioning

Why do you and so many others insist on holding onto simplistic views? Just because you've always held them shouldn't make them sacrosanct like it does with children and other immature individuals.

I hold to simplistic views because I hold to Aristotle's Square of Opposition and dislike the endless alphabet train. I want it as simple as possible. I'm -Q because I don't think Q exists. I know G exists. No doubt. Q is in severe doubt. I'm not going to teach kids to be inclusive of things that don't exist.

Constantine does not not exist. He has too many factors shared by other things, but nothing unique or distinctive. The word train"Constantine" is clearly not unique and its use here is obviously borrowed, nothing more than a word train in which the signifier bears no relationship to the signified and where it could just as well have a relationship with any and all entities that are similar.

Constantine the non existing entity is about to start a hot dog eating contest.

[Sculptor]

I hold to simplistic views because I hold to Aristotle's Square of Opposition and dislike the endless alphabet train. I want it as simple as possible. I'm -Q because I don't think Q exists. I know G exists. No doubt. Q is in severe doubt. I'm not going to teach kids to be inclusive of things that don't exist.

Constantine does not not exist. He has too many factors shared by other things, but nothing unique or distinctive. The word train"Constantine" is clearly not unique and its use here is obviously borrowed, nothing more than a word train in which the signifier bears no relationship to the signified and where it could just as well have a relationship with any and all entities that are similar.

Constantine the non existing entity is about to start a hot dog eating contest.

But the thing signified here is neither hot nor is it a dog.

[Constantine]

Bad resorts to semiotics makes the questionable status of queer appear even less likely to be true. You don't have to do this sort of thing with a angry, barking dog.

[Wizard22]

So what! that's just the nature of human activity, you cannot have a problem with other people's nature, it's their prerogative to act as they so choose to act. It's none of your business.

Life for humans and every other sentient creature is a sexually transmitted disease, if that's what you want to call this contagion of consenting adult human beings, expressing their sexuality as their nature to do so dictates.

While wild animals do not use the birth control that is available for humans as far as I am aware - we humans can use birth control and do ... We can control new births from happening, or we can knowingly pass on this sexually transmitted contagion onto our offspring, or we can use a condom, to save their life, to spare them the sexually tranmitted disease of having to repeat the process of passing it on like a disease.

This is basically what you are implying human activity does with it's sexuality.

This is not rocket science, to save a life from the sexually transmitted disease/ contagion, is to consciously prevent it from happening at all. Easy peasy!

Seems most people have no problem with having this sexually transmitted disease/contagion passed onto them. It seems they rather like the idea of being a part of it.

When LGBTQMAP+ demand "a whole Summer of Pride", pride parades, waving their junk in kids' faces, pushing gross transexual men dressed as drag into women's bathrooms...

Yeah, actually it becomes everybody's business.

[Wizard22]

No one is forcing you to be enthusiastic. You are feel to be as much a homophobe as you clearly are.
When gay people feel safe on the streets, maybe then they will dial back the pride stuff.
If you really give half a fuck then you might want to consider STFU.

Wizzard is ready and desperately waiting

If we give them what they want, maybe they'll go away!?!

No, Sculptor, dumb as rocks, this is what happens when you chisel without a sharp tool.

[Wizard22]

The sad truth is that the same number of people have been gay since time began. The only difference is that laws have been introduced to protect them against bigotry, and social communication has increased so that disparate and frightened individuals find it easier to get together.
WHy don't you just suspend your bigotry for two second and consider this statement and what it actually means for people living their lives without fear.

I want my mother, sister, niece, daughter, all my female relatives to live without fear of sick fucking perverts using female bathrooms, or mentally ill freaks trying to compete against them in women's sports.

Why do you hate women so much, Sculptor? A lifetime of constant rejection finally got to you?

And compare it with your risible idea that someone an innate sense of sexual desire can be "infected".
Do you hold your heterosexuality to be so frail that you might get infected with gay ness??

I did not ask to be heterosexual.

You should have asked though. You might have become one that way, too bad...

One morning about the age of 12 I woke up with a hard-on thinking about female body parts, that boner rarely subsided for decades.

Your mom doesn't count, Scalpy.

I never found any man to be attractive and the thought of gay sex was viscerally repulsive.
Living in a gay down I've had plenty of offers, but never wanted any part of it. I always declined politely.
I am pretty sure that gay people also have a similar experience when they are teens, but have a much more difficult time because of social stigma and bigotry.
So be a fucking human and support Pride, stop bleating.

Wow, homophobic too?! No wonder your thoughts are all over the place... you sound like you're in denial, Scalpy?

(See how easy it is to argue on your level?)

(I'm being sarcastic, for those of you in double-digit IQ who can't tell the difference)

[Wizard22]

really tho it's the hypersexualization in our society that would be my worst fear if raising a daughter. and i know becuz I'm a perv bro. believe u me i would know what dudes were thinking when lookin at my fifteen year old daughter. one part of me gets stoked in a 'yeah that's my daughter u guys, my DNA. fuckin gorgeous, right?' kinda way and the other part of me cringes.

Well, at least you can imagine it. Most others seem unable to... exactly, it's a horrifying challenge.

alright I'd do it - have a daughter - only if I were wealthy enough to buy or build a compound on an island which would be isolated from society like some creepy religious cult shit... but it would be more like one of those x-men bases hidden under the tropical waterfall etc. when she came of age, my daughter would be presented with a small group of selected for young bachelors from prominent familes (also in the cult) around the world, and she would pick the young gentleman whom she most desired after briefly engaging in ritual martial art combat with him to test his skill. u know how the fight always has erotic overtones and they'll roll around and pin each other down almost kissing each other but then she pushes him off her and spins around, flipping him over etc. they're both all out of breath so when they're face to face in a pin and breathing heavily all over each other, it makes em even more hot and any second u just know they're gonna start fucking. stuff like that. think Pitt and Jolie in that one where the two assassins are married to each other. that's how I'd want my daughter to be. now if i keep her in regular society with the herd, she may end up a normie and i can't risk that.

No X-men bases... that's cheating. But good idea, might have to steal that one...

[Sculptor]

The sad truth is that the same number of people have been gay since time began. The only difference is that laws have been introduced to protect them against bigotry, and social communication has increased so that disparate and frightened individuals find it easier to get together.
WHy don't you just suspend your bigotry for two second and consider this statement and what it actually means for people living their lives without fear.

I want my mother, sister, niece, daughter, all my female relatives to live without fear of sick fucking perverts using female bathrooms, or mentally ill freaks trying to compete against them in women's sports.

The problem with "men" using women's bathrooms is ZERO.
Women have less to fear from gay and trans people, and much more to fear from heterosexual men and bigots like you that stir hate and discord.