Why are they trying to force sexual fluidity onto gay men

[Anthooonnnyyy]

Lol of course it is seen as an agenda. What happens if a straight guy told another straight guy to try dick maybe he'll like it. Outside the West it'll get very dangerous, even in America with guns all over the place. Doesn't matter which mouth it comes from if you tell a gay man to try pussy and see if he likes it. The words are the same. Same old conversion therapy but repackaged. Still trying to transfer one pool of "fluid" from one pool to another.

The point that I make in the previous post about Bohemian Rhapsody is that the other straight members of the band are portrayed as saints without fault and they're all heterosexuals. Only Freddy was reckless, rude, promiscuous etc etc albeit talented they all dump the negatives on his character and not others. Very imbalanced and considering the other major gay character is the big villain.

Now people trying to say he wasn’t this or that to fit their narrative. You are on the money.

 

[Anthooonnnyyy]

I'm stumped by this post/thread as I don't see how your thoughts expressed here are different from how many straight folks feel about gay sex.

I don't understand why others concern themselves with other folks' sex lives.

Unless it directly affects them.

And I see no evidence of that here.

I don't care who other folks are sleeping with.

Regardless of how these people choose to identify.

If someone floats your boat, take the cruise, lol.

The difference here is which country kills or imprisons you for being straight? Would you feel differently if there was movie of a man who left his wife and children to be with a man and took the children from the wife? No cause straight people would clench their pearls and anus so tight.
Homophobia has led to people getting killed. If you don’t see evidence of that you just are not looking.

 

[Anthooonnnyyy]

Yes, I can see how new terms are just a way to put claim on something that is nothing new. But I understand the point that even though everyone can be attracted to anything or some can put it on a scale (10%, 20%…) some 'Gay Men' (the largest group in LGBTQ) are feeling erased after being used to being the golden boys for so long. So question who you mean by 'they'?
Have you considered they are Russians and Chinese trying to treat 'gays' as non-human and getting people to turn on each other like they quite possibly have done with American politics.

Here's a scarier thought: what if it is all humanity that is being erased starting with LGB… one at a time as a disposable voice and anyone with potential power in the democratic world as 'toxic'. Think what is trained to be JEALOUS of HUMANITY… You are starring at it in your browser:
A.I.s quite possibly written by the Russians, Chinese and any other homophobic or anti-democracy country.

Just visit a Chinese website or facebook page: it's how great motherland is, how great and smart the children are. Visit top stories in America, it's all the schlocky Trump/Kardashian 'stories' propelled to the top and stupid things kids do 'you won't believe what they do next?', 'their life is getting sadder and sadder', etc. Do you think humans write those clichés?

​

The horror. The Orwellian horror

 

[all4windy]

Because you see it everywhere in gay TV shows they have The gay male character have sex with a woman to discuss sexual fluidity. there’s a Broadway play called "cock" with the guy from Kingsman playing a gay guy who fell in love with a woman. sex shops are selling pussy toys to gay men and gay porn they have an so-called openly gay men having sex with women. It’s like they pushing this straight agenda onto gay men but they’re not doing that to lesbian women because if they try to do that to lesbian the lesbian women will be upset. they are literally try to erase the G to change it into a umbrella term. The whole queer community has a strong hatred towards gay men in a try to say they going after white gay men but they’re actually going after gay man of every race. They try to maké bisexual pansexual and whatever new label they come up with popular and try to get rid of the existence of gay men who are the foundation of the LGBT community. they literally using homophobia against gay men and homophobic tactics like gay men are misogynistic for not dating a woman or having sex with a woman. The weird queer community is trying to say that game and are living in a box because they do not wanna have sex with a woman how we are living in a box and we are living outside the box of normalcy they trying to literally trying to push us back in the box pushes back in the closet I thought I heard is homophobic conversion therapy rhetoric from the right wingers but now I’m hearing this same homophobic stuff from the left-wing as well this is getting freaking ridiculous

you ate, and left no crumbs

 

[Anthooonnnyyy]

If their definition of fluidity is that one can choose one sexuality over another then they are wrong. Shaming fluidity because of a perceived ability to change ones sexuality is also wrong. Fluidity is like water. Water does not decide to flow one direction or another. Lightning does not decide where to strike.

Again why is fluidity only helpful for heteronormative behaviors and which countries are you arrested in for being straight? I’ll wait. behavior is either reinforced or punished. So was it fluid men who had pink triangles on them when being taken to the camps?

 

[Anthooonnnyyy]

I sorta of agree with the op. This is one of the ideas that I struggle against since I heard of the idea. As a someone from a religious background in the South, I find the idea of sexual fluidity to be a slap in the face.


Not everyone lives in a sexually permissive environment. I was going to write an article about this. If sexuality is fluid, then homosexuals have no rights. I know that this is porn site so I'm going to assume that people are more likely to be more sexually open than the general population. If you look at the history of homosexual rights, the rights were for congenital homosexuality. Not acquired homosexuality. The sodomy laws were repealed on the condition that those who had aquired homosexualiy were locked and that homosexuality wouldn't be advertised in the public.

also, people really aren’t tolerant of homosexuality. Most people pretend to go along with it, because more people don’t want to get fired.



You haven't read any of their new information. They're using the idea of sexual fluidity to promote their practices. Also, they now argue that they use techniques that can help manage a client's same sex attraction, so that their opposite sex attraction can emerge. So that leave same sex attracted folks as a bind. I don’t mind ex gay therapy. People can do what they want.

That part. Using words to influence behavior

And here's another example of the hypocrisy I come across so often from the "community", spending so long wanting to have your sexuality accepted and then you see those people discriminating against a different orientation. I'm too straight for the gays and too gay for the straights (but I'd expect that from them)

These conversation ain’t for you if you can’t see a 6 from a 9 or an 8 from an infinity. It’s funny that you can hide in plain sight whenever you get scared. Let’s not lie. how strong are you to walk next to the man you love in a country where you will be killed? Btw you are analyzing people who have been judged themselves and you condemn them with the same condemnation that is given to them the arrogance. Funny that you judge people for expressing their anger at what their witnessing just cause you fail to see the writing on the wall. You belong to no one and stand for nothing. Yet will fall for anything, you will bang anything with a pulse.

 

[Anthooonnnyyy]

One thing about "fluidity agendas" is that sexual fluidity does exist and in open societies will continue to exist, maybe becoming more accepted in time because some people are curious about same sex stuff.
I have a theory that people are wired to copy what their peers are doing sexually, especially when young- every one of my friends, "straight", "gay", "bisexual" or whatever label, male and female started developed their sexuality this way; exploring to find what worked best for them- sexual fluidity. Sometimes this goes on for a while; I have a gold star gay mate in his late 30s call me earlier in the month wanting to know what to expect from sex with a woman. Turns out things have developed with a woman he met through his work, and he is now making up for lost time; he says he is still attracted to guys but liking pussy and perfume at present.
None of this group feel the need to have their sexuality as a prominent part of their identity like the gay rights group of old did; in fact, generally they will be reticent about it to anyone outside a close circle.

However I have questions because what was blocking him before this girl? Secondly, just cause you have the urge to have sex doesn’t mean you have to act on it. Thirdly, you can’t “make up for lost time” there is only the present. It sounds like there are more factors that are influencing the guy but a vegetarian who eats meat isn’t a vegatarian. If he is having to re examine his life at late 30s it makes you think if he has insight and awareness into his own desires and needs. Like what does he need from a guy that he gets from this woman? Does he see a long standing emotional relationship or is it solely sex? Also sexism aside is he doing this to reclaim “his power” again there are numerous things for this person. He may want to read the velvet rage and the invention of heterosexuality.

 

[Anthooonnnyyy]

It's starting to sound like people feel like there's an exclusive attitude on both sides of this argument with each side feeling equally passionate. I'm almost curious to ask people in this thread's ages to see if there's generational differences.

Speaking for myself, I'm 33, so fairly young, and more acquainted with the current trends of LGBTQ attitudes. I'll admit that I've never even heard the term "gold star gay" until last year and it was on this forum, and I've never heard the term outside this forum. It has never been said to me in person and I've never heard it on television. So I'm wondering if this is an older attitude or older term that they used in the 90s or something? For me, of course I've had sex with women, I had to do it all to discover myself, and no one has ever given me grief for it. No one has doubted my homosexuality because of it. I assume most gay men have had sex with women at one point or another. I didn't realize anybody made a big deal about it.

I have, however, been given grief for not finding trans people attractive. I've been given grief for not being attracted to anyone who refers to themselves as "nonbinary". And I've been given the most grief when I've stood up for gender itself. There are many people in my generation and younger who claim they want to do away completely with the concept of gender not just for themselves but for society as a whole. I tell them that this would hurt me immensely as a gay man; it would nullify my existence if it were to come to be. Then I'm called a bigot and a transphobe for expressing this. This is what I think many in this thread are upset about. We're not upset that bisexual people exist. We're upset because we love a specific gender and there's a huge movement that wants to take that away from us and make us out to be the regressive ones.

So I'm certainly not trying discredit the experiences of bisexuals who've come up against an exclusive attitude when mingling with the gay community. I totally believe those experiences; people can be real jerks sometimes. But do try to see where we're coming from; try to understand why gender is so important to gay rights.

Honestly, the way you said no is the most compassionate way of saying. It sounds like the person cannot handle rejection and has never learned skills to handle that within the community. It is sad and shows the strange divide in what was said and what was heard. I was watching this meet in the middle episode and it was funny watching people on the same side disagree on the same meaning. I think using language as a thing to unify people is great however today it has been muddied. You and I are not that far off in age. However you don't have to "try or experience" something to know it is not for you. Like I dont need to do meth to understand that I DONT want to do meth or drugs to begin with cause never felt that urge or desire.

It makes me laugh that people will grasp things out of thin air esp in the gay clubs when turning someone down nicely. Like rejection happens in life. Makes you think that they may need something else instead of seeking attention from a stranger.

 

[Beegun84]

this is very much true cause where is heterosexuality illegal? It’s very Orwellian. The play was written by a straight male. I think it’s interesting that people think it’s a joke as well. Like a man and a woman fight over a gay man? Please. It’s strange like hetero normative people can’t get it through minds that men don’t want to be with women/females and that’s okay. There’s nothing inherently nefarious going on. It shows that for as much society “accepts” they will always try to change and convert us to what they want. This is why practicing same language is vital and being honest about lesbian and gay history. We are truly in the age of the Handicapper General.

I think there are real people who accept that fact and others who are just pretending or only in it for the clout/social points. But as usual, any other groups other than the ruling class are always subjected to the good old divide and conquer tactics. That part of the left is directly feeding the mouth of the homophobes on the right while some other people on the right are pretending to care about us.

Also I forgot to say that even though the AIDS storyline ultimately removed from the theatrical cut, it's been filmed so time and money has been spent on it so the thought of gay or bi men being directly correlated with AIDS was there. And fortunately because of COVID, a lot of people look back and think differently about the AIDS pandemic and what caused it...

 

[Jeffer2580]

They are gonna be so pissed. The movie is directed by Ira Sachs and will be out at the Sundance film festival on the 23rd of January

 

[Beegun84]

They are gonna be so pissed. The movie is directed by Ira Sachs and will be out at the Sundance film festival on the 23rd of January

No wonder it premieres at Sundance and not Outfest.

I do think Maestro at Netflix will inflict a lot more damage since it's an Oscar bait and it's about a GAY man who managed to love a woman and have 3 children despite countless sex with men. And it stars an A lister.

 

[chpoof]

Just popping in very briefly to ask a question: Seems like there's a whole slew of shows depicting supposedly gay men "switching sides" and having affairs with women. Where are the ones depicting lesbians switching sides to be with a man?

 

[Jeffer2580]

Just popping in very briefly to ask a question: Seems like there's a whole slew of shows depicting supposedly gay men "switching sides" and having affairs with women. Where are the ones depicting lesbians switching sides to be with a man?

I think the bolded is more realistic,it happens every time and it's not "switching sides", it's coming to terms with your sexuality and can you please tell me the shows that are about gay men switching sides?

 

[dreambridger]

Just popping in very briefly to ask a question: Seems like there's a whole slew of shows depicting supposedly gay men "switching sides" and having affairs with women. Where are the ones depicting lesbians switching sides to be with a man?

feel like that happened in the 90s rather, i.e. Chasing Amy.

 

[Smallteaplant]

They are gonna be so pissed. The movie is directed by Ira Sachs and will be out at the Sundance film festival on the 23rd of January

I think the bolded is more realistic,it happens every time and it's not "switching sides", it's coming to terms with your sexuality and can you please tell me the shows that are about gay men switching sides?

I'm not pissed. One of the characters could be bisexual or pansexual. However, I'm going to laugh when this whole queer/sexual fluidity project blows up in you guys faces.

For someone from Nigeria, I would expect you to be a little bit more guarded when it comes to sexuality. One of the condemnations of the West is that it's sexually immoral or sexual degenerate.

People with homosexual inclinations have to the show the world that homosexuality isn't a choice. And that we're not sexual degenerates. You know respectability politics.

Just popping in very briefly to ask a question: Seems like there's a whole slew of shows depicting supposedly gay men "switching sides" and having affairs with women. Where are the ones depicting lesbians switching sides to be with a man?

There was this one book about straight guy who fell in a gay guy in a teen novel. However the boundary for heterosexuality is more policed than it is for gayness.

Someone experimenting with a same sex kiss =/= sexual fluidity - Bi people does not automatically mean all bi people are sexually fluid. And there is still a far greater abundance of both gay and straight representation than the handful of shows you listed above that don't even directly or indirectly address the notion of sexual fluidity.

Saying that Gay rights has been regressing in "some" countries" around the world and then attaching that by default to queer theory is unsubstantiated association. Conservatism is on the rise in some countries and this is for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual fluidity or gender - also -there is absolutely no reason to combine gender theory with sexual fluidity. They are two entirely different things.

The benefits of giving visibility to sexual fluidity is obvious - Because it exists and they are real people and its also describes an aspect of human sexuality that sheds a light on our understanding of how that all works. Same exact reason why despite the vast minority of the population being gay - we have fought for representation as well.
Saying this will "sink the ship" is simply another assertion you are making that is entirely unfounded. You have already made your motives clear - you are arguing from Tribalism, and have no interest in how this affects anyone outside of your tribe. You have made it clear that your position is fear based given you are worried about how representing other actual real people in this world will effect you. This is the same tired old argument that has been used to keep gays in the closet for years based on the tribe that had the most power for centuries - we do not advance by simply waiting till we are equipped with decent power base and then use that to keep someone else down. You have already said you are happy to throw anyone under the bus to preserve your rights.

The most bi-Phobic people I have met are the gay community by a long stretch. Most of whom consider bi to simply be a stepping stone to gay and just claim that bi people don't have the balls to go full homo - which is my personal experience as a bi man and, much like your assertion, is anecdotal.

How this sort of representation benefits anyone is pretty simple. If your entire argument for gay rights rests on the notion that being gay is some immutable characteristic printed into our DNA - then you are missing the entire point of why gays have been granted any rights at all. The movement was around gaining rights because
A) regardless of whether its genetic or preprogrammed, there is nothing wrong with being gay.Its a morally neutral sexuality.
B) Anyone who isn't straight and is having consensual has a right to be that person and enjoy the full support of the law and be seen as human beings with representation across the board in the same way that hetro's have enjoyed.

Splitting into tribes and dolling out considerations for a persons sexuality based on existing power structures regardless of the actual merits of the respective positions is playing the rights game wrong.

I can name several conditions that are potentially innate/immutable possibly genetic that will and should never be recognised as valid legally permissible presentations of the human experience.

I want to argue that the reason why gay people won their rights was that people can't be recruited into homosexuality. People with homosexual inclinations have nothing to offer the government. We don't help with the increase of the population. The majority of the world's religions are against of homosexual relations. What can people in same sex/gender relations offer to lavage for their rights? Say what you about heterosexuals, but they can batter for their rights by the mere fact that relations tend to bare children.

And yes, our rights as homosexuals are founded on the notions that homosexuality is immutable and congenital.

Wolfenden didn’t dispute the ‘immorality’ of homosex but argued that the Law should not criminalise ‘congenital inverts’ – homosexuals who couldn’t help their homosexuality – so long as they conducted themselves with domesticated discretion. Instead the Law should focus its attentions more usefully on the ‘real perverts’ – the ‘otherwise normal men’ who took part in the semi-public homo demi-monde for cheap thrills, and no-apron-strings sex.

 

[Smallteaplant]

Someone experimenting with a same sex kiss =/= sexual fluidity - Bi people does not automatically mean all bi people are sexually fluid. And there is still a far greater abundance of both gay and straight representation than the handful of shows you listed above that don't even directly or indirectly address the notion of sexual fluidity.

Saying that Gay rights has been regressing in "some" countries" around the world and then attaching that by default to queer theory is unsubstantiated association. Conservatism is on the rise in some countries and this is for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual fluidity or gender - also -there is absolutely no reason to combine gender theory with sexual fluidity. They are two entirely different things.

The benefits of giving visibility to sexual fluidity is obvious - Because it exists and they are real people and its also describes an aspect of human sexuality that sheds a light on our understanding of how that all works. Same exact reason why despite the vast minority of the population being gay - we have fought for representation as well.
Saying this will "sink the ship" is simply another assertion you are making that is entirely unfounded. You have already made your motives clear - you are arguing from Tribalism, and have no interest in how this affects anyone outside of your tribe. You have made it clear that your position is fear based given you are worried about how representing other actual real people in this world will effect you. This is the same tired old argument that has been used to keep gays in the closet for years based on the tribe that had the most power for centuries - we do not advance by simply waiting till we are equipped with decent power base and then use that to keep someone else down. You have already said you are happy to throw anyone under the bus to preserve your rights.

The most bi-Phobic people I have met are the gay community by a long stretch. Most of whom consider bi to simply be a stepping stone to gay and just claim that bi people don't have the balls to go full homo - which is my personal experience as a bi man and, much like your assertion, is anecdotal.

How this sort of representation benefits anyone is pretty simple. If your entire argument for gay rights rests on the notion that being gay is some immutable characteristic printed into our DNA - then you are missing the entire point of why gays have been granted any rights at all. The movement was around gaining rights because
A) regardless of whether its genetic or preprogrammed, there is nothing wrong with being gay.Its a morally neutral sexuality.
B) Anyone who isn't straight and is having consensual has a right to be that person and enjoy the full support of the law and be seen as human beings with representation across the board in the same way that hetro's have enjoyed.

Splitting into tribes and dolling out considerations for a persons sexuality based on existing power structures regardless of the actual merits of the respective positions is playing the rights game wrong.

I can name several conditions that are potentially innate/immutable possibly genetic that will and should never be recognised as valid legally permissible presentations of the human experience.

I want to argue that the reason why gay people won their rights was that people can't be recruited into homosexuality. People with homosexual inclinations have nothing to offer the government. We don't help with the increase of the population. The majority of the world's religions are against of homosexual relations. What can people in same sex/gender relations offer to lavage for their rights? Say what you about heterosexuals, but they can batter for their rights by the mere fact that relations tend to bare children. Like someone said, when Michael Barbaro left his male partner for a women:

This is good news, and good for them, and good for their parents. Now there is the possibility of children, grandchildren, a future. Thats about the most fundamental "good thing" there can be, in a material sense. And as often said about homosexuality, much of it seems contingent, circumstantial, essentially a bad habit a few people can stumble into, especially if it is fashionable in their circles. Not to say that an extreme few aren't actually "born that way" as a sort of birth defect.

And yes, our rights as homosexuals are founded on the notions that homosexuality is immutable and congenital. Take the Wolfenden Report, it was argued that congenital homosexuality shouldn't be persecuted. However, perverted homosexuality should. Also didn't England have a law saying that couldn't show positive portrayals of homosexuality or teachers in same sex relationships couldn't teach because they didn't want to children to be seduce into homosexuality.

Isn't that why parents are raiding and protesting the school libraries for having LGBT material in the United States? They want to protect kids for being seduce into homosexuality. The whole representation for sexual fluidity will be more ammo.

Wolfenden didn’t dispute the ‘immorality’ of homosex but argued that the Law should not criminalise ‘congenital inverts’ – homosexuals who couldn’t help their homosexuality – so long as they conducted themselves with domesticated discretion. Instead the Law should focus its attentions more usefully on the ‘real perverts’ – the ‘otherwise normal men’ who took part in the semi-public homo demi-monde for cheap thrills, and no-apron-strings sex.

This philosophy was etched into law. When decriminalisation came in 1967, the ‘over 21′ stipulation, the exemption of the Armed Forces, the hygienic insistence on ‘in private’ – not in a locked public toilet cubicle, not in a park at night, not in a hotel or boarding room, not in a prison cell, not in your own house if someone else was present (even if downstairs watching Songs of Praise) saw to it that most of the non gay men involved in gay sex would remain outlaws (including ‘at least half’ of the randy Royal Navy). Gay sex seems to have been considered such an irresistible, inflammatory temptation that it still had to be generally proscribed.

 

[jaybee0560]

I want to argue that the reason why gay people won their rights was that people can't be recruited into homosexuality. People with homosexual inclinations have nothing to offer the government. We don't help with the increase of the population. The majority of the world's religions are against of homosexual relations. What can people in same sex/gender relations offer to lavage for their rights? Say what you about heterosexuals, but they can batter for their rights by the mere fact that relations tend to bare children. Like someone said, when Michael Barbaro left his male partner for a women:



And yes, our rights as homosexuals are founded on the notions that homosexuality is immutable and congenital. Take the Wolfenden Report, it was argued that congenital homosexuality shouldn't be persecuted. However, perverted homosexuality should. Also didn't England have a law saying that couldn't show positive portrayals of homosexuality or teachers in same sex relationships couldn't teach because they didn't want to children to be seduce into homosexuality.

Isn't that why parents are raiding and protesting the school libraries for having LGBT material in the United States? They want to protect kids for being seduce into homosexuality. The whole representation for sexual fluidity will be more ammo.

I know what you "want" to argue. The point here is that no gay rights advances have been made on the basis of its immutability. You keep making assertions and fail at every turn to prove them. Where in the Wolfenden report did it say anything like what you claim?.. It literally/ explicitly states that homosexuality cannot be classified as a mental disorder given the only symtom is being homosexual. Nothing in that reasoning even brings into effect whether its congenital. In fact - the entire wording of the report deliberately leaves out any assumptions about being gay past - whether it should be classified as a disorder or a normal part of the human sexual spectrum ..
It touched on lewdness or public prostitution - but I can't find anything to support your contention that there were any material discussions around congenital homosexualiy.
I am not drawing on "the world" I am drawing on western society and how we win rights in that paradigm - I Don't see you complaining about representation of women working CEO level jobs being an issue because most of the world still has mysoginistic views vis a vis women?

Also - once again you have deftly avoided the actual issue - its almost like you have no address for it. Again - so you can avoid it another time. How is saying "some people are fluid" an argument that "all people are fluid"
You really don't even seem to understand what "Fluid" means - you make it sound like someone just chooses a sexuality depending on the day of the week.
You are fighting ignorance with ignorance. Not a winning strategy

 

[Smallteaplant]

Also - once again you have deftly avoided the actual issue - its almost like you have no address for it. Again - so you can avoid it another time. How is saying "some people are fluid" an argument that "all people are fluid"
You really don't even seem to understand what "Fluid" means - you make it sound like someone just chooses a sexuality depending on the day of the week.
You are fighting ignorance with ignorance. Not a winning strategy

I actually acknowledge that some people's sexuality is fluid. Sexual norms are dictated by perception and not reality. I read the books and seen the talks. No big deal. However, you have to acknowledge that there is an asymmetric between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Any government and country that wants power will always favor heterosexuality. Heterosexuality leads to an increase in the popular.
Just like TERFS can use people detransition, conservatives and people who are against homosexuality can use people who are sexuality fluid against homosexuals.

The point here is that no gay rights advances have been made on the basis of its immutability. You keep making assertions and fail at every turn to prove them. Where in the Wolfenden report did it say anything like what you claim?.. It literally/ explicitly states that homosexuality cannot be classified as a mental disorder given the only symtom is being homosexual. Nothing in that reasoning even brings into effect whether its congenital. In fact - the entire wording of the report deliberately leaves out any assumptions about being gay past - whether it should be classified as a disorder or a normal part of the human sexual spectrum ..

https://www.scribd.com/doc/398837/Wolfenden-report

The report made it clear that they wanted make sure that children will not be influenced by homosexuality.

Check paragraphs: 42,46,53,58,66,68,86

 

[jaybee0560]

I actually acknowledge that some people's sexuality is fluid. Sexual norms are dictated by perception and not reality. I read the books and seen the talks. No big deal. However, you have to acknowledge that there is an asymmetric between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Any government and country that wants power will always favor heterosexuality. Heterosexuality leads to an increase in the popular.
Just like TERFS can use people detransition, conservatives and people who are against homosexuality can use people who are sexuality fluid against homosexuals.




https://www.scribd.com/doc/398837/Wolfenden-report

The report made it clear that they wanted make sure that children will not be influenced by homosexuality.

Check paragraphs: 42,46,53,58,66,68,86

Again - you have avoided central point.
Instead of going round in circles - your entire argument rests on the belief that if we acknowledge or represent that some people are sexually fluid - the natural sensible argument is "well then any who is gay can be made to be straight? .. or even the more tenuous "being gay is a choice". That is literally the threat you've been warning against right??.

I I00% acknowledge that bigotry exists and that being gay, black, a women, etc makes one a target of that bigotry. Banging on about that doesn't address my actual point. That being, rights are gained and held in my society, on the basis of the value of your argument. The counter to all these claims is simply, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a women, black or gay. That is why countries draw up bills of rights, and agree to human rights laws.
Even if you could make the case that these laws haven't always been robustly applied, it is incredibly hard to reverse a decision that has been made.

I would also argue - and have done, that if you are not prepared to argue reform on the basis of merit rather than pandering to false premises - then you haven't really won any rights at all. You're just being given permission to exist for a bit.

So - we circle back to - How do you think sexual fluidity works exactly? and, using these facts - tell me why i need to worry about anything you claim?

 

[Smallteaplant]

So - we circle back to - How do you think sexual fluidity works exactly? and, using these facts - tell me why i need to worry about anything you claim?

The phenomenon that people's sexuality change during certain periods of their lives. For example, women who were lesbians suddenly marrying men. Some people who are bisexual go through something called the bi cycle. Where there are months that one gender more attractive than the other. Sexuality is complex. Some argue that sexuality is more a set of configurations. Some argue that sexuality is a spectrum.

I I00% acknowledge that bigotry exists and that being gay, black, a women, etc makes one a target of that bigotry. Banging on about that doesn't address my actual point. That being, rights are gained and held in my society, on the basis of the value of your argument. The counter to all these claims is simply, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a women, black or gay. That is why countries draw up bills of rights, and agree to human rights laws.
Even if you could make the case that these laws haven't always been robustly applied, it is incredibly hard to reverse a decision that has been made.

This goes back to the question of what are rights. I'm arguing from the position that there are no such thing as rights. Rights are a fiction and can mean different things. But that's another thread without answers. You're arguing that rights is something that will always be there.

Unlike blacks and women, those with homosexual inclinations don't have anything to lavage against the state. Like I mentioned in past post. But you're failed to mention or recognized that point.

I would also argue - and have done, that if you are not prepared to argue reform on the basis of merit rather than pandering to false premises - then you haven't really won any rights at all. You're just being given permission to exist for a bit.

The LGBT already lives off toleration and permission.