What is the official take by this forum on how to deal with homosexuality? What should be done to help these people or alternately be ridden if them?WHITE PRIDE MONTH

submitted by PunisherStickerGuy from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Fast forward to that same school today, less than two decades later: faggotry is everywhere. 'Pride' is everywhere. I can only wonder what will happen in the next 10-20 years. I imagine that a large amount of child trannies is the next step.

Canada actually keeps a record of this. There was a 7x jump in Transgenders from the Boomer generation to Gen X.

It's even higher with Zoomers/Millenials.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220427/cg-b002-eng.htm

So something is definitely up. It can't be genetics anymore, society/environment also has to be a factor.

[–]Schlomo_GaschambergRabbi Schlomo Auschwitzstein Gaschamberg 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I exceedingly think the Social Constructionist side of the debate (sociocultural) seems to be correct, not the Essentialist (genetics) one. The problem is that the queers and their 'allies' routinely move between these two sides when it suits them.

For example, when we say that sexuality is mutable and therefore that we can solve the problem by affecting sociocultural changes, then they resort to what is known as the 'Born This Way' argument. This essentialist argument is that people shouldn't be blamed for things that they can't help themselves doing. Once a female sociologist told me that she didn't even believe in that, and just promoted it for optical reasons.

But when we say that sexuality is immutable and therefore that we can solve the problem by removing these people from society or tampering with their genes, then they revert back to the constructionist and fluid arguments. For example, that you can't really get rid of queers because anyone can simply just wake up one day and find that his sexuality has 'changed'. So there is no real way to identify who to remove.

Another obvious example can be found in schools:

If we say that 'we're coming for your kids' [in classrooms] is a threat, they'll simply resort to essentialism: We can't turn your kids queer, we only want to make them tolerant of queers.

Yet those same teachers are the ones telling kids that they can 'choose' their sexuality, that sexuality 'changes', that it is heterosexuality and not all of these new fangled sexualities that are what is socially constructed, that heterosexuality is simply a 'breeding kink', that heterosexuality is itself homophobic, transphobic, etc. and all sorts of other nonsense.

It seems to me that two things are certain: Firstly, Social Constructionism is their sincere belief, and their view is indeed correct if increasing numbers positively correlate with increasing tolerance of their ways. Secondly, Essentialism and the 'Born That Way' argument is something they hide behind in order to absolve themselves of guilt: 'B-b-but we can't help ourselves! We have no choice in the matter! It's unfair that you want to be rid of us!'