This flag gives the idea that your sexual orientation is not simply a part of your identity, but that it IS your identity. It isn't a trans flag, a gay flag, or lesbian flag, it's an 'I'm not straight' flag. Why would public buildings need to fly it when all aspects of sexuality a. are all equally protected under the law, guaranteeing equal access to services, and b. sexuality is not appropriate in a workplace.
This is a very good take. It’s promoting something that should be deeply personal. I had a friend from childhood that was a very interesting person, but the minute he came out of the closet, he made being gay his whole identity. This faded with time, he found a career that was deeply satisfying to him, and he actually reverted to the clever, thoughtful, articulate and literary person he was before. I would imagine he was trying to integrate that aspect of his identity and was working out how to do it. I don’t fault him for it, but for years his antics were a bit grinding (no pun intended).
The point I’m trying to make is, when you make a singular aspect of your personhood the most important aspect of your entire identity and subordinate all other aspects to it, those other parts go unnourished and wither away. Human sexuality is important, but we are so much more than that, and frankly, who you want to fuck is the least interesting part of you.
I'm of the mind that if sexuality wasn't shoved down our throats (pun very much intended) at every turn, people would likely hold a 'live and let live' view on it.
But, I have the feeling none of this is about acceptance to begin with, more so these people are being used as a tool for the elites to divide us.
I feel the assumption that the pride flag “gives the idea” that sexuality is one’s identity rather than a part, does not logically follow.
You can have that opinion, but I could just as easily say the inverse and it be a valid take. The conclusion could be that a building that display the pride flag is signaling that all sexual identities are welcome and should expect equal treatment. It need not be any deeper than that. It’s a signal of safety for minorities.
One whole month of it is just pushing the lifestyle down people’s throats. No govt agency or corporate entity should be able force their workers, vendors, and/or customers to accept lGBt whatever as legit/acceptable lifestyles. It should be perfectly fine to reject them and not like them. What’s not ok is verbally abusing them or being violent towards them.
a month is clearly excessive, but what is being found illegitimate/unacceptable about not being heterosexual? what is it that you are referring to as being unlikable and deserving rejection, something you would have to be forced to accept?
The flag itself is not a pluralist flag. If it was, it would include heterosexuality as well.
>I feel the assumption that the pride flag “gives the idea” that sexuality is one’s identity rather than a part, does not logically follow.
I could have stated this part better, but I mean the cult-like following that utilizes the pride flag is very much encouraging placing sexuality before all other aspects of personality. Why is there literally a whole month dedicated to openly expressing who you like to fuck. Why do we need to know or care or give you special treatment.
It's not just "who you like to fuck," it's who you love, who you date, etc.
And there's a whole month because of previous (and currently ongoing) persecution. It took (and in some cases still takes) courage and conviction to be outwardly not straight, so people celebrate it. Pride month originated with the Stonewall Riots, when police raided a gay club and arrested people just for being gay and the patrons fought back. Pride was originally about celebrating those who fought for equality, remembering our history, and showing that we wouldn't bow to the whims of society.
Now, I agree that much of Pride has been co-opted by companies who want to advertise and make a quick buck and is therefore seen as much less important and much more stupid, and while I disagree with this commercialization/pandering, I still think Pride is important.
Also, groups who haven't faced stigma don't have days/months dedicated to them because they don't need them, there's no overcoming adversity or history to being straight.
Question, what kind of special treatment do you think is being asked for during pride month?
What do you mean "cult-like following?" There's no central organization for queer people.
>it's not just "who you like to fuck," it's who you love, who you date, etc.
While my phrasing is extremely crude, I am well aware it is not a purely sexual thing.
>Question, what kind of special treatment do you think is being asked for during pride month?
Not specifically during pride month, but affirmative action programs for work and post-secondary education. Why am I being asked what I identify as and what my sexual orientation is when filling out a job application or filling out my university funding application? My girlfriend identifies as a trans pansexual on her funding application because she literally gets more money for identifying as such. Anyway to enforce that? Nope, because it's all subjective.
EDIT: And as far as special treatment goes during pride month, what gives people the right to march in the street nude or in bondage gear, etc. during a Pride parade when normally, that would be indecent exposure. That's special treatment.
> While my phrasing is extremely crude, I am well aware it is not a purely sexual thing.
That's good, I've met people who believe queer people being openly queer in public is inherently sexual and believe that things like 2 men holding hands or kissing in public is somehow inappropriate when they wouldn't say the same about a man and woman.
> affirmative action programs for work and post-secondary education.
That's fair, I think affirmative action laws go too far with trying to fix the wrongs of the past. I still don't think it's discrimination to celebrate/acknowledge a holiday that only applies to some people.
> what gives people the right to march in the street nude or in bondage gear, etc. during a Pride parade when normally, that would be indecent exposure.
Special event permits, generally. Breast cancer foundations do topless bike rides for charity/to raise awareness for example. Also depending on what's covered/not, wearing bondage gear isn't indecent exposure, anyone can wear a leather harness in public any time of year if they want. I don't think we should regulate types of clothing
I'm glad we could arrive to some sort of common ground.
I also think we may have different perspectives because of where we're coming from. Not sure where you are based, but in Canada, it feels like we are going off the deep end into absurdity, especially for a country that has historically been more accepting than our neighbours to the south.
Ah, I'm from the US, I'm only 26, but I grew up in an area with a lot of Catholics and I had multiple friends in high school get kicked out of the house for being queer. When people act like homophobia is solved and a thing of the past when same sex marriage wasn't legalized until I graduated from high school I get a bit upset because no, everything isn't solved, there are still problems, and it's not bad for people to be proud of overcoming the obstacles they had to face just to be themselves.
Some Canadians like myself feel like it's over compensating here since gay marriage has been legal since before I was born, being openly gay has been legal since before my parents were born, and we have no where near the level of religious fundamentalism that the United States has.
I'm pretty sure Canada has one of the most expansive legal frameworks for LGBTQ folks, so constantly seeing protests in our capital city feels like we've given a meter and they (the vocal minority) want a kilometer (yes, I converted the metaphor into metric)
Do you think there are less problems, and/or less significant problems, for the LGB community today then there were 15 years ago, 25 years ago, or even 50 years ago?
Generally speaking yes, thankfully. I mean I literally mentioned same sex marriage being legalized in the last decade. It hasn't even been 10 years.
Doesn't mean we aren't finished though. And what do you think got us this far? Protesting. Pride used to primarily be a protest instead of a corporate pandering event and it should go back to how it previously was.
Your facts about the Stonewall riots are incorrect. The story has morphed over time. But here are the points that we know.
A crossdresser (likely not trans or gay) threw a brick at a police officer in order to defend a mafia bar.
Yes, it was a mafia bar, because only bars who were already breaking the law in some way would allow openly queer patrons.
The police also would regularly arrest those who were cross dressing during these raids.
Do you think it's immoral to resist arrest when you've done nothing wrong? It's always wrong to fight back when your freedoms are being trampled upon? Was the American revolution wrong?
Let's dive deeper. The police were regularly called by the patrons of the bar themselves. Why? Crossdressers would assault people in the bathrooms. What else? Oh they used the nearby streets and alley way for cruising. That's public sex acts for those not in on the lingo. The whole neighborhood was basically terrorized by the patrons of this bar. The police didn't just show up for kicks. They were called out repeatedly. The only thing I hold against the police was that they didn't shut down the bar earlier since it was obviously breaking the law. The police were likely paid off to look the other way.
Can you give me some sources for the frequent bathroom assaults? I'm having trouble finding information about this, only that a cis man attacked a transgender woman there in 2016.
> The only thing I hold against the police was that they didn't shut down the bar earlier since it was obviously breaking the law.
Do you think that the law is always morally correct?
> The police were likely paid off to look the other way.
Yes, they were, and frankly the fact that you don't know this shows you haven't researched the history and context of Stonewall very much.
Lol completely agree — i can’t imagine many people seriously think that the flag means “sexuality is your entire identity.” If they do then that’s a problem with their intelligence — it’s just not a smart way to think about people and identity
The reality of the situation is though these laws exist to protect all aspects of sexuality, that is still not the case for too many. There is a lot of abuse and discrimination that isn't reported and a lot of situations reported that aren't taken seriously and/or ignored. I live in a state that constantly ignores these issues under the guise of a hundred other misleading and inaccurate purposes where if the community feels strongly enough, they ignore these laws and fight to "preserve" their own ways of life over the rights of others. Laws are only as strong as the people and systems they serve, and since humanity is flawed, we have a tendency to warp laws on the daily.
I'd rather a single flag that represents all versions of sexuality exist than one for each "identity" within the demographic, itself. Also, just to note, there are and religious and cultural symbols/carvings outside of my state's government buildings, many that I and others don't care for, so why be against people who simply wish to hang a flag that represents rights and attention like everyone else? Seems discriminatory.
But that’s not a common way to interpret the meaning of the flag at all - it’s super niche. I’ve never heard anyone say that the flag “is your identity” outside of Peterson content or his fandom
Earlier you referred to yourself as normal.
I think the more important factor is whether or not you're a good person.
You're not a good person.
And that's why you are losing.
The fact is, all over the globe your woke leftist type is loosing elections. People had enough. It's going to be very ugly and the end of wokism is going to hurt a lot of people. But that's ok.
I was talking to my daughter last night about Pride, and she asked me why I thought it was a load of rubbish. I thought I answered it quite well - Martin Luther King made a famous speech where he talked about how his dream was that people were not judged on their skin colour, or other part of them, but on their **character**. How good, nice, courageous, funny, generous, loving, they were. Your character is what matters - who you are and how you behave. Your gender, your sexuality, who you like, does not matter, because your character matters. Nobody should be celebrated or criticised for anything that isn’t their character. And that includes racism, sexist, homophobia and Pride.
Do you mean people shouldn't be judged on their race, sex, or sexuality? Because we 100% should criticize racism lol
Also, Pride is about being proud of doing something that goes against the rest of society. It originated with the Stonewall Riots, where police raided a gay club intending to arrest everyone there on the virtue of being queer and the patrons fought back. People aren't proud of being queer inherently, they're proud of being queer, being themselves, in spite of the difficulties we've faced.
Also, MLK never advocated for *ignoring* people's races, he thought that it was an important part of people's history and Here's [an article](https://www.axios.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-dream-speech-colorblind-racism) you can read that goes more in depth
Someone’s sexuality is an unimportant part of who you are, other than to your partners. We should celebrate positive character attributes. Your sexuality isn’t positive or negative, it’s like your height, it’s just a feature
How silly of a perspective honestly. If you have a loving relationship with your wife, is that a part of who you are. Your wife is a part of who you are. Your relationship with your wife is a part of who you are. The specific dynamics of that relationship, her personality, her hopes, dreams, interests... a part of you and your life. Perhaps, the most important thing. The fact that she is a female, is related to every single nuance of the relationship and who she is, and thus who you are. Her femininity complements your masculinity in a specific way, and it defines your relationship, your life.
How could you say these things don't matter? It's a defining feature of who you are. It certainly matters more than race in regards to who you are. You could have black skin but be raised by Asian parents, and the culture you are exposed to matters more to who you are than the melanin content of your skin. Being attracted to the same gender is not something being raised by straight parents could possibly have an effect on. Its interest. It dictates your life choices. It's psychological in a way skin color and height are not ( NECESSARILY) .
Basically that the attempt at "inclusion" winds up being exclusionary, and then worse is just a front for neo-Marxism because none of the groups really have anything in common.
Yeah, Imagine you put up a MAGA flag but insisted it was universal and everyone should be ok with it because “if we make America great, every American will benefit”
Because the values symbolized by that flag are wrong and we shouldn’t encourage them. Concepts such as pride, sexual liberation, and transgenderism that are encapsulated in that flag shouldn’t be celebrated by society
Trans specifically is very problematic because of the social contagion aspect, and because gender affirming care can cause irreversible damage to children. Watch Jordan's video with Chloe Cole.
There's no compelling evidence that the trans thing is an actual social contagion. Yes, there are some confused kids out there, but there have been studies into this that have proven it wrong. I wouldn't listen to Jordan on this topic. He's ridiculously bad faith, to the point where it just feels like naked bigotry now, and I used to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermines-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-claims/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermines-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-claims/)
Most of the studies are bad faith and are done by "scientists" who just circularly refer to each other. This was proven by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. They wrote fake studies and got them into peer reviewed journals.
However, it's not all social contagion. Autism is also a huge factor.
James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian are pretty grifty pundits, not experts...and they're both extraordinarily bad faith themselves. I'll stick with trusting a wide body of professional health and psychological organizations over internet personalities that simply build their careers on peddling contrarianism to an audience that is hungry for it.
Pride should be self-explanatory. Pride inflates our egos and self-worth, making us blind to our own actions, ignorant or uncaring of the world around us, and into the dangerous trap of having ends justify the means.
Sexual liberation is a lie to the human condition. Yes, sex is pleasurable and enjoyable, but the fundamental reason it exists is for the continuation of humanity’s existence. Cheapening it to 5 seconds of sterile pleasure damages not only that end goal but also the human psyche.
Transgenderism, the belief that man and woman can be born in the wrong body, directly assaults humanity. We are a sexually dichotomous species, with that dichotomy forming the basis of our societal orders. To actively believe that we can liberate ourselves from our own biology, that we can abolish that fundamental difference, and the tragedy and suffering caused from those premises (castration and genital mutilation) are fundamentally wrong.
To your first point, are you saying we should *never* be proud? Not even of our accomplishments, of overcoming hardships, etc?
On sexual liberation, all of those are just your personal opinions.
> the fundamental reason it exists is for the continuation of humanity’s existence.
This is an opinion. Just because sex is used for procreation does not mean that sex can only be for procreation. Even animals masturbate and perform non-procreational sex, it's perfectly natural and it's silly to reduce it down to just making babies.
On transgenderism, some of your terms are incorrect, you mean sexually dimorphic, not dichotomous, though it's an easy mistake as they're similar words. Also yes, are sexually dimorphic, but that only means that we have 2 broad groups, not that all individuals of our species will fit perfectly into one of those two groups. All individuals fall on a spectrum.
> To actively believe that we can liberate ourselves from our own biology,
It depends on what you mean by "liberate," but haven't we already done so in many areas? We can cure diseases, prolong our lifespans, treat deathly genetic conditions to the point that people can live normally lives, etc. I think it's silly to act like we're the same as animals, 100% beholden to our biology, when we already have an incredible amount of control. Sexually dimorphism is caused almost solely by hormones, and given that we can control hormones, I don't think it's illogical to believe that when those hormones levels are adjusted, a person can be a man or woman.
> Transgenderism, the belief that man and woman can be born in the wrong body, directly assaults humanity.
Why? Plenty of things go wrong in biology with incredible frequently. Most pregnancies result in miscarriages. People are born with incurable genetic diseases. People get cancer. People have allergies. Our bodies fuck things up literally all the time, why is it so radical to believe that the structure of someone's brain doesn't match the structure of their body? Why do you think that's "an assault on humanity" when pointing out that we can get cancer isn't?
> the tragedy and suffering caused from those premises (castration and genital mutilation)
Except that most transgender individuals report suffering less after physically transitioning. Also, characterizing wanted surgery as "mutilation" is a bit silly. All surgery is gory, do you think people who get LASIK mutilate their eyes? They literally break open the ribcage for heart surgery, do you consider that mutilation?
The American flag symbolizes Freedom and unity in the shared value of Liberty.
Then there's the Butt-Sex flag symbolizing mental illness, perverts, and child abusers. Just say the truth.
You guys have become seriously deranged. I can't even fucking hang up a pride flag anymore without you guys complaining that its a symbol of cultural marxism destroying western society and grooming children or whatever the fuck. I am 16yrs old, am gay, and a sophmore in highschool. I have a little pride flag in my room, but I can't even fucking do that anymore. Jesus Christ.
Like I'm flabbergasted you guys wonder why us queer youth don't want to rub arms with your politics. I'm just a little queer that wants to hang up a little pride flag in their room, and then suddenly people like you interject saying that I'm supporting the symbolization of predators and child abusers. Holy helling Jesus fucking christ.
> I mean, sex exists primarily for procreation.
That's your opinion though. Sex is used for stress relief, emotional connection, etc. Do you think post menopausal woman don't/shouldn't have sex? What about infertile people? Animals masturbate and have oral sex, it's silly to act like sex is solely procreative, it isn't and never has been.
The colors on the popular, 6 color flag actually represent life, healing, sunlight, nature, serenity, and spirit.
Also, even if it *was* a flag celebrating non-procreative sex, how would it be celebrating mental illness, perversion, or child abuse? Do you think infertile people who have sex are mentally ill or perverts or somehow abusing children?
> Animals masturbate and have oral sex
Animals also reproduce with immediate family, kill mating rivals, throw poop at each other, and eat their young. The animal argument is kind of stupid.
But how can we say that "the purpose of sex is procreation" when that's not true in nature? We're not talking about whether something is ethical or a good idea, we're talking about whether it's normal/natural, and the animal Kingdom shows us that non-procreative sex is both normal and natural. If you think non-procreative sex is bad, you need a different reason.
I don't think procreative sex on it's own is a very good argument either. Even if someone was coming from a very religious fundamentalist point of view there's nothing wrong with having sex when you know the woman isn't in a fertile part of her cycle, or a completely sterile person having sex with their husband or wife, or postmenopausal women having sex with their husband. So that argument falls apart.
If you're going to argue any sex other than straight sex is wrong people should just say heterosexual sex is normal sex. Males were made to copulate with females. Not stick their dick in another mans shitty anus or suck another man off. Personally I think gay sex is immoral but people have free will to do what they want. And it's wrong to deny people rights or persecute people for engaging in what amounts to consensual behavior. Love the sinner hate the sin. And not everyone shares my beliefs and we all need to get along. And it's not like I'm some kind of saint myself either.
I've never had any problem with LGBT people until it became an ideological movement pushing gender theory and queer theory on the masses, and children in particular, and all of it being littered with Marxist garbage. And I still judge people as individuals. But the current political and ideological garbage I'm against 100% and if that's what the "LGBT community" is about you can not just write me off as an ally but consider me your enemy.
And the idea that something is acceptable just because animals do it is absurd. The animal kingdom shows us that killing someone else's kids and impregnating their wife is normal and natural. Or no one getting to reproduce but the alpha male who screws all the females and eats any babies he thinks might not be his. So is throwing shit at people or ripping someone's genitals off. Or reproducing with immediate blood relatives like parents or offspring. Or cannibalism. Or fucking outside your species. Should we condone all those things because they're all normal and natural in the animal kingdom? If that's our measuring stick we'd be living in a state of complete depravity.
This thread and the obsession with how people have sex is very instructive. Just as for cis-het people, being a member of the pride community is more about who you’re attracted to and build relationships with. This simplification of with the type of same sex relationships to actual sex is an obsession of intolerant people. Folks in same sex relationships have lots of avenues to build families including bringing new life into the world through surrogacy, IVF etc. Maybe if we normalize their relationships and not stigmatize them as being “deviant” they can get on with procreation in several of the ways that heterosexual couples do.
Why are we "celebrating" innate characteristics? Where is the flag celebrating blue eyes? Or people with acne? Or people that hate the taste of tomatoes? It's a wierd distraction that the left and the right are currently using to distract normal citizens from the issue that your tax dollars are being spent to kill people in at least two major wars, and that our infrastructure is crumbling, and that inflation is out of control, and etc etc etc...
So, mainly, it feels incredibly dumb; it's bait for the gullible and easily distracted.
Second, it's celebrating where people like to stick their junk. Other than fuckin butts, is a gay man inherently different to a straight man? I thought everyone was the same? I care if someone is a criminal or a saint? A genius. An inventor. But celebrating "likes to stick a dick in a butt" is a sign something is wrong with society.
When will they fly the flag for "69er's day" or "rimming day"? Why do we celebrate this atypical sexual anomaly? Do we celebrate Ped0 Day? Or "People that only fuck with most of their clothes on day"? When will we have "Incest day"? Incest between adults can be a voluntary sexual act, and it's been considered a bad thing for most societies for centuries; why don't we have a special month for the proud incest practicers?
The last time we took my 14-year-old to the pediatrician, they asked him what gender he wanted to have sex with.... they said it was a government required form. Is that normal? Does that seem normal for an adult in a position of great authority to ask my young teen what hole they want to fuck? (And to really show the stupidity, they offered him the option of "lesbian?" They asked my teen boy if he was a lesbian... this is culturally retarded.
Why is this being pushed? I don't know. But I do know that it is a fucking fucked up thing.
My eleven-year-old is wise enough to know this is dumb. She asked a few days ago, "Why is a rainbow proud?" She said, "'My friend said the rainbow means gay?' Is that right? Because that doesn't make any sense... how can you be proud if you didn't do anything?"
Yup. Smart kid. Celebrating innate characteristics is a bad idea.
the only signage that should hang on a public building that serves the people is a flag that represents all the people. The stars and stripes.
no other flag is inclusive of all citizens.
How does it obfuscate truth?
The reason you don't think that being straight is an important part of your identity is because it's accepted as the default. But if you lived in a world where you risked economic hardship, alienation from your family, and in some times/places, prison for dating who you wanted to, it would become an important part of your identity.
Pride also originated with the Stonewall Riots, where police raided a gay club and tried to arrest the patrons, who fought back. It's an important historical moment.
I'm also curious what situations you've been in where someone was allowed to be a scum of a person because they were queer? Not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't seen this
Well, you can bring up the accident where this trucker skidded on the flag and he got attacked. Despite that the driver doesn't have a homophobic bone in him. Plus, the incident gives actual homobes more ammo to get rid of LGBTQ+ rights.
But the others offer better suggestions and advice than me.
Activists are demanding that men be allowed to compete in women's sports, and male rapists be sent to women's prison. When women speak out against this blatant misogyny and elimination of their rights, they're censored, deplatformed, threatened, and even fired from their jobs.
Don't label all of LGBT as an enemy, don't get into child grooming yet, just use the most simple and easy to explain answer for why trans ideology is not entirely positive.
Ask them why public money needs to go towards celebrating people's sexual practices. Why is that something that has to be constantly broadcast everywhere?
For as long as there’s a stigma around being gay, it seems harmless to celebrate it. Things are obviously much better now than they used to be. But I imagine it’s largely a holdover from less accepting times.
Harmless to celebrate "Pride"? In the way it's currently celebrated, it's appallingly inappropriate.
Much of it is naked (or almost naked) men walking through the streets and broadcasting whatever kink or sub-group they belong to. And with brainwashed Karen-type 40 year old moms bringing their 8 year old kids to come watch. Overall, it's just sick people putting their mental illnesses on display.
I'm fine with LGBT people living in peace and without persecution, but making any sexual activity or preference a holiday or cause for celebration inevitably ends with this outcome.
I doubt it will be a popular opinion here but I don't think it's worth getting worked up about at all. There's some precident for states to have leeway in expression. The Gadsden and confederate flags ruffle a lot of feathers as well, but Im pretty sure you can still request them on state issued license plates. Those flags fly in unofficial and official capacities, many state flags have shared vexillological roots, that you could take issue with ad infinum.
A flags meaning seems diffuse enough that it's not worth arguing about. People on the left and right are going to say it symbolizes different things, both painting the other as villanious. It's a great opportunity if someone mentions they like it to ask them their views on specific policies. That's going to be more fruitful than writing off everything with a rainbow as problematic.
> So when I see The Flag and sigh, and my interlocutor genuinely, curiously asks what's wrong with it, how do I answer precisely and concisely?
The better a subject is understood and the more confident the knower is in their understanding, the more easily and readily that subject is explained to others
I'd argue if you're having trouble answering its because you aren't really confident in the validity of your views.
Like I never have that problem. Family, friends, acquaintances, strangers...I always speak my mind because I know what I say is the truth.
Also don't call people casuals. That's like calling people normies and the opposite of a normie is a weirdo. Don't imply you're a weirdo.
And all you have to ask them really is how they'd feel if a Christian flag or socialist flag was hanging from public buildings. This illustrates the point that ideological flags shouldn't hang from buildings meant to represent everyone. Not complicated.
Weddings and bachelor parties don't happen in public? Because the argument I'm responding to is not about public buildings, it's about stuff being hidden from the public in general. It's supposedly problematic because "children might be passing by".
You explain to them that history has proven over and over again that collectivism of all kinds are devastating for societies, especially when one’s group identity is considered to be paramount. That there’s no inherent difference in that, no matter what flag you dedicate yourself to, and that such loyalty is instead frequently exploited by tyrannical governments who know exactly how to manipulatively control the sheepish masses, instead of fostering free- (critically) thinking, powerful individuals.
So basically [this](https://youtu.be/MdsVC_qR4t0?si=cZwPYeVJFjTDTM-V), the simpler version.
It's exactly the same problem as a Christian flag or a nazi flag. LGBTQ is a religion, full stop. There is absolutely no reason the gaystapo's flag should be preferable to any other.
Did those who created nations fly a separate flag to say they like pussy? No? Then why do the gay crowd see fit to rub their dick in my face instead of flying a flag to their achievements?
Look. You have to resonate with them. So see it from what they see it through. Then explain through that. What does a casual see it as, oh just celebrating the pride of individuals, giving them the right to take on a relationship, look the way, or be called the way they want to. Then you explain from there. Identifying the problem correctly is 50% of the work done. They haven’t seen what more may lie to it, what more may lie to the LGBTQ+ flag (Not the actual community though there certainly is overlap) that causes you to have a dislike for it, but not necessarily for all the people who are behind it, some of which may be under it due to work of advocates whereby they themselves on the other hand perhaps couldn’t give two shits.
Write out what is wrong with it, in your own words, how does it make you feel? And why does it create those feelings? Is the thing that is creating those feeling valid? Are you ready to judge your assumptions? Are you willing to admit you have made that judgment for some correct and some incorrect assumptions.
Correct your wrong assumptions and reinforce the correct ones. Now, consider how that changes how you feel. And finally come to a conclusion of what factors have shaped your opinion.
Or just ask "why is that" 5 times to get down to your personal core beliefs.
The Hatch Act is more encompassing and meant to prevent pernicious political activities of which you described only a subset.
Where Pride month is manifestly political (this includes political ideology), it violates the Hatch Act.
Can you give some examples of the Hatch Act being used for such activities? Everything I'm finding in it cites political figures and parties
Looking at the dept of justices's [website](https://www.justice.gov/jmd/political-activities#:~:text=Political%20activity%20is%20activity%20directed,including%20REMOVAL%20from%20federal%20employment.), they say "Political activity is activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group."
It seems that federal employees *can* advocate for broad political causes.
https://osc.gov/Documents/Outreach%20and%20Training/Posters/The%20Hatch%20Act%20and%20Most%20Federal%20Employees%20Poster.pdf
"May not engage in political activity while on duty, in the workplace, wearing a uniform or official insignia, or in a government vehicle.
For example:
o May not wear, display, or distribute partisan materials or items.
o May not perform campaign-related chores.
o May not make political contributions.
o May not use email or social media to engage in political activity."
In my estimation, it is not a question of "if Pride violates the Hatch Act", but rather where these violations are happening. To those who would argue this estimate, [insert explanation for motte-and-bailey fallacy].
Correct, and as defined above, "politic activity" is specifically *partisan* activity related to a specific political party or candidate.
If anything, it is you who are using a motte-and-bailey by conflating being queer friendly with being aligned with a specific political party, presumably Democrat.
Again, there is no overarching organization represented by the rainbow flag. There is no overarching queer organization. Saying that flying the rainbow flag is equivalent to endorsing a specific political party is as disingenuous as saying that wearing a cross necklace is endorsing a specific political party. Again, the Hatch act is *very* specific in what it considers "political activity," and that definition does not include topics currently considered "political," only individuals and groups explicitly tied to a partisan political group, which the incredibly broad category of "being queer" is not.
Do you think a federal government flying the Gadsden flag is also violating the Hatch act? What about a thin blue line flag?
It’s interesting that you acknowledge that you’re overthinking and still think it’s an issue. People don’t *need* to overreact. It’s good and correct that they aren’t.
In my western european city center the sidewalks are rainbow. Benches in parks are rainbow. Public money well spent I guess.
Loving the people, hating the ideology.
I find it excessively difficult to articulate what is wrong with an ideology "in simple terms", and people around me going along with this version are so polarized if not brainwashed that I feel I don't stand a chance.
Thx for posting this question. Some great opinions and resources here
I like when they hang that flag. It's nice to know where their loyalties lie. It's like the guy with a gang tattoo on his face; usually he's telling me honestly what motivates him
>The average joe doesn't even care
This, exactly this.
Do not cast pearls to swine If people are not interested why bother?
>wants to be nice and considerate towards what are supposedly victims according to "modern knowledge".
This , exactly this,
People want to be nice, lots of gay people were killed . This flag says to them "our society will not kill you for being who you really are"
It actually had a deep Christian ethos of loving the neighbours
What's wrong with that? Good luck finding a explanation to that.
If you have a problem, be specific, and point to that problem. Like Peterson did actually reading the law that was a problem and articulating the problem.
i'm explicitly not, we've gotten so dumb with this shit that i'm just going to advocate a blanket ban of everything other than the US or state flag. everything else is essentially pandering any way.
Let's have a national vote on it then if you think you'd win, lets do a nationwide vote on "do you think we should have flags that are non-official on public buildings".
Outside of it being a freedom of speech concern, the LGBTQ represents a group of people just like all flags do. And I would go further if someone saw a pirate flag 🏴☠️ on a public building they would find it cute or fun. If you believe the "bring them home" flag is able to fly then so can the pride flag.
Again, let's have a national vote on it. Bring it on
I would say that they haven't really examined the issues, and it is probably indicative of their biases making choices.
If you can't articulate something simply you probably don't understand it
Not at all. Women deserve equal rights, and taking them away to benefit men in dresses is immoral and harmful.
It's immoral and harmful to teach children the lie that men can transform into women. And it's immoral and hamrful to tell teenagers that any awkwardness with their body could be a sign they were born in the wrong body and need to get a sex change.
It's immoral and harmful to silence, deplatform, and punish women for standing up for equal rights, and opposing misogyny. Your men's rights activist ideology is a failure.
I mean there’s valid reasons to be against it, but op sounds like they only feel like they’re supposed to or something, and then judging their friend as if they’re wrong for not being anxious every time they see a flag it’s pretty wild. Like why do you want your friend to be unhappy
Even putting ideology aside, I keep going back to this; isn’t it the preference to *not* be put in a bad mood? Does OP enjoy being put off by the flag? So many questions lol
The flag being flown symbolizes the government respects a historically castigated minority group. To purposefully not fly it for a little while of time in June signals a lack of acceptance of this group. I understand folks don’t want to accept this group unless they are indistinguishable from a heterosexual cisgender person, but not everyone is like that or wants to fit in like that.
If you don’t like the flag, that’s your opinion, but just go enjoy your life maybe? The other 11 months of the year are for heterosexuals.
It was Pride Day. Then Pride Week. Then Pride Month. Now Pride Season. The aim is year-round obsession with “sexual diversity” and entrenched identity politics. This is not healthy and should not be pushed by government. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/pride-season.html
You are right - the average person doesnt really care who is straight or gay or think too much about it. Maybe you are the one who needs to explain why you do, not them explaining why they do not. Why is it actually such a big deal who has sex with whom if it doesnt involve you?
This flag gives the idea that your sexual orientation is not simply a part of your identity, but that it IS your identity. It isn't a trans flag, a gay flag, or lesbian flag, it's an 'I'm not straight' flag. Why would public buildings need to fly it when all aspects of sexuality a. are all equally protected under the law, guaranteeing equal access to services, and b. sexuality is not appropriate in a workplace.
This is a very good take. It’s promoting something that should be deeply personal. I had a friend from childhood that was a very interesting person, but the minute he came out of the closet, he made being gay his whole identity. This faded with time, he found a career that was deeply satisfying to him, and he actually reverted to the clever, thoughtful, articulate and literary person he was before. I would imagine he was trying to integrate that aspect of his identity and was working out how to do it. I don’t fault him for it, but for years his antics were a bit grinding (no pun intended). The point I’m trying to make is, when you make a singular aspect of your personhood the most important aspect of your entire identity and subordinate all other aspects to it, those other parts go unnourished and wither away. Human sexuality is important, but we are so much more than that, and frankly, who you want to fuck is the least interesting part of you.
I'm of the mind that if sexuality wasn't shoved down our throats (pun very much intended) at every turn, people would likely hold a 'live and let live' view on it. But, I have the feeling none of this is about acceptance to begin with, more so these people are being used as a tool for the elites to divide us.
It's propaganda to keep people divided 100%.
Its pretty easy to be opposed to bigots though. A portion of the population just can't seem to move past tribalism like that.
Since the dawn of time.
What does sexuality being shoved down your throats have to do lgbt people
Have you consumed any media in the last 6 years?
Answer my question and I'll answer yours
Mine was rhetorical. Yours was trolling. Not the same.
I knew you had no argument worth a dime.
Haha. Okay.
I feel the assumption that the pride flag “gives the idea” that sexuality is one’s identity rather than a part, does not logically follow. You can have that opinion, but I could just as easily say the inverse and it be a valid take. The conclusion could be that a building that display the pride flag is signaling that all sexual identities are welcome and should expect equal treatment. It need not be any deeper than that. It’s a signal of safety for minorities.
If all sexualities are protected under the law, what is the point of making a public indication that lgbt are welcome?
One whole month of it is just pushing the lifestyle down people’s throats. No govt agency or corporate entity should be able force their workers, vendors, and/or customers to accept lGBt whatever as legit/acceptable lifestyles. It should be perfectly fine to reject them and not like them. What’s not ok is verbally abusing them or being violent towards them.
a month is clearly excessive, but what is being found illegitimate/unacceptable about not being heterosexual? what is it that you are referring to as being unlikable and deserving rejection, something you would have to be forced to accept?
The flag itself is not a pluralist flag. If it was, it would include heterosexuality as well. >I feel the assumption that the pride flag “gives the idea” that sexuality is one’s identity rather than a part, does not logically follow. I could have stated this part better, but I mean the cult-like following that utilizes the pride flag is very much encouraging placing sexuality before all other aspects of personality. Why is there literally a whole month dedicated to openly expressing who you like to fuck. Why do we need to know or care or give you special treatment.
It's not just "who you like to fuck," it's who you love, who you date, etc. And there's a whole month because of previous (and currently ongoing) persecution. It took (and in some cases still takes) courage and conviction to be outwardly not straight, so people celebrate it. Pride month originated with the Stonewall Riots, when police raided a gay club and arrested people just for being gay and the patrons fought back. Pride was originally about celebrating those who fought for equality, remembering our history, and showing that we wouldn't bow to the whims of society. Now, I agree that much of Pride has been co-opted by companies who want to advertise and make a quick buck and is therefore seen as much less important and much more stupid, and while I disagree with this commercialization/pandering, I still think Pride is important. Also, groups who haven't faced stigma don't have days/months dedicated to them because they don't need them, there's no overcoming adversity or history to being straight. Question, what kind of special treatment do you think is being asked for during pride month? What do you mean "cult-like following?" There's no central organization for queer people.
>it's not just "who you like to fuck," it's who you love, who you date, etc. While my phrasing is extremely crude, I am well aware it is not a purely sexual thing. >Question, what kind of special treatment do you think is being asked for during pride month? Not specifically during pride month, but affirmative action programs for work and post-secondary education. Why am I being asked what I identify as and what my sexual orientation is when filling out a job application or filling out my university funding application? My girlfriend identifies as a trans pansexual on her funding application because she literally gets more money for identifying as such. Anyway to enforce that? Nope, because it's all subjective. EDIT: And as far as special treatment goes during pride month, what gives people the right to march in the street nude or in bondage gear, etc. during a Pride parade when normally, that would be indecent exposure. That's special treatment.
"currently ongoing persecution?" Like being thrown off buildings ... as in certain rigidly male-dominant non-Western societies?
Which is why we see so many pride flags in those countries right?
> While my phrasing is extremely crude, I am well aware it is not a purely sexual thing. That's good, I've met people who believe queer people being openly queer in public is inherently sexual and believe that things like 2 men holding hands or kissing in public is somehow inappropriate when they wouldn't say the same about a man and woman. > affirmative action programs for work and post-secondary education. That's fair, I think affirmative action laws go too far with trying to fix the wrongs of the past. I still don't think it's discrimination to celebrate/acknowledge a holiday that only applies to some people. > what gives people the right to march in the street nude or in bondage gear, etc. during a Pride parade when normally, that would be indecent exposure. Special event permits, generally. Breast cancer foundations do topless bike rides for charity/to raise awareness for example. Also depending on what's covered/not, wearing bondage gear isn't indecent exposure, anyone can wear a leather harness in public any time of year if they want. I don't think we should regulate types of clothing
I'm glad we could arrive to some sort of common ground. I also think we may have different perspectives because of where we're coming from. Not sure where you are based, but in Canada, it feels like we are going off the deep end into absurdity, especially for a country that has historically been more accepting than our neighbours to the south.
Ah, I'm from the US, I'm only 26, but I grew up in an area with a lot of Catholics and I had multiple friends in high school get kicked out of the house for being queer. When people act like homophobia is solved and a thing of the past when same sex marriage wasn't legalized until I graduated from high school I get a bit upset because no, everything isn't solved, there are still problems, and it's not bad for people to be proud of overcoming the obstacles they had to face just to be themselves.
Some Canadians like myself feel like it's over compensating here since gay marriage has been legal since before I was born, being openly gay has been legal since before my parents were born, and we have no where near the level of religious fundamentalism that the United States has. I'm pretty sure Canada has one of the most expansive legal frameworks for LGBTQ folks, so constantly seeing protests in our capital city feels like we've given a meter and they (the vocal minority) want a kilometer (yes, I converted the metaphor into metric)
Do you think there are less problems, and/or less significant problems, for the LGB community today then there were 15 years ago, 25 years ago, or even 50 years ago?
Generally speaking yes, thankfully. I mean I literally mentioned same sex marriage being legalized in the last decade. It hasn't even been 10 years. Doesn't mean we aren't finished though. And what do you think got us this far? Protesting. Pride used to primarily be a protest instead of a corporate pandering event and it should go back to how it previously was.
Your facts about the Stonewall riots are incorrect. The story has morphed over time. But here are the points that we know. A crossdresser (likely not trans or gay) threw a brick at a police officer in order to defend a mafia bar.
Yes, it was a mafia bar, because only bars who were already breaking the law in some way would allow openly queer patrons. The police also would regularly arrest those who were cross dressing during these raids. Do you think it's immoral to resist arrest when you've done nothing wrong? It's always wrong to fight back when your freedoms are being trampled upon? Was the American revolution wrong?
Let's dive deeper. The police were regularly called by the patrons of the bar themselves. Why? Crossdressers would assault people in the bathrooms. What else? Oh they used the nearby streets and alley way for cruising. That's public sex acts for those not in on the lingo. The whole neighborhood was basically terrorized by the patrons of this bar. The police didn't just show up for kicks. They were called out repeatedly. The only thing I hold against the police was that they didn't shut down the bar earlier since it was obviously breaking the law. The police were likely paid off to look the other way.
Can you give me some sources for the frequent bathroom assaults? I'm having trouble finding information about this, only that a cis man attacked a transgender woman there in 2016. > The only thing I hold against the police was that they didn't shut down the bar earlier since it was obviously breaking the law. Do you think that the law is always morally correct? > The police were likely paid off to look the other way. Yes, they were, and frankly the fact that you don't know this shows you haven't researched the history and context of Stonewall very much.
Lol completely agree — i can’t imagine many people seriously think that the flag means “sexuality is your entire identity.” If they do then that’s a problem with their intelligence — it’s just not a smart way to think about people and identity
Yeah I could say the same thing about people who wave the American flag - sure they are American and proud, but that’s not all they are.
The reality of the situation is though these laws exist to protect all aspects of sexuality, that is still not the case for too many. There is a lot of abuse and discrimination that isn't reported and a lot of situations reported that aren't taken seriously and/or ignored. I live in a state that constantly ignores these issues under the guise of a hundred other misleading and inaccurate purposes where if the community feels strongly enough, they ignore these laws and fight to "preserve" their own ways of life over the rights of others. Laws are only as strong as the people and systems they serve, and since humanity is flawed, we have a tendency to warp laws on the daily. I'd rather a single flag that represents all versions of sexuality exist than one for each "identity" within the demographic, itself. Also, just to note, there are and religious and cultural symbols/carvings outside of my state's government buildings, many that I and others don't care for, so why be against people who simply wish to hang a flag that represents rights and attention like everyone else? Seems discriminatory.
But that’s not a common way to interpret the meaning of the flag at all - it’s super niche. I’ve never heard anyone say that the flag “is your identity” outside of Peterson content or his fandom
"Because you could've placed up my country's flag, and then it would be there for everyone here."
Hell, just a heart would be fine. We all have one of those
Wow that’s a good point.
what if they have both up there? some people i've seen hang several flaga.
The pride flag is all-inclusive
No the fuck it's not are you kidding?
It excludes me and the other 97% normal people. Yes I used a trigger word to drive it home.
I'm a straight White man and I feel included.
I hear you shouting through the closet door.
Earlier you referred to yourself as normal. I think the more important factor is whether or not you're a good person. You're not a good person. And that's why you are losing.
The fact is, all over the globe your woke leftist type is loosing elections. People had enough. It's going to be very ugly and the end of wokism is going to hurt a lot of people. But that's ok.
No, you will lose because hate eventually loses. And you, personally, will probably be a miserable person who will die alone.
How are you being excluded in your day to day life?
The people who really love the fact that the flag is up there subscribe to a cancer of an ideology.
I was talking to my daughter last night about Pride, and she asked me why I thought it was a load of rubbish. I thought I answered it quite well - Martin Luther King made a famous speech where he talked about how his dream was that people were not judged on their skin colour, or other part of them, but on their **character**. How good, nice, courageous, funny, generous, loving, they were. Your character is what matters - who you are and how you behave. Your gender, your sexuality, who you like, does not matter, because your character matters. Nobody should be celebrated or criticised for anything that isn’t their character. And that includes racism, sexist, homophobia and Pride.
Do you mean people shouldn't be judged on their race, sex, or sexuality? Because we 100% should criticize racism lol Also, Pride is about being proud of doing something that goes against the rest of society. It originated with the Stonewall Riots, where police raided a gay club intending to arrest everyone there on the virtue of being queer and the patrons fought back. People aren't proud of being queer inherently, they're proud of being queer, being themselves, in spite of the difficulties we've faced. Also, MLK never advocated for *ignoring* people's races, he thought that it was an important part of people's history and Here's [an article](https://www.axios.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-dream-speech-colorblind-racism) you can read that goes more in depth
Pure narcissism
Why do you say that?
So they do not have to respond to what was actually said
>Your gender, your sexuality, who you like, does not matter sounds like it matters a lot to you
How so?
Read that person’s comment and you’ll understand.
They say it doesn't matter. What am I missing?
Someone’s sexuality is an unimportant part of who you are, other than to your partners. We should celebrate positive character attributes. Your sexuality isn’t positive or negative, it’s like your height, it’s just a feature
How silly of a perspective honestly. If you have a loving relationship with your wife, is that a part of who you are. Your wife is a part of who you are. Your relationship with your wife is a part of who you are. The specific dynamics of that relationship, her personality, her hopes, dreams, interests... a part of you and your life. Perhaps, the most important thing. The fact that she is a female, is related to every single nuance of the relationship and who she is, and thus who you are. Her femininity complements your masculinity in a specific way, and it defines your relationship, your life. How could you say these things don't matter? It's a defining feature of who you are. It certainly matters more than race in regards to who you are. You could have black skin but be raised by Asian parents, and the culture you are exposed to matters more to who you are than the melanin content of your skin. Being attracted to the same gender is not something being raised by straight parents could possibly have an effect on. Its interest. It dictates your life choices. It's psychological in a way skin color and height are not ( NECESSARILY) .
Or you could just let people celebrate whatever they want and not judge them for it.
I’ll call our missteps when I see them, especially if everyone is being asked or nudged to celebrate with them
Basically that the attempt at "inclusion" winds up being exclusionary, and then worse is just a front for neo-Marxism because none of the groups really have anything in common.
Yeah, Imagine you put up a MAGA flag but insisted it was universal and everyone should be ok with it because “if we make America great, every American will benefit”
People do put up maga flags...
In a classroom or public building
We also do not have Build Back Better flags in the classrooms.
Agreed, so no maga, pride, or build back better flags in classrooms.
Because the values symbolized by that flag are wrong and we shouldn’t encourage them. Concepts such as pride, sexual liberation, and transgenderism that are encapsulated in that flag shouldn’t be celebrated by society
Why are those things bad?
Trans specifically is very problematic because of the social contagion aspect, and because gender affirming care can cause irreversible damage to children. Watch Jordan's video with Chloe Cole.
There's no compelling evidence that the trans thing is an actual social contagion. Yes, there are some confused kids out there, but there have been studies into this that have proven it wrong. I wouldn't listen to Jordan on this topic. He's ridiculously bad faith, to the point where it just feels like naked bigotry now, and I used to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermines-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-claims/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermines-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-claims/)
Dude, the sheer volume of kids claiming to be trans these days compared to 5, 10, 15 years ago is compelling evidence that social contagion is at play
Most of the studies are bad faith and are done by "scientists" who just circularly refer to each other. This was proven by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. They wrote fake studies and got them into peer reviewed journals. However, it's not all social contagion. Autism is also a huge factor.
James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian are pretty grifty pundits, not experts...and they're both extraordinarily bad faith themselves. I'll stick with trusting a wide body of professional health and psychological organizations over internet personalities that simply build their careers on peddling contrarianism to an audience that is hungry for it.
The "wide body of professional health and psychological organizations” are precisely the ones that got duped.
Pride should be self-explanatory. Pride inflates our egos and self-worth, making us blind to our own actions, ignorant or uncaring of the world around us, and into the dangerous trap of having ends justify the means. Sexual liberation is a lie to the human condition. Yes, sex is pleasurable and enjoyable, but the fundamental reason it exists is for the continuation of humanity’s existence. Cheapening it to 5 seconds of sterile pleasure damages not only that end goal but also the human psyche. Transgenderism, the belief that man and woman can be born in the wrong body, directly assaults humanity. We are a sexually dichotomous species, with that dichotomy forming the basis of our societal orders. To actively believe that we can liberate ourselves from our own biology, that we can abolish that fundamental difference, and the tragedy and suffering caused from those premises (castration and genital mutilation) are fundamentally wrong.
To your first point, are you saying we should *never* be proud? Not even of our accomplishments, of overcoming hardships, etc? On sexual liberation, all of those are just your personal opinions. > the fundamental reason it exists is for the continuation of humanity’s existence. This is an opinion. Just because sex is used for procreation does not mean that sex can only be for procreation. Even animals masturbate and perform non-procreational sex, it's perfectly natural and it's silly to reduce it down to just making babies. On transgenderism, some of your terms are incorrect, you mean sexually dimorphic, not dichotomous, though it's an easy mistake as they're similar words. Also yes, are sexually dimorphic, but that only means that we have 2 broad groups, not that all individuals of our species will fit perfectly into one of those two groups. All individuals fall on a spectrum. > To actively believe that we can liberate ourselves from our own biology, It depends on what you mean by "liberate," but haven't we already done so in many areas? We can cure diseases, prolong our lifespans, treat deathly genetic conditions to the point that people can live normally lives, etc. I think it's silly to act like we're the same as animals, 100% beholden to our biology, when we already have an incredible amount of control. Sexually dimorphism is caused almost solely by hormones, and given that we can control hormones, I don't think it's illogical to believe that when those hormones levels are adjusted, a person can be a man or woman. > Transgenderism, the belief that man and woman can be born in the wrong body, directly assaults humanity. Why? Plenty of things go wrong in biology with incredible frequently. Most pregnancies result in miscarriages. People are born with incurable genetic diseases. People get cancer. People have allergies. Our bodies fuck things up literally all the time, why is it so radical to believe that the structure of someone's brain doesn't match the structure of their body? Why do you think that's "an assault on humanity" when pointing out that we can get cancer isn't? > the tragedy and suffering caused from those premises (castration and genital mutilation) Except that most transgender individuals report suffering less after physically transitioning. Also, characterizing wanted surgery as "mutilation" is a bit silly. All surgery is gory, do you think people who get LASIK mutilate their eyes? They literally break open the ribcage for heart surgery, do you consider that mutilation?
The American flag symbolizes Freedom and unity in the shared value of Liberty. Then there's the Butt-Sex flag symbolizing mental illness, perverts, and child abusers. Just say the truth.
You guys have become seriously deranged. I can't even fucking hang up a pride flag anymore without you guys complaining that its a symbol of cultural marxism destroying western society and grooming children or whatever the fuck. I am 16yrs old, am gay, and a sophmore in highschool. I have a little pride flag in my room, but I can't even fucking do that anymore. Jesus Christ. Like I'm flabbergasted you guys wonder why us queer youth don't want to rub arms with your politics. I'm just a little queer that wants to hang up a little pride flag in their room, and then suddenly people like you interject saying that I'm supporting the symbolization of predators and child abusers. Holy helling Jesus fucking christ.
Why do you think the rainbow flag symbolizes those things?
Are you pretending it doesn't?
How about you answer my question? Also I'm not pretending, I don't believe that's what it represents
I mean, sex exists primarly for procreation. Every single colour on that pride flag stands for non-procreative sex.
> I mean, sex exists primarily for procreation. That's your opinion though. Sex is used for stress relief, emotional connection, etc. Do you think post menopausal woman don't/shouldn't have sex? What about infertile people? Animals masturbate and have oral sex, it's silly to act like sex is solely procreative, it isn't and never has been. The colors on the popular, 6 color flag actually represent life, healing, sunlight, nature, serenity, and spirit. Also, even if it *was* a flag celebrating non-procreative sex, how would it be celebrating mental illness, perversion, or child abuse? Do you think infertile people who have sex are mentally ill or perverts or somehow abusing children?
> Animals masturbate and have oral sex Animals also reproduce with immediate family, kill mating rivals, throw poop at each other, and eat their young. The animal argument is kind of stupid.
But how can we say that "the purpose of sex is procreation" when that's not true in nature? We're not talking about whether something is ethical or a good idea, we're talking about whether it's normal/natural, and the animal Kingdom shows us that non-procreative sex is both normal and natural. If you think non-procreative sex is bad, you need a different reason.
I don't think procreative sex on it's own is a very good argument either. Even if someone was coming from a very religious fundamentalist point of view there's nothing wrong with having sex when you know the woman isn't in a fertile part of her cycle, or a completely sterile person having sex with their husband or wife, or postmenopausal women having sex with their husband. So that argument falls apart. If you're going to argue any sex other than straight sex is wrong people should just say heterosexual sex is normal sex. Males were made to copulate with females. Not stick their dick in another mans shitty anus or suck another man off. Personally I think gay sex is immoral but people have free will to do what they want. And it's wrong to deny people rights or persecute people for engaging in what amounts to consensual behavior. Love the sinner hate the sin. And not everyone shares my beliefs and we all need to get along. And it's not like I'm some kind of saint myself either. I've never had any problem with LGBT people until it became an ideological movement pushing gender theory and queer theory on the masses, and children in particular, and all of it being littered with Marxist garbage. And I still judge people as individuals. But the current political and ideological garbage I'm against 100% and if that's what the "LGBT community" is about you can not just write me off as an ally but consider me your enemy. And the idea that something is acceptable just because animals do it is absurd. The animal kingdom shows us that killing someone else's kids and impregnating their wife is normal and natural. Or no one getting to reproduce but the alpha male who screws all the females and eats any babies he thinks might not be his. So is throwing shit at people or ripping someone's genitals off. Or reproducing with immediate blood relatives like parents or offspring. Or cannibalism. Or fucking outside your species. Should we condone all those things because they're all normal and natural in the animal kingdom? If that's our measuring stick we'd be living in a state of complete depravity.
This thread and the obsession with how people have sex is very instructive. Just as for cis-het people, being a member of the pride community is more about who you’re attracted to and build relationships with. This simplification of with the type of same sex relationships to actual sex is an obsession of intolerant people. Folks in same sex relationships have lots of avenues to build families including bringing new life into the world through surrogacy, IVF etc. Maybe if we normalize their relationships and not stigmatize them as being “deviant” they can get on with procreation in several of the ways that heterosexual couples do.
He’s definitely in the closet.
Brilliant self own. You deserve an excessively slow clap.
Sounds like I struck a nerve.
This is just straight up bigotry, nothing else.
This is coming from a Christian. Time to go back to playing with your hot wheels.
I hope you have gay kids.
Don't wish that on the kids.
Why are we "celebrating" innate characteristics? Where is the flag celebrating blue eyes? Or people with acne? Or people that hate the taste of tomatoes? It's a wierd distraction that the left and the right are currently using to distract normal citizens from the issue that your tax dollars are being spent to kill people in at least two major wars, and that our infrastructure is crumbling, and that inflation is out of control, and etc etc etc... So, mainly, it feels incredibly dumb; it's bait for the gullible and easily distracted. Second, it's celebrating where people like to stick their junk. Other than fuckin butts, is a gay man inherently different to a straight man? I thought everyone was the same? I care if someone is a criminal or a saint? A genius. An inventor. But celebrating "likes to stick a dick in a butt" is a sign something is wrong with society. When will they fly the flag for "69er's day" or "rimming day"? Why do we celebrate this atypical sexual anomaly? Do we celebrate Ped0 Day? Or "People that only fuck with most of their clothes on day"? When will we have "Incest day"? Incest between adults can be a voluntary sexual act, and it's been considered a bad thing for most societies for centuries; why don't we have a special month for the proud incest practicers? The last time we took my 14-year-old to the pediatrician, they asked him what gender he wanted to have sex with.... they said it was a government required form. Is that normal? Does that seem normal for an adult in a position of great authority to ask my young teen what hole they want to fuck? (And to really show the stupidity, they offered him the option of "lesbian?" They asked my teen boy if he was a lesbian... this is culturally retarded. Why is this being pushed? I don't know. But I do know that it is a fucking fucked up thing. My eleven-year-old is wise enough to know this is dumb. She asked a few days ago, "Why is a rainbow proud?" She said, "'My friend said the rainbow means gay?' Is that right? Because that doesn't make any sense... how can you be proud if you didn't do anything?" Yup. Smart kid. Celebrating innate characteristics is a bad idea.
Wasn’t a woman banned from United airlines for using the wrong pronouns for a flight attendant?
how is that an argument that a person who is an ally or gay themselves should take down the pride flag?
the only signage that should hang on a public building that serves the people is a flag that represents all the people. The stars and stripes. no other flag is inclusive of all citizens.
If it needs to be normalized, it's not normal
[удалено]
How does it obfuscate truth? The reason you don't think that being straight is an important part of your identity is because it's accepted as the default. But if you lived in a world where you risked economic hardship, alienation from your family, and in some times/places, prison for dating who you wanted to, it would become an important part of your identity. Pride also originated with the Stonewall Riots, where police raided a gay club and tried to arrest the patrons, who fought back. It's an important historical moment. I'm also curious what situations you've been in where someone was allowed to be a scum of a person because they were queer? Not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't seen this
Well, you can bring up the accident where this trucker skidded on the flag and he got attacked. Despite that the driver doesn't have a homophobic bone in him. Plus, the incident gives actual homobes more ammo to get rid of LGBTQ+ rights. But the others offer better suggestions and advice than me.
Activists are demanding that men be allowed to compete in women's sports, and male rapists be sent to women's prison. When women speak out against this blatant misogyny and elimination of their rights, they're censored, deplatformed, threatened, and even fired from their jobs. Don't label all of LGBT as an enemy, don't get into child grooming yet, just use the most simple and easy to explain answer for why trans ideology is not entirely positive.
Ask them why public money needs to go towards celebrating people's sexual practices. Why is that something that has to be constantly broadcast everywhere?
For as long as there’s a stigma around being gay, it seems harmless to celebrate it. Things are obviously much better now than they used to be. But I imagine it’s largely a holdover from less accepting times.
Harmless to celebrate "Pride"? In the way it's currently celebrated, it's appallingly inappropriate. Much of it is naked (or almost naked) men walking through the streets and broadcasting whatever kink or sub-group they belong to. And with brainwashed Karen-type 40 year old moms bringing their 8 year old kids to come watch. Overall, it's just sick people putting their mental illnesses on display. I'm fine with LGBT people living in peace and without persecution, but making any sexual activity or preference a holiday or cause for celebration inevitably ends with this outcome.
I doubt it will be a popular opinion here but I don't think it's worth getting worked up about at all. There's some precident for states to have leeway in expression. The Gadsden and confederate flags ruffle a lot of feathers as well, but Im pretty sure you can still request them on state issued license plates. Those flags fly in unofficial and official capacities, many state flags have shared vexillological roots, that you could take issue with ad infinum. A flags meaning seems diffuse enough that it's not worth arguing about. People on the left and right are going to say it symbolizes different things, both painting the other as villanious. It's a great opportunity if someone mentions they like it to ask them their views on specific policies. That's going to be more fruitful than writing off everything with a rainbow as problematic.
> So when I see The Flag and sigh, and my interlocutor genuinely, curiously asks what's wrong with it, how do I answer precisely and concisely? The better a subject is understood and the more confident the knower is in their understanding, the more easily and readily that subject is explained to others I'd argue if you're having trouble answering its because you aren't really confident in the validity of your views. Like I never have that problem. Family, friends, acquaintances, strangers...I always speak my mind because I know what I say is the truth. Also don't call people casuals. That's like calling people normies and the opposite of a normie is a weirdo. Don't imply you're a weirdo. And all you have to ask them really is how they'd feel if a Christian flag or socialist flag was hanging from public buildings. This illustrates the point that ideological flags shouldn't hang from buildings meant to represent everyone. Not complicated.
It is promoting adult sexuality in public when children can be passing by.
Like a wedding or a bachelor party?
Private weddings and bachelor's parties are not public and do not use public buildings.
Weddings and bachelor parties don't happen in public? Because the argument I'm responding to is not about public buildings, it's about stuff being hidden from the public in general. It's supposedly problematic because "children might be passing by".
You explain to them that history has proven over and over again that collectivism of all kinds are devastating for societies, especially when one’s group identity is considered to be paramount. That there’s no inherent difference in that, no matter what flag you dedicate yourself to, and that such loyalty is instead frequently exploited by tyrannical governments who know exactly how to manipulatively control the sheepish masses, instead of fostering free- (critically) thinking, powerful individuals. So basically [this](https://youtu.be/MdsVC_qR4t0?si=cZwPYeVJFjTDTM-V), the simpler version.
It's exactly the same problem as a Christian flag or a nazi flag. LGBTQ is a religion, full stop. There is absolutely no reason the gaystapo's flag should be preferable to any other.
smartest jordan peterson fan
Did those who created nations fly a separate flag to say they like pussy? No? Then why do the gay crowd see fit to rub their dick in my face instead of flying a flag to their achievements?
Look. You have to resonate with them. So see it from what they see it through. Then explain through that. What does a casual see it as, oh just celebrating the pride of individuals, giving them the right to take on a relationship, look the way, or be called the way they want to. Then you explain from there. Identifying the problem correctly is 50% of the work done. They haven’t seen what more may lie to it, what more may lie to the LGBTQ+ flag (Not the actual community though there certainly is overlap) that causes you to have a dislike for it, but not necessarily for all the people who are behind it, some of which may be under it due to work of advocates whereby they themselves on the other hand perhaps couldn’t give two shits.
Write out what is wrong with it, in your own words, how does it make you feel? And why does it create those feelings? Is the thing that is creating those feeling valid? Are you ready to judge your assumptions? Are you willing to admit you have made that judgment for some correct and some incorrect assumptions. Correct your wrong assumptions and reinforce the correct ones. Now, consider how that changes how you feel. And finally come to a conclusion of what factors have shaped your opinion. Or just ask "why is that" 5 times to get down to your personal core beliefs.
Violation of the Hatch Act
It's not, the Hatch act concerns campaigning for specific candidates or political parties, not advocating for ideologies
The Hatch Act is more encompassing and meant to prevent pernicious political activities of which you described only a subset. Where Pride month is manifestly political (this includes political ideology), it violates the Hatch Act.
Can you give some examples of the Hatch Act being used for such activities? Everything I'm finding in it cites political figures and parties Looking at the dept of justices's [website](https://www.justice.gov/jmd/political-activities#:~:text=Political%20activity%20is%20activity%20directed,including%20REMOVAL%20from%20federal%20employment.), they say "Political activity is activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group." It seems that federal employees *can* advocate for broad political causes.
https://osc.gov/Documents/Outreach%20and%20Training/Posters/The%20Hatch%20Act%20and%20Most%20Federal%20Employees%20Poster.pdf "May not engage in political activity while on duty, in the workplace, wearing a uniform or official insignia, or in a government vehicle. For example: o May not wear, display, or distribute partisan materials or items. o May not perform campaign-related chores. o May not make political contributions. o May not use email or social media to engage in political activity." In my estimation, it is not a question of "if Pride violates the Hatch Act", but rather where these violations are happening. To those who would argue this estimate, [insert explanation for motte-and-bailey fallacy].
Correct, and as defined above, "politic activity" is specifically *partisan* activity related to a specific political party or candidate. If anything, it is you who are using a motte-and-bailey by conflating being queer friendly with being aligned with a specific political party, presumably Democrat. Again, there is no overarching organization represented by the rainbow flag. There is no overarching queer organization. Saying that flying the rainbow flag is equivalent to endorsing a specific political party is as disingenuous as saying that wearing a cross necklace is endorsing a specific political party. Again, the Hatch act is *very* specific in what it considers "political activity," and that definition does not include topics currently considered "political," only individuals and groups explicitly tied to a partisan political group, which the incredibly broad category of "being queer" is not. Do you think a federal government flying the Gadsden flag is also violating the Hatch act? What about a thin blue line flag?
It’s interesting that you acknowledge that you’re overthinking and still think it’s an issue. People don’t *need* to overreact. It’s good and correct that they aren’t.
In my western european city center the sidewalks are rainbow. Benches in parks are rainbow. Public money well spent I guess. Loving the people, hating the ideology. I find it excessively difficult to articulate what is wrong with an ideology "in simple terms", and people around me going along with this version are so polarized if not brainwashed that I feel I don't stand a chance. Thx for posting this question. Some great opinions and resources here
I like when they hang that flag. It's nice to know where their loyalties lie. It's like the guy with a gang tattoo on his face; usually he's telling me honestly what motivates him
What does it mean to subscribe to gender ideology
Well, step one: reject biological determinism Step two: Believe that ones gender can change with the wind
What is gender ideology
"interlocutor" homie just say its someone outside or your friend lmao
The majority of people aren’t fighting a culture war and dont really care if a pride flag is hanging on a public building.
>The average joe doesn't even care This, exactly this. Do not cast pearls to swine If people are not interested why bother? >wants to be nice and considerate towards what are supposedly victims according to "modern knowledge". This , exactly this, People want to be nice, lots of gay people were killed . This flag says to them "our society will not kill you for being who you really are" It actually had a deep Christian ethos of loving the neighbours What's wrong with that? Good luck finding a explanation to that. If you have a problem, be specific, and point to that problem. Like Peterson did actually reading the law that was a problem and articulating the problem.
This sub has finally come to the final stage: proposing hanging pride flags as a moral issue. Yeah, I think I'm about done.
There’s nothing wrong with it, so it would be hard to come up with an actual answer.
it's not my flag, why is my government building flying a flag that does not represent me?
Government buildings fly all sorts of flags. So why single out the one?
i'm explicitly not, we've gotten so dumb with this shit that i'm just going to advocate a blanket ban of everything other than the US or state flag. everything else is essentially pandering any way.
Let's have a national vote on it then if you think you'd win, lets do a nationwide vote on "do you think we should have flags that are non-official on public buildings". Outside of it being a freedom of speech concern, the LGBTQ represents a group of people just like all flags do. And I would go further if someone saw a pirate flag 🏴☠️ on a public building they would find it cute or fun. If you believe the "bring them home" flag is able to fly then so can the pride flag. Again, let's have a national vote on it. Bring it on
The fact you are struggling with how to articulate what is wrong with it is probably a good sign that you might be mistaken in your personal biases
[удалено]
I would say that they haven't really examined the issues, and it is probably indicative of their biases making choices. If you can't articulate something simply you probably don't understand it
You’re getting downvoted but this is sound. If you can’t articulate it then how do you even know you disagree with it
It's almost like the whole anti woke idea id incredibly flimsy
Not at all. Women deserve equal rights, and taking them away to benefit men in dresses is immoral and harmful. It's immoral and harmful to teach children the lie that men can transform into women. And it's immoral and hamrful to tell teenagers that any awkwardness with their body could be a sign they were born in the wrong body and need to get a sex change. It's immoral and harmful to silence, deplatform, and punish women for standing up for equal rights, and opposing misogyny. Your men's rights activist ideology is a failure.
I mean there’s valid reasons to be against it, but op sounds like they only feel like they’re supposed to or something, and then judging their friend as if they’re wrong for not being anxious every time they see a flag it’s pretty wild. Like why do you want your friend to be unhappy
Right. Generally if you can understand why you believe a specific ideology there's a good chance you haven't reflected on it much
Even putting ideology aside, I keep going back to this; isn’t it the preference to *not* be put in a bad mood? Does OP enjoy being put off by the flag? So many questions lol
The flag being flown symbolizes the government respects a historically castigated minority group. To purposefully not fly it for a little while of time in June signals a lack of acceptance of this group. I understand folks don’t want to accept this group unless they are indistinguishable from a heterosexual cisgender person, but not everyone is like that or wants to fit in like that. If you don’t like the flag, that’s your opinion, but just go enjoy your life maybe? The other 11 months of the year are for heterosexuals.
It was Pride Day. Then Pride Week. Then Pride Month. Now Pride Season. The aim is year-round obsession with “sexual diversity” and entrenched identity politics. This is not healthy and should not be pushed by government. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/pride-season.html
You don't, because there's nothing wrong with the flag. Do you do this when you see an American flag? It's the same, really.
If you can’t say why you don’t like it then …. how can you dislike it?
You are right - the average person doesnt really care who is straight or gay or think too much about it. Maybe you are the one who needs to explain why you do, not them explaining why they do not. Why is it actually such a big deal who has sex with whom if it doesnt involve you?
shut up and die fuckin dweeb, curl up and die behind household furniture like an old cat
just tell them you are voting for trump and that'll explain everything.
Holy shit you've done it. You've put an end to discrimination! Congratulations! /s