LGBT Prediction That Is Worth the Paper It's Printed On


Recommended Posts

In 20 years we will see a huge change in the political landscape because of transgender issues.  

  • People who don't so identify will have children who have been raised as trans.
  • People who disagreed, but thought it was harmless will realize that their children and/or grandchildren are trans and cannot reproduce.
  • Those who don't support it and consider it the mental disorder that it is will have many children and grandchildren who are sane enough to lead the world.
  • People who are fully LGBT active will have few children.  They will consider the children of conservative Christians as being abused for not being raised LGBT.  And they will want to pass laws that allow government to remove children from such homes and give them to LGBT households.

But what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 20 years, the shifting global population dynamics, where we have more retired folks and fewer kids, will stick it's polarizingly dire finger into just about every cultural issue we happen to be dealing with at the time.

Time to go watch Children of Men again, for a refresher course of what we'll be approaching. 

I expect this whole Tradwife stuff to become more and more mainstream over the next few decades, basically putting the traditional family structure and nuclear family back into cultural dominance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Time to go watch Children of Men again, for a refresher course of what we'll be approaching. 

If you're talking about the demographic changes in population, this may be a good comparison.

But what is happening today is not some "unknown cause" which they had no control over.  It is a conscious effort by many parties to decrease the population of the earth.  And that is where we recognize that this is some sinister work afoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is a conscious effort by many parties to decrease the population of the earth.

By "it", you mean the pressures behind the 40 year long cultural shift to mainstream alphabet acceptance and practice?

Assuming I've got that part right, who are the "many parties"?  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

By "it", you mean the pressures behind the 40 year long cultural shift to mainstream alphabet acceptance and practice?

I understood the antecedent to "it" to be "what is happening today". Reading what came previously, I assumed that Carb was referring to the demographic shift of people actively avoiding reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my impression that we are in the last-days.  We do not have to guess as much as we need to be aware of the warnings of prophets.  When I was young, strange encounters were just a LG thing.   I developed a theory that the primary (only) cause of homosexuality was masturbation.  Like Jacob in the Book of Mormon – because of the tenderness of the Latter-day Saints I do not intend to discuss these problems in detail.   Only to caution the tendency of the “natural man” for pleasure.  I believe the problems today to have advanced to be products of masturbation mixed with pornography. 

My theory is that the more individuals learn to pleasure themselves, the less they will have to deal with the hassle of other’s personalities and quirks.   The more selfish individuals become the more dealing with others is a hassle, and the more dealing with others is a hassle, the more individuals are susceptible to violence.   The result is that LGBTQ+ will inevitably turn violently on itself – especially for those that find violence as a outlet for pleasure.  Thus, I believe societies with tendencies towards LGBTQ+ or support of LGBTQ+ will inevitably violently destroy themselves.  What concerns me the most about such violent self-destruction is that innocent children will suffer first and the most.

As I understand the closing events of the Last-days – that the societies of man will be divided into two groups.  One is symbolically represented by Zion and the other symbolically represented by Babylon.  I had thought that the war between good and evil would take place between these two possibilities.  I currently think that there will be war everywhere.  But only in Zion will anyone find peace with one another while they yet must deal with those that hate Zion.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you're talking about the demographic changes in population, this may be a good comparison.

But what is happening today is not some "unknown cause" which they had no control over.  It is a conscious effort by many parties to decrease the population of the earth.  And that is where we recognize that this is some sinister work afoot.

It's not just one side, it's both sides.

Sure, one side is encouraging people in ways that will have them decrease the population by their lifestyle choices.

The other is making it TOO EXPENSIVE for people to WANT to have families.

Which is worse?

The one that tries to convince them to CHOOSE a lifestyle that is against a family?

Or the one that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to do so without living on welfare or other state subsidy (which ironically those who support such price increases are also against).

Last time we saw this type of stuff on this type of scale it took a world war to get us out of it.

Anyone who think this is only one side (Conservative or Liberal) isn't paying attention.  The adversary OWNS both sides.  His solution is that no matter which side you choose, it's HIS side.

In such a situation one needs the spirit and prayer to choose the right or, as the Prophet has warned, without the spirit we will also be lost among most of the western population which is so consumed by these things today that the things of the Lord are tossed aside in favor of the world's morality and pressures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Sure, one side is encouraging people in ways that will have them decrease the population by their lifestyle choices.

The other is making it TOO EXPENSIVE for people to WANT to have families.

I don't think I buy this. I will need evidence that this is so. I grew up in a household where eight of us (parents plus six children) shared a three-bedroom student apartment that could not have been 1000 square feet in size. After Dad finished his PhD. we moved across the state into an enormous, luxurious THREE-bedroom house with almost 2000 (!) square feet of area. Dad built out the furnace room to be another bedroom for my older sister, while my baby sisters stayed in one bedroom and my parents in the master, while we three boys stayed together in the third (originally) bedroom, really just a large room downstairs. We felt positively rich in that beautiful house.

Today, a family of six or even four would feel cramped in a house that wasn't even 2000 square feet. I realize that some things are legitimately more expensive today than fifty years ago, but people's expectations have ballooned to the point that everyone "needs" the latest toys and electronic gadgets and gizmos.

I do not believe this is primarily about things being too expensive. I think it's mostly about people's expectations being outlandish.

image.png.eedf2fc1504fa5926822639631105357.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You live in Utah...correct?

Zillow listing of Duplex Home in Utah

This is NOT a 2000 foot house.  It's a 1300 square foot house/condo.  It's a duplex/triplex, so not even fully your own house if you buy it.

3 bed, 2.5 bath with that square footage.

It's going for 360K.

If an individual was to try to put down a 20% downpayment, they would have to pay 72K just for the downpayment.  This means you would have a 288K left to pay in monthly installments.  Let's say you go for the lower payments on a longer fix rate loan at the current rate (saying you have excellent credit, of course) which the index says is currently 7.04% (which is a heck of a lot better than the 11% I paid years ago).

Using this site to calculate mortgage payments mortgage calculator and using this site to use current interest rates bankrate.com/mortgages

That's a monthly payment of $1,923.81 each month.

You are only supposed to have a maximum of 1/3 of your monthly salary paying for housing, so if we take that formula (despite many paying 50% or more these days) you would get 5,771.43 cents per month that you need to make this payment.  Average Salary in utah according to (quick google search) this site is Ziprecruiter salaries in Utah 48,898/year.  5,771.43 needed to afford this house means you need to make 69,257.16 per year. 

The 75th percentile earns 61,784K per year (still not enough to afford the house).  The Top Earners have an average of 76K (finally, enough to buy the HOUSE...but THAT's what some people call a STARTER house...and it's not even the FULL HOUSE!).

Utah is actually in a BETTER situation than much of the nation currently and the job market is booming.  If it looks like that in Utah...and THAT's one of the TOP areas of the nation currently...well....

That's BEFORE we include the higher prices of fuel and food that's occurred due to the influx of money from the PPP and other monies that flooded the market due to policies that came out in 2020 and continued through 2021. 

I paid around 89K for a 2,600 Square foot house (at around 11% interest if I recall correctly) 30 years ago (maybe a little longer than that).  That should mean it would be around 300K today in regards to inflation.  Instead, homes near it are selling for 500 - 600K which don't even have the same square footage (those selling are around 500 sq feet less).  Mine is evaluated at more than that for taxes (which ANNOYS THE HECK OUT OF ME, I need some way to lower the property taxes I feel).  The cost of housing has outpaced the rate of inflation by a LOT in our area.

None of my kids could afford my house today, and they are making far more than I was making when I bought it!

When talking about current concerns with students when discussing current events, many times they voice concerns about various items.  ONE of the BIG reasons for not wanting to have children or have a family is....it's too expensive today.  They can't imagine ever even owning a home...and THESE ARE THE COLLEGE KIDS that should expect to have a higher pay than those who don't go to college.  Looking at Utah's prices just now, I may actually see their point even more clearly...as I am surprised at how cheap the houses are in Utah (from what I've read at times on the board it sounded as if houses were a LOT more expensive than what I just read and saw) currently. 

You DO have a governor there that made national news a few months back with a housing initiative to lower housing costs in Utah...perhaps that sentiment is something found in Utah that is affecting some of the prices there as it's lower than some other urban areas in the West (where a majority of people live).

Housing is cheaper in some areas out east, but so is the average pay. 

(PS:  Costs are not the ONLY reasons kids are talking about why they don't want families, there is a GREAT deal of despair and unhopeful future casting by many students in light of what they see the older generations doing in regards to how THEY perceive climate change occurring, how older generations don't seem to care about their children's financial plights or the rising cost of living, fear of pollution in general with things such as microplastics and PFAS pollution, etc.  It's not just money that I hear about, but I'd say it's one of the BIG three items that they talk about when discussing their futures and how depressed many of them are about it.

That said, I also think that the statements about there being a mental health crisis in the US is true. I feel that many of these kids are extremely depressed and that's probably also influencing a LOT of how they feel about the future and various aspects concerning it.  I'd say at least a third of the students are in a more depressed attitude over the past few years since they came back from Covid restrictions. 

However, the fact is that the attitude (whether one feels it is true or not) is that the costs of living are too high and they CANNOT afford to have a family or children even if they WANTED to.  It's a matter of whether they FEEL they can afford it, regardless of whether it is true or not.  BECAUSE many of them feel that they cannot afford it, this is probably going to heavily affect how many actually DO have children in the future.  I'd say we are looking at drastic declines in the number of children born over the next two decades just from what I've seen from students and their attitudes currently  unless someone does something to change those attitudes.  Part of that is either showing by ACTION (rather than words...words are easy, actions actually do something) that things are affordable...OR to MAKE them affordable if they are not. 

IMO...of course.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Vort said:

I do not believe this is primarily about things being too expensive. I think it's mostly about people's expectations being outlandish.

When I hear the argument that the cost of living is too high, they bring up the struggling single mom who can barely make ends meet.  These pleadings for sympathy are usually made by the dual income family with one child who was raised by the school system who live in an upper middle class gated community and drive two brand new Mercedes.

Yeah, I can see how much they're struggling.

I'd like to see people put their money where their mouth is. Here are some numbers to consider from my own life:

  • As a student, I made $15k/yr and lived on about $3k/yr after school expenses (the school average was $8k after school expenses).  Median household income at the time: $35k
  • My first job after graduation (married) I made $31k (gross).   Lived on $25k (this meant we weren't saving much at all).  Median $36k.
  • We had our first child.  I made $40k.  Just got our first house with a huge (for me) mortgage.  Median $42k.  We struggled mainly because of the mortgage.  I really shouldn't have bought a house at that price range.  I just wanted the "shiny thing."  But we made sacrifices and we managed.  Again, we didn't really have savings to speak of.
  • When we had our last child (7 total children) I made $75k.  Median $52k.  And we lived very well and were able to put a lot into savings.
  • Ever since then, I've made considerably over the household median income.  And until the last 5 years or so we've only spent about the median income or less, even though we have 7 children to take care of.  The last 5 years or so, we've finally felt comfortable spending what would be reasonable with our income (even though it was a lot more than we ever spent in the past) .
  • Through it all, we were always full tithe payers.  And we made it work.

People struggle at the beginning because you're supposed to struggle at the beginning.  You're supposed to learn that money doesn't grow on trees.  You're supposed to learn what you can do without.  You need to learn to live within your means.  The modern generation never learned these principles.

They remain poor because they want all the shiny things.  We've only bought one new car in our entire lives.  All the others were used cars. We don't mind at all.  But we see people with average income levels buying shiny new cars because they think they can make the monthly payments.  They can't.  They could very easily buy a decent used car that only requires slightly more maintenance.  They could buy four or five of them for the price of a new car. 

They buy houses or apartments they can't afford.  Then they spend money on restaurants, fancy clothes, subscription services without looking at the price tag, and a bevy of other 1st world luxuries that they don't even need. 

If you look at the average "poor" person, you'll find that they have:

  • At least one NEW car that was bought with a loan.
  • An expensive cell phone (probably an iPhone) for each person in the house - including kids too young to read or count.
  • Both home internet that is the fastest available, while at the same time they have a cell phone plan with unlimited 5G connectivity.
  • An Amazon Prime account.
  • Several streaming (both video and music) services in addition to Amazon.
  • Restaurant food every week and sometimes every day.

Folks that is living like kings.  If you can't afford it, stop spending money on it.  Act your wage (thank you, Dave Ramsey).

My kids make $20k/yr for simple food service jobs. And they are ready to get a modest apartment with a friend.  And they are only moving to a particular area because it is centrally located to a bunch of job opportunities.

So, forgive me, but I have a hard time believing people making the median household income crying about how they can't make ends meet.

If I'm wrong, show me the person or family who is struggling that doesn't do these things.  I'll help them.  I AM helping one person today.  And that young lady does (or has done) all these things on the bullet list above.  We've tried to train her how to be more frugal.  She's finally taken some of those lessons.  But old habits die hard.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vort said:

I grew up in a household where eight of us (parents plus six children) shared a three-bedroom student apartment that could not have been 1000 square feet in size. After Dad finished his PhD. we moved across the state into an enormous, luxurious THREE-bedroom house with almost 2000 (!) square feet of area. Dad built out the furnace room to be another bedroom for my older sister, while my baby sisters stayed in one bedroom and my parents in the master, while we three boys stayed together in the third (originally) bedroom, really just a large room downstairs. We felt positively rich in that beautiful house.

That's a very impressive story @Vort!

Here in the 21st century, I had Catholic neighbors with a similar story.  I think they had almost a dozen by the time she was done.  The home was maybe 1500 square feet, 3 bedrooms.  Parents had the master bedroom, the next largest held 6 bunk beds, 3 high against two walls.  They broke down a sleeping area in the living room every day. 

They homeschooled too.  I remember when they did the math, and realized that the mom would have no fewer than 6 teenagers in the home for like ~8 years.  They had one special family day a year where they celebrated everyone's birthday all at once.  They were wonderful neighbors.  My daughters would be standing there minding their own business, and get swept away by a sea of giggly screaming neighbor girls.  The youngest kids once taught me a poem: "You get what you get, and don't throw a fit!"

Something that impressed and amazed me - when they all moved to a bigger house with an extra bedroom, they turned the extra bedroom into a chapel.  A place where they could go individually and take turns meditating and saying the rosary and doing all the Catholic things that Catholics do.  They chose to remain crammed into bedrooms and sacrifice comfort, in order to have a place for spiritual things.   

Yeah, it can still be done. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2024 at 2:03 PM, Carborendum said:
  • Those who don't support it and consider it the mental disorder that it is will have many children and grandchildren who are sane enough to lead the world.
  • People who are fully LGBT active will have few children.  They will consider the children of conservative Christians as being abused for not being raised LGBT.  And they will want to pass laws that allow government to remove children from such homes and give them to LGBT households.
12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Which part(s), specifically? 

The parts not stricken through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

The parts not stricken through.

It seems like you're shifting goalposts from people being persecuted for not being LGBTQ-tolerant to people being persecuted for being non-Christian. Both goalposts are incorrect, I might add.

The math just doesn't check out. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that less than 15% of the US population is an existential threat to ~70% of the US population. Yes, Christians have lost roughly 10% of their strength in the US in the last 20 years, but they're/you're still the dominant American religious demographic, and it's not particularly close. I feel like some conservative Christians feel threatened by the fact other lifestyles and worldviews, lifestyles you don't approve of, are gaining traction in our society. But you're still in the overwhelming majority. The fact that minority demographics are getting more visibility in our culture doesn't mean that Christian traditionalists are being erased. 

What *is* at risk is the overall relevance of religion in modern Western culture. The Catholic and Baptist churches, in particular, have been plagued by poorly-handled sexual assault and child molestation allegations, yet they blame the LGBTQ community for their empty pews. A lot of Christian pastors (and some LDS members) spew anti-LGBTQ hate based on nothing other than contempt based on dogma, and there's no place in today's society for that. A lot of you pay lip service to "live and let live", but what you really mean is "I live how I choose and you live in the shadows if your lifestyle offends me". Remember all the fuss when the live-action Beauty of the Beast came out and one of the minor characters was *gasp* GAY??? 😱 Pretending LGBTQ people don't exist to the point of getting upset any time they appear in your sightline isn't "live and let live". It's a phobia. Queer people don't want to eradicate cishet people, they just want to peacefully and respectfully coexist with us. And yes, that means you need to respect your LGBTQ co-worker's pronouns if you want any chance of them respecting your religious beliefs and practices. It's a two-way street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

It seems like you're shifting goalposts from people being persecuted for not being LGBTQ-tolerant to people being persecuted for being non-Christian.

If you're referring to what has been said on this thread, I'd ask you to clarify which goalposts you're referring to.  But if you're talking about the over societal discussion, can you give a bit more background so we can catch up to the discussion?

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that less than 15% of the US population is an existential threat to ~70% of the US population.

Who said that?  I never said that.  You came up with that all by yourself.

Look at the math based on the segments of population that I referred to.  And you'll see that it is a lot more than 15% of the population that "threatens" the population.  But I NEVER implied an existential threat as such.  You're reading a lot into my words.  I don't appreciate that.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

I feel like some conservative Christians feel threatened by the fact other lifestyles and worldviews, lifestyles you don't approve of, are gaining traction in our society.

Now you're shifting to make it all about prejudice and discrimination.  You know that isn't what this is about.  But you're falling in line with a leftist talking point.  

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

The fact that minority demographics are getting more visibility in our culture doesn't mean that Christian traditionalists are being erased. 

Never said that.  Straw man.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

What *is* at risk is the overall relevance of religion in modern Western culture.

Relevance?  That may be a poor choice in words (but that could be a matter of opinion).  No, I believe that what is at risk is more about the rights of Christians vs the rights of those opposed to traditional values.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

The Catholic and Baptist churches, in particular, have been plagued by poorly-handled sexual assault and child molestation allegations, yet they blame the LGBTQ community for their empty pews.

I'll give you the point that various sects of Christianity could have done better with these events.  While I have no excuse, all I can say is that I only have personal knowledge of a few families who were close to me.  And of those, the way things were handled were not perfect.  But they really did end up producing better results than many other cases that I've heard about on the news.

So, sometimes, what we see as "totally messed up" was really making the best out of a crappy situation.  There was no "perfect" solution.  It was the best that could be done at the time, all things considered.

As far as the empty pews...  We see them in our own ward.  And yes, virtually all of them are about LGBTQ folks leaving.  None of them were abused or shunned by members of our ward.  We never treated them poorly.  We never said anything other than the standard Church policy which is extremely tolerant.  Apart from CHANGING our DOCTRINE to accept homosexual behavior (and similar changes) I don't know what you'd expect us to do.  Realistically,  What would you expect us to do?

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

A lot of Christian pastors (and some LDS members) spew anti-LGBTQ hate

None of that came from LDS Church Heirarchy.   And I never heard it from anyone in my ward or neighboring stakes that I've visited.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

based on nothing other than contempt based on dogma, and there's no place in today's society for that.

And it is not dogma.  It is real world, physical, tangible results.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

A lot of you pay lip service to "live and let live", but what you really mean is "I live how I choose and you live in the shadows if your lifestyle offends me".

Factual inaccuracies.

Have you ever heard Riley Gaines testimony about what happened to her...what it was like seeing a biological mail in the locker rooms watching her dress and undress?  He never physically transitioned.  And he was clearly excited to see these girls naked.  But when girls spoke up, they were expelled for intolerance.

If this is your definition of intolerance, I 100% agree.  But we are destroying women and women's sports.

Have you heard how an entire mob was forcing her speech at San Francisco University to be halted?  Police were there.  But they were scared of the mob because of the size.  They flat out said that she was not going to go home alive unless she paid them all money.  That is the legal definition of kidnapping and holding for ransom.

Is that your definition of tolerance?  She was there to have an open dialogue with people of differing opinions.  And they threatened her life.

The University heads responded to the crowd by saying how "brave" they were for standing up for their rights and letting their voices be heard.  Yes, a mob of thousands against one college girl.  That's really brave.

For the most part it has nothing to do with consenting adults being properly informed by medical professionals making an informed decision.  It is about them forcing their ideologies on us.

I for one, don't care what they do with their lives any more than I care about anyone making a stupid decision.  I think it's stupid.  And I know they'd be better of if they didn't do that.  But in the end, it is their choice.  But it never ends there.  Why on earth are they insistent on compelling our speech?  Why do we HAVE to use their pronouns?  Why do I have to allow a biological male to change in the same locker rooms as my daughter?

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Remember all the fuss when the live-action Beauty of the Beast came out and one of the minor characters was *gasp* GAY???

Yup. That was overblown. It was hype.  When most Christians actually SAW the film, most realized, "oh, that was a lot of fuss over nothing."

At least we saw the film and made a final judgment on actually seeing it.  How many times have we heard liberal newscasters make claims about conservative books and films without ever having seen them or read them?  A whole lot more times.

Recently, JK Rowling was again accused of bigotry.  And the accuser said that her book was CLEARLY bigoted, and everyone should stay away from it at all costs.  Rowling was surprised by this because the book wasn't even published.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Pretending LGBTQ people don't exist to the point of getting upset any time they appear in your sightline isn't "live and let live".

Now you're just making stuff up.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

It's a phobia.

If we're afraid of anything, it is the mobs enforcing their ideology on us with force of law or force of numbers, not the fact that they have an ideology that is different than ours.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Queer people don't want to eradicate cis people  they just want to peacefully and respectfully coexist with us.

Try telling Riley Gaines that.

Also Ben Shapiro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bB0Tpotg_I

.. In another video I saw showed a man who still had a full beard and was full of muscles who stood a full foot taller than this tiny woman who was holding her ground.   He was yelling and screaming at her because she refused to use his pronouns. 

Is this freedom of speech?  No it is COMPELLED speech.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

And yes, that means you need to respect your LGBTQ co-worker's pronouns if you want any chance of them respecting your religious beliefs and practices. It's a two-way street.

Of course.  And I have yet to see anyone in my personal life who has treated LGBTQ co-workers with anything less than common respect.  And all the LGBTQ people in my personal life have done the same -- at work.  At church, that is a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you're referring to what has been said on this thread, I'd ask you to clarify which goalposts you're referring to.  But if you're talking about the over societal discussion, can you give a bit more background so we can catch up to the discussion?

My post was primarily a direct response to @person0 rather than a direct response to your OP.

Your goalpost: People who reject LGBTQ lifestyles will eventually be persecuted and marginalized for it and their kids will be taken from their heteronormative homes and placed in LGBTQ-friendly ones.

Person0's goalpost: Christians currently ARE being persecuted and marginalized through the removal of kids from Christian households. That's the implication I got when I asked for clarification, anyway.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Who said that?  I never said that.  You came up with that all by yourself.

I inferred it from person0's post. If I inferred incorrectly, I'll welcome further clarification from him.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Look at the math based on the segments of population that I referred to.  And you'll see that it is a lot more than 15% of the population that "threatens" the population.  But I NEVER implied an existential threat as such.  You're reading a lot into my words.  I don't appreciate that.

Again, I wasn't addressing your exact words, per se. At least not directly. Person0 made an implication that Christian children are currently being removed from their homes on grounds that Christian households are inherently abusive. That's what I was addressing.

And the fact that there's a difference between being LGBTQ vs supporting the LGBTQ lifestyle is true, and it takes the fangs out of your OP (which barely had teeth to begin with). Cishet identity is still the majority identity, by a lot. LGBTQ identity has increased in recent years (in part simply because it's safer to come out than it was 40 years ago), but they still make up less than 15% of our population. The rest of us, more or or less, are still having babies. Some left-leaning folks have kids who show LBGTQ tendencies, but a lot of us don't. We're not brainwashing our kids to be LGBTQ, we're simply teaching them that it's a valid lifestyle so they won't be afraid to talk openly with us if they ever feel unsure of their identity or sexuality.  

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Now you're shifting to make it all about prejudice and discrimination.  You know that isn't what this is about.  But you're falling in line with a leftist talking point.  

Then what motivated you to make a post predicting, without any logical basis, that LGBTQ acceptance will eventually render traditional Christian values illegal? You talk about leftist talking points, straw men, and fallacies on a thread that is based entirely on subjective conjecture. 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Never said that.  Straw man.

Again, I was never addressing you directly. At that point, I wasn't necessarily addressing person0 either. His stance seems like it might be based in some variation of White Replacement Theory in which LGBTQ folks and their allies abduct Christian children and force traditional Christianity into extinction. But I won't assume that about him.

Keep in mind, this website is a dying breed of conservative-coded platforms where I can say the things I do without being called the n-word, a Jew, a pedo, or any combination of ethnic/racial/homophobic slurs (and to be clear, I am 100% a non-Jewish cishet white man). I don't believe anyone who posts here is a bigot, but I don't reserve that assumption for most hard right folks I encounter online (or even IRL lately), and the way they talk, apart from being more colorful, isn't that much different from some of the things I see said here sometimes. Fear of LGBTQ goon squads rounding up cishet Christians and putting them in some kind of rainbow gulag has permeated far right circles. You don't have to connect many dots to get from your OP to the hateful stance that a lot of conservatives take against LGBTQ people. So if it seems that I'm unnecessarily reactionary here, keep in mind that respectful discussion on this topic is a courtesy I frequently attempt, but rarely receive outside of this website.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Relevance?  That may be a poor choice in words (but that could be a matter of opinion).  No, I believe that what is at risk is more about the rights of Christians vs the rights of those opposed to traditional values.

As far as the empty pews...  We see them in our own ward.  And yes, virtually all of them are about LGBTQ folks leaving.  None of them were abused or shunned by members of our ward.  We never treated them poorly.  We never said anything other than the standard Church policy which is extremely tolerant.  Apart from CHANGING our DOCTRINE to accept homosexual behavior (and similar changes) I don't know what you'd expect us to do.  Realistically,  What would you expect us to do?

Is it possible that, at least in some cases, LGBTQ church members simply realized that the church was never going to fully accept them, so they left to try to find a better spiritual fit for them? That's primarily been the case with the handful of queer LDS members I know who walked away from the church. Naturally, everyone has different experiences and I don't doubt that some LGBTQ members, especially in Utah, might be a bit louder about their exit. But mostly, I think they're just moving on to worldviews that they view as more... relevant. 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

None of that came from LDS Church Heirarchy.   And I never heard it from anyone in my ward or neighboring stakes that I've visited.

That's great. Bigotry is far less common in LDS circles compared to your born-again counterparts. LDS bigots are out there, though. And yes, I personally know a few.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Factual inaccuracies.

What would you call it when someone claims to be loving towards LGBTQ people, but groans and complains any time they're talked about in a positive way, see them cast in movies and TV shows, or show any kind of deviance from heteronormative behavior in public? We have entire states erasing LGBTQ education in schools because they think the purpose of it is to turn kids gay/trans (spoiler alert, it's not). "Don't ask, don't tell" was abolished by the military, but is still alive and well in the minds of millions of Americans, and it's more widespread than you give it credit for.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Have you ever heard Riley Gaines testimony about what happened to her...what it was like seeing a biological mail in the locker rooms watching her dress and undress?  He never physically transitioned.  And he was clearly excited to see these girls naked.  But when girls spoke up, they were expelled for intolerance.

If this is your definition of intolerance, I 100% agree.  But we are destroying women and women's sports.

Have you heard how an entire mob was forcing her speech at San Francisco University to be halted?  Police were there.  But they were scared of the mob because of the size.  They flat out said that she was not going to go home alive unless she paid them all money.  That is the legal definition of kidnapping and holding for ransom.

Is that your definition of tolerance?  She was there to have an open dialogue with people of differing opinions.  And they threatened her life.

The University heads responded to the crowd by saying how "brave" they were for standing up for their rights and letting their voices be heard.  Yes, a mob of thousands against one college girl.  That's really brave.

I think we (regardless of political or religious loyalty) tend to unjustifiably view universities as a microcosm of our society. That's not to say that the story you shared about Riley Gaines is irrelevent or not disturbing, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that that's the norm of how these issues play out. The boring, uneventful instance of a trans person politely correcting someone who misgendered them isn't going to end up on Youtube, but I'd wager that's a much more common occurance than a 300 lb bearded ma'am putting someone in a chokehold. Heck, I've been corrected before. It happens. And most of the time, there's a polite correction, a quick apology, and that's the end of it.

I think we will eventually have to set some clear standards regarding trans people in sports. I don't know what the solution is. I don't think an outright trans ban is the way to go, but it would be useful to establish minimum transition requirements, especially in womens' sports. At a certain point, hormonal transition makes it virtually impossible for a trans woman to compete as a man (and vice versa, for opposite reasons).

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Now you're just making stuff up.

No, I'm not. I addressed this a few paragraphs up. "Don't say gay" policies are meant to erase LGBTQ people. It's not made up when several school districts and at least one entire state is doing it. Teaching kids that LGBTQ people exist is not indoctrination, it's education.

Edited by Phoenix_person
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

but is still alive and well in the minds of millions of Americans, and it's more widespread than you give it credit for.

It’s not an exact science and there are always exceptions, but what I’ve noticed is that people over 50ish do the “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing while people under 50 usually don’t notice or care. 
 

It really threw me off when I met a conservative, home schooled religious family and they were agnostic on LGBT rights. I expected them to be hardcore against it. There’s been a fundamental shift in how society views the LGBT community.  

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...