The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Thork on October 30, 2015, 12:10:37 AM

Title: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2015, 12:10:37 AM
What bloody mess that has become. For those scratching their heads at what all the extra letters mean I'll elaborate.

Lesbian – A female- identified person who is attracted romantically, physically, or emotionally to another female-identified person.
Gay – A male-identified person who is attracted romantically, physically, or emotionally to another male-identified person.
Bisexual – A person who is attracted romantically, physically, or emotionally to both men and women.
Transgender – A person who is a member of a gender other than that expected based on anatomical sex.
Queer – An umbrella term which embraces a variety of sexual preferences, orientations, and habits of those who do not adhere to the heterosexual and cisgender majority. The term queer includes, but is not exclusive to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transpeople, and intersex persons, traditionally, this term is derogatory and hurtful, however, many people who do not adhere to sexual and/or gender norms use it to self-identify in a positive way.
Intersex – Someone who’s physical sex characteristics are not categorized as exclusively male or exclusively female.
Asexual – A person who is not attracted to anyone, or a person who does not have a sexual orientation.
Ally – A person who does not identify as LGBTQIA, but supports the rights and safety of those who do.

So basically you can join this club if you have any kind of odd sexual preference or love those who do, But you can't join and aren't represented if you are straight.
There is no s. Straight isn't recognised.
There is also no p. Peadophiles aren't allowed despite being a minority group that is attracted to children.
There is no n. You can't join if you are attracted to dead people albeit that you are also a minority who is discriminated against.
There isn't another 'i' for incestuous. You and a relative can be deeply in love, heavily discriminated against and these people don't care.
There is no additional b. Fancying a sheep is also way out of bounds. Wanting to mutilate your own penis is fine, wanting to play red rocket with the family dog is out.
There is also no b for bigamy. You're welcomed if you like both men and women, but not if you like both at the same time.

Who the hell decides what kind of sexual deviance is ok, and what isn't? Buggering your postman is fine, buggering your auntie isn't. Deciding you want to change sex and demand others accept that is ok. Demanding sex with a dead body is way out of line. Not adhering to sexual norms makes you a queer and is fine, unless you want to have two partners at once and then you are a monster.

This left-wing neo-sexual gobbledegook doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's all getting too complicated. You have a group of weirdos you need to admire, respect and can't discriminate against, and then you have a whole different set of weirdos who need to be vilified, imprisoned and hated. And it is all so polarised. You must hate the 18 y/o boy who likes 10 year old girls. You must respect the 65 y/o man that wants to bugger 18 y/o boys. You have to worship and say how brave the transgender individual is for admitting their feelings, you have to haul a man who likes his pet donkey in front of a court. The transgender man influencing young people on the internet to follow him an have a sex change is an inspiration, the man who wants one last night of love making with his wife's corpse is damaging the very fabric of society.

I can't be the only person who just thinks sod the lot of them. If you aren't straight, you are probably up to no good and it doesn't benefit mankind or society in any way whatsoever.


Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Fortuna on October 30, 2015, 12:16:07 AM
I'm pretty sure it's related to consent. For example, a beast can't consent to getting sexed on. Although, they can't consent to being slaughtered for food either. So I don't know actually. I guess humans just do whatever the hell they want to do and find any means to justify it. I guess that's your answer.

But yes, I agree that the queer movement is highly hypocritical. To them, tolerance is a one-way street. You have to be tolerant of them, but they don't have to be tolerant of the fact that you disagree with them.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2015, 12:22:59 AM
When your wife dies, you take control of her body as a possession and need to organise the funeral arrangements. Having sex with her to say goodbye one last time doesn't hurt anyone. And if your sister wants to have sex with you, that's consent. not represented.

It has nothing to do with consent, ethics, morality, common sense or anything else. It is who can shout the loudest and who has the most influence to manipulate media and politicians into normalising your particular perversion. Western society has become a moral cesspit. Our views are back to being 4000 years old. Not even the Arabs are as backward when it comes to sex. We have utterly regressed back to a time of ancient carnal desire with fewer and fewer rules. I can see peadophiles being commended for being so brave in less than 30 years. The Welsh pushing through sheep-love legislation because it is a human right to be in love. Its all nasty and it needs to go back to where is was in the 1950s when everyone knew the rules and lived a decent and clean life, or did their best to hide it.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2015, 12:30:47 AM
Thork...

1. Pedophilia is illegal because children can't consent.
2. Necrophilia is illegal because dead people can't consent.
3. Beastiality is illegal because animals cannot consent.
4. Incest isn't illegal (at least it isn't in the US).


I understand that you apparently want to bang a dead half-sheep that is also your sister, but that's illegal, and not because it's your sister.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2015, 12:38:30 AM
1. Children can consent. A 14 year old girl is quite capable of saying "yes, I want to have sex with you" or "no I don't". they can consent. Only someone made a rule to say their opinion isn't important and doesn't count. Children are also discriminated against.
2. Dead people aren't people. They are dead. They are no more people than a pork chop is a pig. They are just a body. You don't need consent from a fleshlight, why should you need it from a dead body?
3. I've seen enough dogs humping their owners legs to know that given half a chance they are more than happy to consent.
4. Incest is illegal. Where do you hill-billies get the idea it isn't? Also you still can't join the LGBTQIAA as they won't represent you.

Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2015, 12:48:46 AM
1. Children can consent. A 14 year old girl is quite capable of saying "yes, I want to have sex with you" or "no I don't". they can consent. Only someone made a rule to say their opinion isn't important and doesn't count. Children are also discriminated against.

A fourteen year old is also perfectly capable of saying "Yes, I want that beer" "Yes, I want some cocaine" and "Yes, I want to kill myself" but luckily most adults are intelligent enough to recognize that fourteen year old people have a hard time thinking ahead of their actions.

2. Dead people aren't people. They are dead. They are no more people than a pork chop is a pig. They are just a body. You don't need consent from a fleshlight, why should you need it from a dead body?

Actually dead people are people. Luckily, as a sane person, other sane people agree with me, and therefore me saying they are still people is correct, while what you're saying remains to be nonsense.

3. I've seen enough dogs humping their owners legs to know that given half a chance they are more than happy to consent.

Here's a good test for consent, Thork, if it has a hard time communicating in a language you understand, it can't consent to you.

4. Incest is illegal. Where do you hill-billies get the idea it isn't? Also you still can't join the LGBTQIAA as they won't represent you.

No, it really isn't. Go ahead, look it up. You can bang your sister to your heart's content. Just don't marry her.

Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Yes, and now you, the top tier wierdo, are upset that the lesser weirdos are getting their way.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Tintagel on October 30, 2015, 12:54:58 AM
I'd like to add that there isn't an "S" for straight because the "A" for ally implies straight.  We don't have a letter for straight people who aren't allies.

I'm pretty sure it's related to consent. For example, a beast can't consent to getting sexed on. Although, they can't consent to being slaughtered for food either. So I don't know actually. I guess humans just do whatever the hell they want to do and find any means to justify it. I guess that's your answer.

But yes, I agree that the queer movement is highly hypocritical. To them, tolerance is a one-way street. You have to be tolerant of them, but they don't have to be tolerant of the fact that you disagree with them.

For my part, I don't care what kind of anatomy you have or who you like to sleep with.  This, however:

I can't be the only person who just thinks sod the lot of them. If you aren't straight, you are probably up to no good and it doesn't benefit mankind or society in any way whatsoever.

I don't think I'm hypocritical in the least for calling out this kind of generalization as being irresponsible and provably inaccurate.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2015, 01:34:46 AM
It's almost as if pressure groups and alliances were under no obligation to accept each and every person that wants to join. If the LGBT* lobby doesn't want to represent you, go ahead and start one of your own.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on October 30, 2015, 08:33:07 AM

4. Incest is illegal. Where do you hill-billies get the idea it isn't? Also you still can't join the LGBTQIAA as they won't represent you.



In the UK it is still illegal, and this quote probably gets to the nub of the question, turning on others who have rights you don't, obviously your sister isn't too choosy and you can't get anyone to hold your hand and say it's fine. All the other odious reasoning is a smoke screen.

There is in most people an inherent negative response, inbuilt by evolution to screwing relatives as it is bad for the species.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Tintagel on October 30, 2015, 10:01:37 AM
Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Why on earth should anal intercourse be illegal?  If it isn't your thing, don't do it. Simple as that. 
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: beardo on October 30, 2015, 10:06:40 AM
I can't be the only person who just thinks sod the lot of them. If you aren't straight, you are probably up to no good and it doesn't benefit mankind or society in any way whatsoever.
What have you done to benefit mankind and society?
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2015, 10:37:41 AM
Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Why on earth should anal intercourse be illegal?  If it isn't your thing, don't do it. Simple as that. 
Buggery laws were introduced in the 1533 in order to curb the syphilis problem spreading throughout Europe. It was a disease brought back from the new world native Americans and it was rampant. Even back then, most people knew anal 'sex' spreads disease must easier than proper sex. So it was outlawed as a public health measure. I have posted stats on this before. Stats from the ONS that show you are 10 times more likely to get HIV from buggery with a condom than you are from regular sex without as a woman. The arse is a giant sponge to recycle nutrients and is particularly prone to disease. It also rips and tears in a way a vagina won't. So whilst you 'fail to see' because you live in la la dream world where any kind of sexual deviance should be praised so you can indulge in it happily, the fact is, it is and always has been a public health menace.

This is the reason African countries are so reluctant to legalise homosexuality. They are worried about a new resurgence in the AIDS epidemic. And then you have an idiot like Obama who doesn't give two craps about the lives of African people saying those countries are violating human rights just so he can bully them into anti-competitive trade deals and one-sided sanctions.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Lord Dave on October 30, 2015, 11:14:40 AM
Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Why on earth should anal intercourse be illegal?  If it isn't your thing, don't do it. Simple as that. 
Buggery laws were introduced in the 1533 in order to curb the syphilis problem spreading throughout Europe. It was a disease brought back from the new world native Americans and it was rampant. Even back then, most people knew anal 'sex' spreads disease must easier than proper sex. So it was outlawed as a public health measure. I have posted stats on this before. Stats from the ONS that show you are 10 times more likely to get HIV from buggery with a condom than you are from regular sex without as a woman. The arse is a giant sponge to recycle nutrients and is particularly prone to disease. It also rips and tears in a way a vagina won't. So whilst you 'fail to see' because you live in la la dream world where any kind of sexual deviance should be praised so you can indulge in it happily, the fact is, it is and always has been a public health menace.

This is the reason African countries are so reluctant to legalise homosexuality. They are worried about a new resurgence in the AIDS epidemic. And then you have an idiot like Obama who doesn't give two craps about the lives of African people saying those countries are violating human rights just so he can bully them into anti-competitive trade deals and one-sided sanctions.
I thought you were anti-homo?
Why wouldn't you want all gays to get sick and die?
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Tellthetruth on October 30, 2015, 11:58:10 AM
Whats up Doc?
While I do agree with you for the most part, your rant betrays some emotional response.
I do understand, in fact.
A persons focus will determine their reality.
Thinking with ones penis or clitoris will keep their attention on things that shall pass away.
In many cases sooner than would otherwise be possible. (As stated above)
Laws are made for the lawless. These organizations are just the fellowship of the like spirited persons.
Perhaps the prognostications of ancient scriptures about such vile affections are coming to pass? (Just saying)
Let the dead bury their dead.
Keep our eyes on things above, not things beneath.
Perverse men shall wax worse and worse. Count on it.
It is their choice, and I thank GOD that all people are not like me. I would drive myself nuts, methinks.
Peace to you and the world.
A better day awaits us. (Dang, I was hoping it was 12/21/2012)
Perhaps we should start an organization called, Anarchist, flat earth, gun toting, hot rodding, coffee drinking, jerk offs. Well, maybe not.

Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Pongo on October 30, 2015, 12:30:01 PM
Thork, Can we add another letter for people that don't really care one way or the other but if pressed would agree that the LGBTQIAA community should have equal rights?
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Tintagel on October 30, 2015, 12:35:42 PM
Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Why on earth should anal intercourse be illegal?  If it isn't your thing, don't do it. Simple as that. 
Buggery laws were introduced in the 1533 in order to curb the syphilis problem spreading throughout Europe. It was a disease brought back from the new world native Americans and it was rampant. Even back then, most people knew anal 'sex' spreads disease must easier than proper sex. So it was outlawed as a public health measure. I have posted stats on this before. Stats from the ONS that show you are 10 times more likely to get HIV from buggery with a condom than you are from regular sex without as a woman. The arse is a giant sponge to recycle nutrients and is particularly prone to disease. It also rips and tears in a way a vagina won't. So whilst you 'fail to see' because you live in la la dream world where any kind of sexual deviance should be praised so you can indulge in it happily, the fact is, it is and always has been a public health menace.

This is the reason African countries are so reluctant to legalise homosexuality. They are worried about a new resurgence in the AIDS epidemic. And then you have an idiot like Obama who doesn't give two craps about the lives of African people saying those countries are violating human rights just so he can bully them into anti-competitive trade deals and one-sided sanctions.

No.  If done with the proper care, none of the health risks you mentioned are a factor.  If someone believes everything they see in porn (just shove it in there, mate!), then of course there are risks. Don't do that!

The solution to this problem isn't making butt stuff illegal.  The solution is better sex education (so people understand how to do these things without risk of injury or infection) and better healthcare (if something does go wrong) - two things that African countries and the fine people in your dream home of 1533 didn't care so much about.  I like to think we've matured as a species since then. 

Well.  Those of us who aren't Thork have matured, anyway. 

EDITED TO ADD:
Thork, Can we add another letter for people that don't really care one way or the other but if pressed would agree that the LGBTQIAA community should have equal rights?

That would count as Ally, the final A, Pongo.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Parsifal on October 30, 2015, 01:27:02 PM
Thork, Can we add another letter for people that don't really care one way or the other but if pressed would agree that the LGBTQIAA community should have equal rights?

That would count as Ally, the final A, Pongo.

Different people seem to have different ideas about what it means to be an Ally. Sadly, the vocal minority who say that being an Ally involves keeping your opinions to yourself simply because you're not a sexual minority give the whole movement a bad name.

I do agree that the acronym has gotten a little out of hand, simply because listing every single group of people who should have rights is going to be a never-ending process. I mean, obviously the people leading the movement can call themselves what they like, I just think they're starting to look rather silly.

My view is that the state needs to stop regulating private sexual matters altogether, except where it stands to do harm to others (such as reproductive incest, where the child is at higher risk of genetic problems). I don't really care if that makes me an Ally or not.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Tintagel on October 30, 2015, 01:50:21 PM
My view is that the state needs to stop regulating private sexual matters altogether, except where it stands to do harm to others (such as reproductive incest, where the child is at higher risk of genetic problems). I don't really care if that makes me an Ally or not.

Good enough for me, and I agree.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: garygreen on October 30, 2015, 02:42:00 PM
This is the reason African countries are so reluctant to legalise homosexuality. They are worried about a new resurgence in the AIDS epidemic. And then you have an idiot like Obama who doesn't give two craps about the lives of African people saying those countries are violating human rights just so he can bully them into anti-competitive trade deals and one-sided sanctions.

yeah uganda really has their shit together.

i wish everything was more like the upstanding moral utopia that is uganda, where everyone lives clean and decent lives.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Particle Person on October 30, 2015, 04:44:34 PM
2. Dead people aren't people. They are dead. They are no more people than a pork chop is a pig. They are just a body. You don't need consent from a fleshlight, why should you need it from a dead body?

Actually dead people are people. Luckily, as a sane person, other sane people agree with me, and therefore me saying they are still people is correct, while what you're saying remains to be nonsense.

At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?

Probably right around the time their family stops scavenging their belongings like angry vultures.

e.g. 3 years-ish.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Particle Person on October 30, 2015, 05:24:35 PM
At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?

Probably right around the time their family stops scavenging their belongings like angry vultures.

e.g. 3 years-ish.

Nice sane opinion!
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Tintagel on October 30, 2015, 07:45:01 PM
2. Dead people aren't people. They are dead. They are no more people than a pork chop is a pig. They are just a body. You don't need consent from a fleshlight, why should you need it from a dead body?

Actually dead people are people. Luckily, as a sane person, other sane people agree with me, and therefore me saying they are still people is correct, while what you're saying remains to be nonsense.

At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?

Depends whether you like your sexual partners firm or soft 'n juicy, I suppose.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Pongo on October 30, 2015, 10:19:34 PM
My view is that the state needs to stop regulating private sexual matters altogether, except where it stands to do harm to others (such as reproductive incest, where the child is at higher risk of genetic problems). I don't really care if that makes me an Ally or not.

Good enough for me, and I agree.

Don't force my views into your boxes.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on November 04, 2015, 11:59:49 PM
Okay, Thork, I'll break your first post down, if that's ok?

Quote
There is no s. Straight isn't recognised.

Straight isn't a minority sexual identity. What additional rights would you like for straights? Most, if not all the other letters are fighting for the right to be treated like a cisgendered straight person.

Quote
There is also no p. Peadophiles aren't allowed despite being a minority group that is attracted to children.

As others have said, consent.

Quote
There is no n. You can't join if you are attracted to dead people albeit that you are also a minority who is discriminated against.

If you're just continuin g to have sex with the corpse of your loved one, would that be necrophilia? You were attracted to the person, not just the fact that they're dead. If you're having sex with dead people who are just dead people, then you answered your question (in a way) later on when you said that the body belongs to you. You're abusing a body which doesn't in any way belong to you and you have no permission to abuse.

Quote
There isn't another 'i' for incestuous. You and a relative can be deeply in love, heavily discriminated against and these people don't care.

Are there many people who are exclusively attracted to their relatives because they're relatives? If not, then they're not a seperate sexual identity. However, if there are, I imagine that the numbers are so small that they simply haven't applied to join.

Quote
There is no additional b. Fancying a sheep is also way out of bounds. Wanting to mutilate your own penis is fine, wanting to play red rocket with the family dog is out.

Consent.

Quote
There is also no b for bigamy. You're welcomed if you like both men and women, but not if you like both at the same time.

Bigamy isn't a separate sexual identity. There are plenty of people who are in polyamorous relationships of all kinds. Some are gay, some are straight, some are bi. You fancy each person in that group, not the group itself.

Quote
Who the hell decides what kind of sexual deviance is ok

Society. And the standards have obviously changed. Time was, an interracial relationship was tabboo - or an inter-class relationship.


Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 05, 2015, 07:17:14 AM
Quote
There isn't another 'i' for incestuous. You and a relative can be deeply in love, heavily discriminated against and these people don't care.

Are there many people who are exclusively attracted to their relatives because they're relatives? If not, then they're not a seperate sexual identity. However, if there are, I imagine that the numbers are so small that they simply haven't applied to join.
Why is exclusivity a factor? As a filthy bisexual, I will (in principle, at least) entertain the possibility of sexing anything that moves that looks vaguely human and is able to give me consent. Transsexuals also don't fit your criteria at all, and neither do "queers".

It sounds like your criteria would have been somewhat applicable back when it was just the GLB movement, but you're some 118 (or 46, if we choose to pretend that America is the world) years late for that. We've added quite a few letters of the alphabet to the once-simple movement, and so your oversimplified conditions for who gets to join and who doesn't no longer reflect to reality.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on November 05, 2015, 09:22:45 AM
You exclusively like men and women, that is what makes you bisexual. Trans* is about gender not sexuality, so the exclusivity argument doesn't really apply. The definition of Queer changes (by definition) from person to person.

Exclusivity in sexuality is only 'important' for putting labels on people, so since it's labels we're discussing, it's relevant. if a man fancies men  but also fancies women, I'd argue his non-exclusivity of male preference excludes him from being Gay but accept that he's Bi.

If you, as a man, fancy your sister but you also fancy other women, I'd argue you're straight.

Obviously people are free to label themselves how they like (there are men who have sex with men who insist they're straight) but for this discussion, I'm taking the definitions fairly strictly.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 06, 2015, 09:49:20 PM
You appear to be ignoring the Kinsey scale completely in your "strict" definitions. Again, using definitions and concepts that are decades out of date is really not helping the discussion.
Title: Re: LGBTQIAA
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on November 09, 2015, 01:53:50 PM
Not at all.

The discussion was regarding 'incestophiles.' If someone fancies their relative but also is attracted to other people, I'd be sceptical over their claim to be incestophiles - we don't generally add every fetish and kink to the LGBT... label, do we? If so, then perhaps Thork has a point and the label is simply meaningless.

However, if they are attracted to their relatives 1) because they're relatives and 2) have little to no interest in non-family sexual partners, then I could begin to accept that Incestophiles could be a separate sexual subgroup. I think that point 2 is important only for the discussion of definitions. After all, if a woman claimed to be a lesbian but had a long history of male partners, still drooled over male partners, and still enjoyed the odd encounter with men, would the 'lesbian' label be appropriate? Obviously she'd be free to call herself what she liked, but I'd suggest that she would be better described as bi.