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

[old]

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx

 

Heterosexuality is still the norm in our society. That’s what @Phoenix_person was saying. I think. 

Amazingly, both the hard right and hard left want to believe that homosexuality is far more common than what it is because it fits their already held views.  

Except this argument completely destroys the fundamental reason why homosexuality became accepted.

It was said homosexuality is inborn, innate and cannot be changed, at that at most it's 1-2% of the population.  Except it's clear that it's not genetic.

~20% of the youngest generation identifies as LGBTQ+ compared to 1-2% of Gen X and older.  Genetics don't change that fast. So clearly something has happened and it's not biological.

The argument that "heterosexuality is still the norm" is a red herring and non-logical.  

Position A) Homosexuality is inborn, nothing can be done about it.

Under this assumption, children nor adults are influenced one way or the other, therefore there is no danger that homosexuality will become the norm.

Position B) Human sexuality is extremely complex, influenced by a wide variety of factors and both children and adults can be influenced/persuaded to indulge in homosexuality.

Under this assumption the percentage of individuals who identify as LGBTQ will increase as the pressure of society increases to allow both acceptance and LGBTQ+ activites.

The idea that well the majority of society is heter. so it's not a big deal is a really bad take.

The majority of people don't commit suicide; but it's still a major problem.

[Carborendum]

40 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm interested - how come you believe that?  What surviving historical records substantiate this claim?  

It is certainly true that a lot of homosexuality (more accurately bisexuality) in past civilizations were not outlawed by some societies (Rome & Greece among them).   It isn't outlawed in the US (other than a few obsolete laws that are not enforced AT ALL.

It is inaccurate to say that homosexuality was erased from history books.  Historical records are still there, unaltered and unhidden.  They are available for anyone to read.  But most don't care.  And they do tell of such behavior (duh-uh, it is described in the Bible for heaven's sake).

Edited June 3, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

4 minutes ago, old said:

~20% of the youngest generation identifies as LGBTQ+ compared to 1-2% of Gen X and older.  Genetics don't change that fast. So clearly something has happened and it's not biological.

Nailed it. I think the notion I prefer, is cultural winds are creating orientation confusion.  Most of which will filter out as a child's maturity centers and long-range decisionmaking ability solidifies in their '20's. 

The other notion is "patriarchy and oppression are falling away and ppl finally can be who they've always been", but I think that has little evidence.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nailed it. I think the notion I prefer, is cultural winds are creating orientation confusion.  Most of which will filter out as a child's maturity centers and long-range decisionmaking ability solidifies in their '20's. 

With the indoctrination they are getting from Kingergarten through university, I doubt many will change their minds until it is too late.

The interesting fact that gets lost is that the great majority of "non-binary" are claiming bisexual but practice heterosexual behavior.  This tells me that many (admittedly, not all) really are heterosexual, but claim to be non-binary to fit in with the latest fads.

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The other notion is "patriarchy and oppression are falling away and ppl finally can be who they've always been", but I think that has little evidence.

If homosexuality has been repressed so much, then why does it take so much social pressure and authoritative figures forcing it on children to make any kind of bump in the needle?  Why not just "remove" obstacles instead of shoving it down their throats?

If it were truly free, there would be a maximum of 10% increase (if any) from historical numbers.  But today, with societal pressure, people are just falling in line with a governmental authority.

Edited June 3, 2024 by Carborendum

[old]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is certainly true that a lot of homosexuality (more accurately bisexuality) in past civilizations were not outlawed by some societies (Rome & Greece among them).   It isn't outlawed in the US (other than a few obsolete laws that are not enforced AT ALL.

It is inaccurate to say that homosexuality was erased from history books.  Ancient records still survive.  And they do tell of such behavior (duh-uh, it is described in the Bible for heaven's sake).

And more to the point. Christianity arose in a Roman culture where homosexuality was acceptable and yet early Christians absolutely abhorred any form of homosexual practices. That is absolutely a fact.

It is evident from the earliest Christian contemporary records that homosexuality was unacceptable to a Christian lifestyle so those who try to bring homosexuality into Christianity have to somehow explain and undo 2000 years of Christian teachings.

Good luck with that!

[Phoenix_person]

 

3 minutes ago, old said:

It is evident from the earliest Christian contemporary records that homosexuality was unacceptable to a Christian lifestyle so those who try to bring homosexuality into Christianity have to somehow explain and undo 2000 years of Christian teachings.

Good luck with that!

Are you sure you want to talk about contemporary Christianity? On THIS website?? Christianity has been getting tweaked and updated for centuries. That's why there are so many Christian denominations these days, including one that claims that the true gospel of Christ was gone from the Earth by the time the Bible was canonized, yet still accepts the Bible as canon (as far as it is translated correctly). And THAT church isn't recognized as Christian by the denominations that were at that table hundreds of years ago because it adheres to extrabiblical scripture. "Contemporary" Christians would have persecuted you as a heretic right alongside me and my gay buddies.

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The interesting fact that gets lost is that the great majority of "non-binary" are claiming bisexual but practice heterosexual behavior.  This tells me that many (admittedly, not all) really are heterosexual, but claim to be non-binary to fit in with the latest fads.

People tend to forget what "bisexual" means, apparently. "Non-binary" is a gender identity, not a sexual orientation. And statistically speaking, half of the people who identify as bisexual are likely to enter into opposite-sex relationships. That doesn't mean that they aren't also attracted to the same sex.

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If homosexuality has been repressed so much, then why does it take so much social pressure and authoritative figures forcing it on children to make any kind of bump in the needle?  Why not just "remove" obstacles instead of shoving it down their throats?

In the case of LGBTQ, one of the biggest obstacles to remove was faith-based intolerance and discrimination. The LGBTQ community seems oppressive to religious people because religious people have historically been their strongest (and most violent) opponents*. In order to remove THAT obstacle, it's necessary to dismantle some of the religious views around LGBTQ behavior. So yes, children are being taught that sometimes a loving home has two daddies or two mommies, or that sometimes people decide to change their gender, is a necessary part of removing those societal obstacles. You're still free to teach them whatever religious views you want on the subject or to send them to a school that matches your religious convictions, but public schools exist to prepare ALL kids for happy, successful lives, not just Christian kids.

*The second-largest obstacle to LGBTQ people thriving is a sub-category of the first, and that's parents. I don't necessarily agree with the stance that some districts take of keeping issues of a child's sexuality and gender identity a secret from parents, but I see the need for SOME type of safeguard to exist for kids whose parents may respond to such news with abuse. If you spend time talking to people in the LGBTQ people and getting to know them, then you know that this is still a very real concern, even in 2024. And to be clear, I'm not calling religious teaching or "firm but gentle" conservative parenting abusive. I'm talking about severe physical, mental, and emotional harm. It's happening to kids all over the country. It's not as widespread as it was than when I was a kid (and I'm probably one of the younger pisters here), but it's still a real problem that schools need to plan for and react to.

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If it were truly free, there would be a maximum of 10% increase (if any) from historical numbers.  But today, with societal pressure, people are just falling in line with a governmental authority.

Where do you get that figure from?

[old]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

 

Are you sure you want to talk about contemporary Christianity? On THIS website?? Christianity has been getting tweaked and updated for centuries.

One reason why I'm no longer Mormon. I'm preparing to become Eastern Orthodox.  I and my family got tied of the acquiescence to the rainbow mafia (openly queer missionaries who date the same-sex no repentance necessary).

And it's also why Western Protestantism is dead and cannot hold.  It has nothing to hold it together. Anyone can take any number of scriptures and interpret them 6 ways to Sunday. I'd rather have a religion that isn't swayed by the hot new thing of the day and has staying power across thousands of years.

 

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

*The second-largest obstacle to LGBTQ people thriving is a sub-category of the first, and that's parents. I don't necessarily agree with the stance that some districts take of keeping issues of a child's sexuality and gender identity a secret from parents, but I see the need for SOME type of safeguard to exist for kids whose parents may respond to such news with abuse. If you spend time talking to people in the LGBTQ people and getting to know them, then you know that this is still a very real concern, even in 2024. And to be clear, I'm not calling religious teaching or "firm but gentle" conservative parenting abusive. I'm talking about severe physical, mental, and emotional harm. It's happening to kids all over the country. It's not as widespread as it was than when I was a kid (and I'm probably one of the younger pisters here), but it's still a real problem that schools need to plan for and react to.

Actually you are. You believe the state should teach your religion. That's cool, I don't blame you.  Separation of church and state is false; you will never have separation of church and state. Somebodies religion is going to be taught in public schools.

I'd rather it be mine than yours. However, time will tell.  I have 2000 years of ancient faith to back me up and and over 5000 years of basic morality.

You have 10 years.  You've picked an awfully shallow theological ledge to stake your life on.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

People tend to forget what "bisexual" means, apparently.

Agreed. "Bisexual" means "having two sexes", and applies to species as a whole. For example, humans are bisexual, male and female.

[old]

One of the better writings on the topic:

https://stjohndc.org/en/orthodoxy-foundation/christian-understanding-homosexuality

For anyone who tries to twist Christianity into saying Christianity is always changing.  Pretty obvious what Christianity believed, really early on.

The Holy Fathers of the first centuries of Christianity bluntly describe the world they sought to transform. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes:

“Oh, if placed on that lofty watch-tower, you could gaze into the secret places – if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight – you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people imbruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do – men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them.” St. Cyprian of Carthage, “Letters” c. 250 AD

St. John Chrysostom writes:

“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26-27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases. The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! . . . A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body . . . There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.” St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on Romans”

And in words which surely must seem, to us, prophetic, St. John in another place writes:

“The worst of it is that such an abomination is committed boldly and that the monstrosity becomes the law. Nobody nowadays fears, nobody blushes. They boast and they laugh at these actions. The people who abstain appear stupid and they who condemn are regarded as fools. If they appear to be weaker they are crushed with blows. If they are stronger, people laugh, people mock them and make many jokes about them. They have no redress in tribunals or in law.” (Against the Opponents of Monastic Life, III.8)

Perhaps there is also some consolation here for us, that the worldly attitudes  against which St. John preached sound so familiar to us.

Concerning those in Holy Orders who fall into these sins, Saint Basil the Great writes:

“The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his tonsure, and () reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship . . . with young people.” (St. Basil the Great, in St. Peter Damien, Liber Gomorrhianus)

We find similar comments in St. Clement of Rome, in St. Aristides, in the Epistle of St. Barnabas, in Blessed Augustine and in Tertullian.

The early Canons of the Orthodox Church also speak to these practices:

From the 92 Canons of St. Basil (affirmed specifically by the 4th, 6th, and 7^th Ecumenical Councils):

Canon 7:

“Sodomists and bestialists and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers and idolaters deserve the same condemnation, so that whatever rule you have as regarding the others observe it also in regard to these persons.”

Canon 62:

“As for any man who uncovers his nakedness in the midst of males, he shall be allotted the time [i.e., 15 years] fixed for those transgressing in the act of adultery.”

From the 35 Canons of St. John the Faster:

Canon 9:

“As for sexual intercourse of men with one another, such as practicing double masturbation, it received the stated penance of up to eighty days [together with strict fasting and one hundred prostrations a day].”

It should be noted that the canon for double masturbation is precisely twice the penance prescribed for solo masturbation in the preceding Canon 8 because, as St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain notes: “each of these offenders is not only hurting himself, but is also hurting his brother, and this makes the sin a double sin” (The Rudder, p. 938).

Canon 18:

“It has seemed advisable to exclude any man who has been so mad as to copulate with another man from Communion for three years, weeping and fasting, and towards evening confined to xerophagy (i.e., a strict vegan raw diet), and doing two hundred prostrations. But as for one who prefers to take it easy, let him fulfill the fifteen years [i.e., of Canon 62 of St. Basil].”

 

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

People tend to forget what "bisexual" means, apparently. "Non-binary" is a gender identity, not a sexual orientation. And statistically speaking, half of the people who identify as bisexual are likely to enter into opposite-sex relationships. That doesn't mean that they aren't also attracted to the same sex.

I think you read something into my words that was inaccurate.

The overall large number that is "Non-cis-hetero..."  (i.e. part of the alphabet crowd) is considered non-binary.  This was not my definition or usage.  This was from LGBT sites that speak on the subject.

Among the non-binary crowd, the great majority identify as bisexual.  Something like 80% of the non-binary crowd identify as bi-sexual.

So, if you have heterosexual impulses, but you want to fit into the non-binary crowd, what is the easiest way to fit in while not being grossed out?  Claim that you're bisexual, and only date members of the opposite sex because "that other person is just not my type."  Meaning people of my same sex are not my type of sexual partner.

Does that clarify my point?

[Phoenix_person]

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think you read something into my words that was inaccurate.

The overall large number that is "Non-cis-hetero..."  (i.e. part of the alphabet crowd) is considered non-binary.  This was not my definition or usage.  This was from LGBT sites that speak on the subject.

Among the non-binary crowd, the great majority identify as bisexual.  Something like 80% of the non-binary crowd identify as bi-sexual.

So, if you have heterosexual impulses, but you want to fit into the non-binary crowd, what is the easiest way to fit in while not being grossed out?  Claim that you're bisexual, and only date members of the opposite sex because "that other person is just not my type."  Meaning people of my same sex are not my type of sexual partner.

Does that clarify my point?

Yes, thank you. Apologies for misunderstanding.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Where do you get that figure from?

Could some people who would have been suppressed in past decades now feel like they can "be themselves"?  Of course, some.  How many?  Let's use some math.

• Look at the historical rates of LGBT occurence prior to 2010.
  • How many were gay/lesbian? about 1.5% (depending on source and time frame). 
  • How many were "other"?  about 1% (again, depends on source).
• Now look at how many today? 
  • The lesbian/gay number went up around 10% to 15%.  That is pretty easy to believe was due to former oppression.
  • The "other" makes up the great majority of the LGBT crowd.  And the biggest category is bisexual.
  • Compare the "other" category numbers to today's numbers around 5.5%.  Quantum leap.  That ain't normal.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that most of the increase in numbers are an anomaly.  (I submit: from government/government adjacent agencies) and not from a "removing oppression."

Edited June 3, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

We're having a good conversation, and I don't want to dent it, but I need to mention something.

Keep in mind, ThirdHour isn't primarily a debate forum.  It's a "come learn about the mormons and hang out with the mormons as we share our faith" forum.  That doesn't mean we can't have a good discussion like we're having, but it does mean that us mods must take action against any criticism of our faith.   Please remember site rule #1:

Quote

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular.  But as we have a former member-turning-Catholic, and an atheist/agnostic bird person starting to argue with each other, just keep in mind that nobody throws any punches at the church/its teachings/its leaders.  

If you want to go argue that stuff, our cousin forum at mormondialogue.org is more than happy to host you.

[Ironhold]

18 hours ago, old said:

"Love is love" is codeword for "Sex is sex". 

Nowadays, you're more likely to hear moderates and libertarians throw "love is love" back in the face of progressives who are opposed to interracial relationships. 

Turns out that a lot of self-described "progressives" get the vapors when they see people of two races love each other. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Ironhold said:

Nowadays, you're more likely to hear moderates and libertarians throw "love is love" back in the face of progressives who are opposed to interracial relationships. 

Turns out that a lot of self-described "progressives" get the vapors when they see people of two races love each other. 

Curiously, they don't mind the sex. It's the commitment of a formal, public legal relationship that they object to.

[old]

31 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

We're having a good conversation, and I don't want to dent it, but I need to mention something.

Keep in mind, ThirdHour isn't primarily a debate forum.  It's a "come learn about the mormons and hang out with the mormons as we share our faith" forum.  That doesn't mean we can't have a good discussion like we're having, but it does mean that us mods must take action against any criticism of our faith.   Please remember site rule #1:

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular.  But as we have a former member-turning-Catholic, and an atheist/agnostic bird person starting to argue with each other, just keep in mind that nobody throws any punches at the church/its teachings/its leaders.  

If you want to go argue that stuff, our cousin forum at mormondialogue.org is more than happy to host you.

Most definitely NOT Catholic-thank you very much! Catholics are about as woke as ..... :-).

Eastern Orthodox, much different. No such thing as purgatory, nor indulgences, etc.

I won't throw punches. There are many really, really good decent Mormons/LDS. LDS beliefs are what they are and they allow what they allow. Not my fight anymore and it doesn't affect me.

They are more than welcome to have transgender cabins at youth camps and have openly homosexual missionaries. I mean I wish they wouldn't for the greater whole of Christendom-but they gonna do what they gonna do. I wish the UMC didn't have female pastors and openly LGBTQ+ leaders; but it is what it is.

I truly feel for those who are doing everything they can to live traditional Christian lives in a crazy world where they are much confused in their own religion. I wish it weren't the case. 

[old]

5 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

progressives who are opposed to interracial relationships. 

Now that I haven't seen.  I'm very much intrigued about this, where do I go to find progressives opposed to interracial relationships? Strangeness.

[Ironhold]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Curiously, they don't mind the sex. It's the commitment of a formal, public legal relationship that they object to.

The issue is when you have self-described "progressives" who subscribe to "privilege theory" or are all about group "loyalty". 

In their eyes, an interracial relationship is doomed from the get-go or else "proof" that the partner who has the least amount of "privilege" is in need of some sort of intervention due to either being ignorant or being a "traitor" to their category membership. 

Hence their panic. 

[old]

1 minute ago, Ironhold said:

The issue is when you have self-described "progressives" who subscribe to "privilege theory" or are all about group "loyalty". 

In their eyes, an interracial relationship is doomed from the get-go or else "proof" that the partner who has the least amount of "privilege" is in need of some sort of intervention due to either being ignorant or being a "traitor" to their category membership. 

Hence their panic. 

Oh wild...so it's kind of like the whole change from being "color-blind" as a liberal/progressive viewpoint to being "color-blind" is right-wing, bigots?

Wild......

society is so fickle.

[Ironhold]

1 minute ago, old said:

Now that I haven't seen.  I'm very much intrigued about this, where do I go to find progressives opposed to interracial relationships? Strangeness.

Some who register their opposition do so because they subscribe to "privilege theory", the concept that people have different levels of "privilege" on the basis of the various group memberships they have. In their eyes, any sort of interracial relationship is *always* going to be uneven because of this, with heterosexual relationships involving a white man and a woman of another race being seen as tantamount to slavery because of the woman having so little "privilege" compared to the man. 

Others are essentially racial supremacists or segregationists who feel that people are better off "staying with [their] own kind" for one nonsense reason or another. 

[Ironhold]

3 minutes ago, old said:

Oh wild...so it's kind of like the whole change from being "color-blind" as a liberal/progressive viewpoint to being "color-blind" is right-wing, bigots?

Wild......

society is so fickle.

Pretty much. 

Modern "progressives" are now increasingly demanding that we go back to seeing people as piles of labels, something that even actual progressives are sick of. 

[old]

1 minute ago, Ironhold said:

Some who register their opposition do so because they subscribe to "privilege theory", the concept that people have different levels of "privilege" on the basis of the various group memberships they have. In their eyes, any sort of interracial relationship is *always* going to be uneven because of this, with heterosexual relationships involving a white man and a woman of another race being seen as tantamount to slavery because of the woman having so little "privilege" compared to the man. 

Others are essentially racial supremacists or segregationists who feel that people are better off "staying with [their] own kind" for one nonsense reason or another. 

But if a black man marries a white woman, is the black man the slave or the white woman? Or is it that the black man gets to make the white woman his slave as reparations?

This is wild; I've never heard this; questions, questions.

[NeuroTypical]

14 minutes ago, old said:

Most definitely NOT Catholic-thank you very much! Catholics are about as woke as ..... :-).

Eastern Orthodox, much different. No such thing as purgatory, nor indulgences, etc.

I stand corrected.

[Ironhold]

1 minute ago, old said:

But if a black man marries a white woman, is the black man the slave or the white woman? Or is it that the black man gets to make the white woman his slave as reparations?

This is wild; I've never heard this; questions, questions.

It's really bad on Twitter and other social media forums where these "progressive" types like to congregate, to the point that I've seen them metaphorically get up in the face of black women who were involved with white men or otherwise agitate against interracial relationships. 

Yeah, it's to the point now that the louder someone claims how "progressive" they are the more likely they are to have beliefs that are downright bigoted. 

[old]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I stand corrected.

It's all good man. Yeah things can get a little confusing b/c Eastern Orthodox are still catholic but not Catholic; LDS is also catholic-meaning one and the same everywhere. Catholic meaning Latin under the Pope of Rome.

Now where it gets really confusing is when you have groups that claim they are Orthodox-Catholic, they have the same rites as Catholics, but do not follow the Pope.  Those guys are just on their own and don't have communion with Eastern Orthodox.

Then you have Eastern Rite Catholics (Catholics that practice Eastern Liturgy) that are under the Pope and Western Rite Orthodox that practice the Roman/Catholic Liturgies but are Orthodox and not under the Pope but in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodox.

The Orthodox-Catholic, Eastern Rite Catholics and Western Rite Orthodox are all fairly small groups though...and mostly found in places like Poland/Ukraine where East & West meet.

Edited June 3, 2024 by old