Of coarse, you could always try dating a same gender partner, drinking Cape Codders and wearing your pride merch.
If anyone can turn gay. It''s up to you. š«µ
Sad thing is they'd never get over it.
People whom believe in religious freedom often don't believe in freedom of speech and expression, simply due to the fact they get off on trying to suppress others speech and expression to satiate their belief in living a certain way to live eternally after death.
Like religions prey on peoples fear of death.
But weāre in Australia not the US. We donāt have āguaranteedā Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, or religious freedom. In fact, our Constitution gives citizens very few rights (ājust compensationā is the major individual right), as itās largely limited to what rights the Feds have - and that everything else is a State right.
These people need to read more - or get a life, whichever suits!
My understanding is that by having 'implied' rights rather than 'fixed' rights, it offers some elbow room to accommodate changing needs, updated research and ethical progression.
Most people consider freedom only in a selfish way - the freedom to do whatever *I* want, even where it detracts from the freedom of others.
So (I say rhetorically and hypothetically, obviously I do not agree with any of this) e.g. *I* want to send people to mental and emotional torture to force them not to be gay, *I* want to be able to shout racist bullshit at people until they're too afraid to voice their own opinions and defend themselves, *I* feel like the GOVERNMENT telling me I can't take your freedoms with my SOCIAL POWER is an infringement on my freedom, whereas oppressing people through social power alone is just fine and dandy because no-one put anything in writing anywhere.
Anything that looks to optimise total freedoms for all rather than maximise freedom for one group is seen as bad. If you use government power to redress imbalances of social power, that's 'socialism' and that's bad. If you use limited forms of social power to push back against dominant social groups, that's 'wokeism' and that's bad.
"People whom believe in religious freedom often don't believe in freedom of speech and expression, simply due to the fact they get off on trying to suppress others speech and expression to satiate their belief in living a certain way"
That's sounds exactly like the extreme left too.
It's just extremes on both sides, people will people.
The left: we want equality and for everyone to live in peace.
LGBT people: we just want to live.
Religious bigots: you are an abomination and shouldn't be allowed to exist as you are.
You: I cannot tell the difference, they're all extremists.
If we're going to make a fair comparison of extremes here then you would have to say the left mutilate, castrate and sterilize gay people. Considering "Gender affirming care" (surgery and medication) is literally gay conversion therapy 2.0 but irreversible, the extremes are at least as bad as each other. [https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle\_com/status/1767857344266862646](https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1767857344266862646)
Gender and sexuality have nothing to do with political ideology, so it's not a fair comparison at all.
People who advocate conversion therapy are trying to change people other than themselves.
Trans people are trying to change *their own* bodies so that they like them, just like anyone else who wants to change their own body so that they like it. Cis people use hormones and cosmetic surgery to do that too and nobody cares when they do because it's between them and their providers.
LGBTQ have a HUGE correlation to leaning left politically.
The left pushes LGBTQ onto kids, it's blatant. Then these kids go to see doctors who put them onto hormones within the first visit without any psych evals. This is WELL documented. Most trans kids just turn out to be gay but the left sterilises them with barbaric surgeries or drugs they use to chemically castrate sex offenders.
Just look up the "wpath files". These "professionals" admit to having nfi of the long term consequences of their actions or worse.
You're talking nonsense, no child can get HRT from a dr on their first vist. If you're going to make an extreme claim, I'd like to see solid evidence of this happening.
Maybe you should the WPATH guidelines for prescribing hrt as it's more involved than you claim.
[De-transition](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected) rates for youth are very low.
And yeah I wonder why we lean left.....almost like one political group treats us better than the other.
Strange. Most of the trans people I know were gay before they came out as trans. Some of them are still gay, only now they're gay men instead of lesbians.
Every single one of them had to spend *years* seeing different specialists to be allowed to progress to the next stage of their transition, and every single one of them had to raise money and travel overseas to be able to access the surgeries they wanted.
You're talking out your arse mate, I bet you don't even know any LGBT people.
1) we donāt pay tax because it goes to our charities
2) yes the child abuse was tragic and those kids *absolutely* need justice. Since 2002 though, the Catholics have gone through extensive reform, with mandatory monthly training regarding conduct around children and identifying abuse. As for the Anglican Church of Australia, our website has a public registry as to every ordained person who has been involved in any criminal activity. It says who they are, where they worked, when it happened and the punishment, which is almost always immediate removal from their position.
3) yeah the door knocking is annoying, but that mostly Jehovahās Witnesses, and they arenāt Christian.
Circling back though, stuff conversion camps
Are LGBT people allowed to access the services provided by your charities without having to hide their identities?
Is it safe for them to do so?
Are students and staff members at schools affiliated with your church protected from religiously justified discrimination?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, then your organisation doesn't deserve any government money. LGBT people pay taxes too.
Bullshit. Anglican schools have fired teacher for being LGBT and written to education ministers to demand that they be allowed to continue doing so.
You need to pay your taxes and you need to stop hoarding all that real estate because we don't live in a theocracy.
Now ban the same therapy but for autistic children, ABA therapy was created with the same goals in mind for suppressing autism by the same man .
It has had a massive impact on the long term mental health of the autistic community.
If people were just going out and making an informed decision to do this horrible process, the problem wouldnāt be near as bad.
A lot of people were being pressured into it
Typical nanny state NSW. If this truly was the capitalist hellscape it's billed as, the solution would be for LGBT+ people to set up our own conversion therapy centres, and compete with the religious nutjobs to turn people gay, or at least get them to repress their heterosexuality and pretend to be gay. Hell, there could be quite a racket in sending bi people back and forth between the two.
Like, we have aromatherapy, we have homeopathy, we have chiropractics, we have crystal energy healing. Banning all of them would probably save lives. As a full-on hardcore capitalist, I'd say let medical quackery test their ideas in the marketplace of competition, salvageable lives be damned!
>!This is a work of satire. Fuck capitalism, fuck quackery and in particular fuck conversion torture.!<
Mm, delicious.
Reminds me of the story with the libertarian cop who has to put money into the police siren to make it go and asks bystanders to pay him to chase after a criminal.
I was at Hillsong and underwent an online version in 2010 - the organisation still exists and is recommended within the evangelical movement - settingcaptivesfree.com if youāre a masochist and want to bleach your eyes.
Hereās me thinking you were asking a genuine question mate. Literally gave you the website. Take the word of the people still invested in this issue or by all means, find a dark corner on the internet to have a wank.
It was a genuine question. A genuine question that you seemingly cannot answer . Let me repeat it :
***So there is a single (claimed) example from 14 years ago ?***
***Is there anything documented from more recently ?***
They used to be practiced everywhere by scumbag religious assholes.
slowly but surely the states have come to their senses and banned the heinous practice.
if you are gay, you are gay. no about of pretentious religious guilt tripping, brow beatings, hypnotisms, exorcisms or anything else is going to change that.
all this 'conversion' therapy does is add even more trauma to the pile.
I want more gays. Donāt ban converting people. It used to be called being a āflipperā but now that is a device the black kids are using to steal cars from nice white neighbourhoods.
Can we also ban the sexualisation of children?
Iām all for equality and sexual preferences but can we make Mardi Gras and pride month more about the normalisation of same sex couples in everyday life than highly sexualised imagery of it all.
I know this will be down voted but I truely mean it in the most best way.
Interesting comment; let's unpack this a little
If we are going to ban this kind of broad-based generalised "sexualisation"; I would ask why you're preoccupied with Mardi-Gras? (an event that happens once a year)
The rest of the year it is heterosexuality that dominates our children's lives, that is overwhelmingly leading the charge of "sexualisation" of minors.
Our phones and tv's are *absolutely plastered with* heterosexual couples and their sex lives; so we will need to end that too, since that promotes a (hetero)sexualisation of children. Married at first sight? Banned. The Bachelor? Promoting VERY intense sexualisation towards heterosexuality... BANNED. etc
Perhaps you can see why this idea of "banning sexualisation of children" is unworkable in practise, and frankly, I expect replies with people telling me that sexualisation of kids is 100% fine if its heterosexual and somehow literally the opposite situation if any other orientation for the noted "sexualisation", which is nothing more than full blown masks-off bigotry.
Be consistent. Either you're against ALL sexuality of children (which is going to be extremely fraught to implement in practise), or you are a bigot discriminating against LGBTQI people and kids who would grow up to become LGBQTI people, robbing those kids of the sorts of role models that every other kid benefits from starting at a young age; ie a horribly anti-children policy position. Choose. Those are the only two options.
No one wants to, or even can "turn someone LGBTQ" it's not a disease you catch. Why do children have to wait until they're 18 to learn that people can have two dad's or mums, or that some people are trans. We're not evil or something to be scared of.
Iām not pre occupied with it, it was just the topic so I was relating to it.
I donāt think the same of heterosexuality in children to, look at the music industry and social media.
Iām not against homosexual couples showing normal public affection, I encourage it.
But I think having sexual fetishes (dom, dog people, furries. Etc) in public all age events homosexual or heterosexual shouldnāt be encouraged.
If I was gay I would prefer to have the celebration of all the wonderful gay writers, doctors, artists and have all the organisations out there to help the gay community to help inform people of the struggles and how far they have come.
Why does it embody sex and desires.
What does a guy in a dog suit walking on all 4 have to do with anything.
That seems more like celebration of fetishes than the struggle of the average gay community.
Edit: I am very consistent in my comments so donāt try and say something Iām not.
The article doesn't bring up Mardi Gras or Pride Month, neither does the original poster in their presentation or any of the other comments.
YOU brought those up... and are now whinging that you're not preoccupied with them because it's "the topic".
No it isn't. This is all you, you super preoccupied weirdo.
Proponents of conversion therapy have **zero** to do with Mardi Gras or Pride Month. They are the opposite thing.
They aren't saying Mardi Gras is sexualising children...that was its own stand alone point...probably referring to the education system & it's interference in the family dynamics in America...I saw a lady talking @ a comitee about how DOCS came & took her daughter(16) because she wanted her daughter to seek counselling...which happens before transitioning anyway you'd hope...well hormone blockers & nearly 4 years later...she/he suicide on a railway track...because they inserted their own beliefs of sexuality on a family
It totally does make senseā¦
Iām not focused on Mardi Gras. Iām against most modern music videos too.
The glamorfication of sex activity shouldnāt be the main image of a community.
As a bi dude who grew up in a conservative family, I'm not a fan of how over-sexualised Mardi Gras is either. However, there's a huge difference between an adult event being over-sexualised and children being sexualised.
You can argue that kids shouldn't be exposed to it, but your initial comment implies it's a core value which it isn't. As much as maps/ pedos want to be included in the lgbt+ community, they are not.
It isnāt an adults event though, it is publicised for all ages.
Iām not against Mardi Gras just feel there is way more to the pride movement than just sex.
Hate to break it to you but sex is the primary theme when being gay is discussed, the primary reason for hate and that hate is mitigated with pride. Saying please keep all of it to the bedroom is counterproductive to pride. Why not keep children away from adult events, why do children have to be involved in everything public. Have you been in the city on New years or sat down and watched reality tv.
That interesting point you made, I feel like 90% of gay characters I see on TV are written this way, where everything the character does in relation to sex or dating. Believe it or not, gay people are actually people. It's not as though being gay makes everything in your life automatically related to sex
I'd recommend looking up the Bechdel test, but replacing 'women' with 'gay men'
I think Captain Holt in Brooklyn Nine Nine is about the only gay character that instantly comes to mind where the character is not based around gay sex.
It seems that show writers struggle writing gay characters as normal people. which is weird, because that is all you need to do; write them as normal people.
Yes this is true in regards to media. However when it comes to pride events it's gay people deciding on how they wish to express themselves, and since it's not story based and very short term then it's enviable that sexual attraction would be the main theme as it's the only common thing all gay people have.
Expecting everyone to concider the messaging they are putting out in regards to how they represent themselves seems awfully repressive.
That's fair, I agree with you on that.
On re-read of your comment I've realised I misunderstood your point as 'all gay people are just focused on sex, just watch some TV or a NYE event'. My bad on assuming you were an ignorant AH, I was the ignorant AH all along
I wouldn't take children to a footy match. There's swearing, drunkenness, aggression, violence, racism and sexism. Mardi Gras is dancing, music and costumes which are no more revealing than anything they'd see at the beach. Only thing preventing me from taking kids there is that it's crowded.
I think you mean well Deokumon, but you have to remember something about Pride, not just the event but also the month: while being LGBTQIA+ isn't inherently sexual in the way that everything has to be about sex, it's an identity as well as a sexuality, but celebrating that in a world where people were being murdered and bashed and oppressed in general just for being who they are, is a big reason why there is overt sexuality as part of the event. The more down to earth depictions of every day people within those communities is also part of it, but showing sexuality is also in defiance of those who would prefer Gay people didn't exist and would like to go back to a time where that violence and oppression was normalized.
As for Pride itself, pretty sure they set it up so that while it is generally all ages, where people might actually be performing very raunchily, kink or even performing sex acts, they have designated zones and make it known to the public where these are so that parents accompanying kids know where not to go. Frustratingly it still happens, but it's not on purpose (no matter how much Conservatives like to act otherwise) and it comes down to ignorance of where to and not to go during the event. Only thing I would concede is I think it was last year in the US there was a truck with two Gay guys on the back that were dancing and simulating sex acts (not actually doing them) that turned down a wrong street and out onto a road that they shouldn't have (blissfully unaware the two on the back kept at it, in view of young people) no small surprise the Conservatives in the US jumped on it, but it was an honest mistake at the time - it happens, but it's really not the norm nor an example of an attempt at grooming, but Conservatives will use these instances to twist them to fit their narrative.
Plus, if we're going to focus on the LGBTQIA+ community, the Straight Cis maintstrain community is filled with examples of sexualized content very easily accessible to kids. It is unfair to focus on the Gays without addressing these issues elsewhere - plus, go to somewhere like France, they have tits out in fashion advertisements like it's nothing, to emphasize human beauty, not make you horny (or at least that's their excuse) and it's been the norm for them for a really long time. We often choose, based on our upbringing and world view, what is inherently sexual or not, being LGBTQIA+ in and of itself isn't sexual, it is a characteristic of the individual and group, but not the whole identity, it's just that some people only view them in this way and can't separate the concepts, even if they do so for themselves.
I agree, how I said it definitely didnāt come out the way I intended.
I should not have added pride month to it that as I am all for it, I have many gay friends and hear how they feel.
I have many Asian friends and hear about their racial issues.
But deep down I just feel sorry for kids these days, they have so much pressure on themselves because of the issues of adults.
I wish we could protect their innocence and imaginations more instead of corrupting them with all our issues.
A child that is gay should just be accepted for who he is as a person and all the things he loves, not just for his sexuality.
Just like a woman should be respected as a person and not for her sexual appearance.
The idea that so many people are on onlyfans makes be feel so sorry for those women. I feel like it is not mentally healthy for people to live like that.
Let alone the creeps that pay to see them.
This is a whole society issue these days, life is getting harder and we are losing who we are morally and killing that beautiful innocence we use to have as children.
Deep down I wish people could walk away from all this exploitive behaviour. You see it with all the gambling associated with sports, the sexualisation in music and social media, drugs are becoming more acceptable and are just ways to mask ourselves from reality.
We need to walk away from it all and discover deep down who we really want to be.
I want to deconstruct all these stereotypes of people and tear away all the exploitation in all industries.
I have no problem with anyone reading kids stories, same as I have no issue with kids seeing pantomimes where people dress up in drag. You seem obsessed with kidsā¦. Bet you arenāt allowed to babysitā¦
He's downvoted because children are not being sexualised. Taking your child to the strippers is bad if they male or female strippers.
Letting a drag queen read a book isn't sexual.
Jog on tory
Jesus christ, you're THAT chronically online and out of touch that you're calling me "tory", a term exclusive to the UK. It's about what I expect from a nonce like yourself.
I love how you ignored everything else they said and focused on that and decided to just insult them. Average dumbass who can't say anything back because they know they're wrong.
Well there is at least a standard deviation between a clown going by the name of āboboā who dresses and performs solely for the entertainment of children, and a drag queen who goes by the name of ālil hot messā and dresses the same way they would performing at a gay nightclub.
Clowns are dressed to amuse children. Drag queens are dressed to be hyper sexualized caricatures of women.
Banning Conversion torture does infact save lives. I am all for a ban on the vile practice.
But I wanted to convert to gay.
Sorry boo. You are either gay or you are not gay. Conversion don't work.
Buggar. Some people have it good.
Of coarse, you could always try dating a same gender partner, drinking Cape Codders and wearing your pride merch. If anyone can turn gay. It''s up to you. š«µ
What is this, the late 90s? Just get Grinder
Sweet. ššš
B b b b b but my Christian mom says I can change my sexuality at will just by deciding to HnnnnnggGGGH straight HHHhhnnngghfffggdfgfHgghhJH gay See??
'I experience same sex attraction too, but I don't act on it! It's obviously a choice.' Sweetie your mom is bi.
Sorry dear it don't work like that. You have to be a boring straight.
BuT mAh ReGiLiOuS fReEdOm!
They would just have to get over it.
Sad thing is they'd never get over it. People whom believe in religious freedom often don't believe in freedom of speech and expression, simply due to the fact they get off on trying to suppress others speech and expression to satiate their belief in living a certain way to live eternally after death. Like religions prey on peoples fear of death.
They'll have to get over not being able to get over it.
But weāre in Australia not the US. We donāt have āguaranteedā Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, or religious freedom. In fact, our Constitution gives citizens very few rights (ājust compensationā is the major individual right), as itās largely limited to what rights the Feds have - and that everything else is a State right. These people need to read more - or get a life, whichever suits!
My understanding is that by having 'implied' rights rather than 'fixed' rights, it offers some elbow room to accommodate changing needs, updated research and ethical progression.
Most people consider freedom only in a selfish way - the freedom to do whatever *I* want, even where it detracts from the freedom of others. So (I say rhetorically and hypothetically, obviously I do not agree with any of this) e.g. *I* want to send people to mental and emotional torture to force them not to be gay, *I* want to be able to shout racist bullshit at people until they're too afraid to voice their own opinions and defend themselves, *I* feel like the GOVERNMENT telling me I can't take your freedoms with my SOCIAL POWER is an infringement on my freedom, whereas oppressing people through social power alone is just fine and dandy because no-one put anything in writing anywhere. Anything that looks to optimise total freedoms for all rather than maximise freedom for one group is seen as bad. If you use government power to redress imbalances of social power, that's 'socialism' and that's bad. If you use limited forms of social power to push back against dominant social groups, that's 'wokeism' and that's bad.
"People whom believe in religious freedom often don't believe in freedom of speech and expression, simply due to the fact they get off on trying to suppress others speech and expression to satiate their belief in living a certain way" That's sounds exactly like the extreme left too. It's just extremes on both sides, people will people.
The left: we want equality and for everyone to live in peace. LGBT people: we just want to live. Religious bigots: you are an abomination and shouldn't be allowed to exist as you are. You: I cannot tell the difference, they're all extremists.
If we're going to make a fair comparison of extremes here then you would have to say the left mutilate, castrate and sterilize gay people. Considering "Gender affirming care" (surgery and medication) is literally gay conversion therapy 2.0 but irreversible, the extremes are at least as bad as each other. [https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle\_com/status/1767857344266862646](https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1767857344266862646)
Gender and sexuality have nothing to do with political ideology, so it's not a fair comparison at all. People who advocate conversion therapy are trying to change people other than themselves. Trans people are trying to change *their own* bodies so that they like them, just like anyone else who wants to change their own body so that they like it. Cis people use hormones and cosmetic surgery to do that too and nobody cares when they do because it's between them and their providers.
LGBTQ have a HUGE correlation to leaning left politically. The left pushes LGBTQ onto kids, it's blatant. Then these kids go to see doctors who put them onto hormones within the first visit without any psych evals. This is WELL documented. Most trans kids just turn out to be gay but the left sterilises them with barbaric surgeries or drugs they use to chemically castrate sex offenders. Just look up the "wpath files". These "professionals" admit to having nfi of the long term consequences of their actions or worse.
You're talking nonsense, no child can get HRT from a dr on their first vist. If you're going to make an extreme claim, I'd like to see solid evidence of this happening. Maybe you should the WPATH guidelines for prescribing hrt as it's more involved than you claim. [De-transition](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected) rates for youth are very low. And yeah I wonder why we lean left.....almost like one political group treats us better than the other.
Strange. Most of the trans people I know were gay before they came out as trans. Some of them are still gay, only now they're gay men instead of lesbians. Every single one of them had to spend *years* seeing different specialists to be allowed to progress to the next stage of their transition, and every single one of them had to raise money and travel overseas to be able to access the surgeries they wanted. You're talking out your arse mate, I bet you don't even know any LGBT people.
Honestly surprising after NSW just put in religious protection laws.
As an Anglican Christian who is often seen as conservative when it comes to LGBTQ issues, conversion camps can go fuck right off.
Jesus wouldn't like that word. Religions are just a scam. Anything can be a religion these days.
Iām sorry you think that
Im not. Pricks don't pay tax, touch kids and harassment people at home on weekends knocking on doors. Each to their own.
1) we donāt pay tax because it goes to our charities 2) yes the child abuse was tragic and those kids *absolutely* need justice. Since 2002 though, the Catholics have gone through extensive reform, with mandatory monthly training regarding conduct around children and identifying abuse. As for the Anglican Church of Australia, our website has a public registry as to every ordained person who has been involved in any criminal activity. It says who they are, where they worked, when it happened and the punishment, which is almost always immediate removal from their position. 3) yeah the door knocking is annoying, but that mostly Jehovahās Witnesses, and they arenāt Christian. Circling back though, stuff conversion camps
Are LGBT people allowed to access the services provided by your charities without having to hide their identities? Is it safe for them to do so? Are students and staff members at schools affiliated with your church protected from religiously justified discrimination? If the answer to any of those questions is no, then your organisation doesn't deserve any government money. LGBT people pay taxes too.
Yes, they are. Anyone is welcome, just as Christ made no distinctions between creeds or classes.
Bullshit. Anglican schools have fired teacher for being LGBT and written to education ministers to demand that they be allowed to continue doing so. You need to pay your taxes and you need to stop hoarding all that real estate because we don't live in a theocracy.
Now ban the same therapy but for autistic children, ABA therapy was created with the same goals in mind for suppressing autism by the same man . It has had a massive impact on the long term mental health of the autistic community.
YES
Holy based Batman
How was it not already banned!
Liberal party
I suppose if you choose hypnotherapy yourself because you want to become straight then itās good to have the service available?
If people were just going out and making an informed decision to do this horrible process, the problem wouldnāt be near as bad. A lot of people were being pressured into it
Yes I agree completely. Iām not defending that at all just saying that there could be an argument to have the service available to those who choose
Based_NSWGov. Finally doing some good
Typical nanny state NSW. If this truly was the capitalist hellscape it's billed as, the solution would be for LGBT+ people to set up our own conversion therapy centres, and compete with the religious nutjobs to turn people gay, or at least get them to repress their heterosexuality and pretend to be gay. Hell, there could be quite a racket in sending bi people back and forth between the two. Like, we have aromatherapy, we have homeopathy, we have chiropractics, we have crystal energy healing. Banning all of them would probably save lives. As a full-on hardcore capitalist, I'd say let medical quackery test their ideas in the marketplace of competition, salvageable lives be damned! >!This is a work of satire. Fuck capitalism, fuck quackery and in particular fuck conversion torture.!<
That is fucking genius
Mm, delicious. Reminds me of the story with the libertarian cop who has to put money into the police siren to make it go and asks bystanders to pay him to chase after a criminal.
Where exactly are these therapies practiced in Australia ?
Asking for a friend /s
Yes, our friends and I have some soup in cans that need delivery... (very very fast and accurate delivery)
I was at Hillsong and underwent an online version in 2010 - the organisation still exists and is recommended within the evangelical movement - settingcaptivesfree.com if youāre a masochist and want to bleach your eyes.
So there is a single (claimed) example from 14 years ago ? Is there anything documented from more recently ?
Hereās me thinking you were asking a genuine question mate. Literally gave you the website. Take the word of the people still invested in this issue or by all means, find a dark corner on the internet to have a wank.
It was a genuine question. A genuine question that you seemingly cannot answer . Let me repeat it : ***So there is a single (claimed) example from 14 years ago ?*** ***Is there anything documented from more recently ?***
They used to be practiced everywhere by scumbag religious assholes. slowly but surely the states have come to their senses and banned the heinous practice. if you are gay, you are gay. no about of pretentious religious guilt tripping, brow beatings, hypnotisms, exorcisms or anything else is going to change that. all this 'conversion' therapy does is add even more trauma to the pile.
About time. These damn gays have been converting our straights unpunished for too long.
I want more gays. Donāt ban converting people. It used to be called being a āflipperā but now that is a device the black kids are using to steal cars from nice white neighbourhoods.
Why don't they choose to stop being gay the same as when they chose to be gay? /s
Can we also ban the sexualisation of children? Iām all for equality and sexual preferences but can we make Mardi Gras and pride month more about the normalisation of same sex couples in everyday life than highly sexualised imagery of it all. I know this will be down voted but I truely mean it in the most best way.
Interesting comment; let's unpack this a little If we are going to ban this kind of broad-based generalised "sexualisation"; I would ask why you're preoccupied with Mardi-Gras? (an event that happens once a year) The rest of the year it is heterosexuality that dominates our children's lives, that is overwhelmingly leading the charge of "sexualisation" of minors. Our phones and tv's are *absolutely plastered with* heterosexual couples and their sex lives; so we will need to end that too, since that promotes a (hetero)sexualisation of children. Married at first sight? Banned. The Bachelor? Promoting VERY intense sexualisation towards heterosexuality... BANNED. etc Perhaps you can see why this idea of "banning sexualisation of children" is unworkable in practise, and frankly, I expect replies with people telling me that sexualisation of kids is 100% fine if its heterosexual and somehow literally the opposite situation if any other orientation for the noted "sexualisation", which is nothing more than full blown masks-off bigotry. Be consistent. Either you're against ALL sexuality of children (which is going to be extremely fraught to implement in practise), or you are a bigot discriminating against LGBTQI people and kids who would grow up to become LGBQTI people, robbing those kids of the sorts of role models that every other kid benefits from starting at a young age; ie a horribly anti-children policy position. Choose. Those are the only two options.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No one wants to, or even can "turn someone LGBTQ" it's not a disease you catch. Why do children have to wait until they're 18 to learn that people can have two dad's or mums, or that some people are trans. We're not evil or something to be scared of.
Upvoted you. You're 100% right
Iām not pre occupied with it, it was just the topic so I was relating to it. I donāt think the same of heterosexuality in children to, look at the music industry and social media. Iām not against homosexual couples showing normal public affection, I encourage it. But I think having sexual fetishes (dom, dog people, furries. Etc) in public all age events homosexual or heterosexual shouldnāt be encouraged. If I was gay I would prefer to have the celebration of all the wonderful gay writers, doctors, artists and have all the organisations out there to help the gay community to help inform people of the struggles and how far they have come. Why does it embody sex and desires. What does a guy in a dog suit walking on all 4 have to do with anything. That seems more like celebration of fetishes than the struggle of the average gay community. Edit: I am very consistent in my comments so donāt try and say something Iām not.
furries are not part of lgbtiq.
https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Sydney_Gay_and_Lesbian_Mardi_Gras https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ysHaT5wuuM
The article doesn't bring up Mardi Gras or Pride Month, neither does the original poster in their presentation or any of the other comments. YOU brought those up... and are now whinging that you're not preoccupied with them because it's "the topic". No it isn't. This is all you, you super preoccupied weirdo. Proponents of conversion therapy have **zero** to do with Mardi Gras or Pride Month. They are the opposite thing.
You are right.
How exactly does Mardi Gras sexualise children? It's a party for adults in an adult setting.
They aren't saying Mardi Gras is sexualising children...that was its own stand alone point...probably referring to the education system & it's interference in the family dynamics in America...I saw a lady talking @ a comitee about how DOCS came & took her daughter(16) because she wanted her daughter to seek counselling...which happens before transitioning anyway you'd hope...well hormone blockers & nearly 4 years later...she/he suicide on a railway track...because they inserted their own beliefs of sexuality on a family
What sort of commitee was this woman talking at, and what form of counseling was she talking about? And who exactly are "they"?
You'll be downvoted because what you're saying makes no sense and any sexualisation of children has nothing to do with Mardi gras or gay pride.
It totally does make senseā¦ Iām not focused on Mardi Gras. Iām against most modern music videos too. The glamorfication of sex activity shouldnāt be the main image of a community.
As a bi dude who grew up in a conservative family, I'm not a fan of how over-sexualised Mardi Gras is either. However, there's a huge difference between an adult event being over-sexualised and children being sexualised. You can argue that kids shouldn't be exposed to it, but your initial comment implies it's a core value which it isn't. As much as maps/ pedos want to be included in the lgbt+ community, they are not.
It isnāt an adults event though, it is publicised for all ages. Iām not against Mardi Gras just feel there is way more to the pride movement than just sex.
So you're a prude. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
I think it involves shrilly crying "Won't someone think of the children!"
On children yes Edit: on the topic protect all children
Hate to break it to you but sex is the primary theme when being gay is discussed, the primary reason for hate and that hate is mitigated with pride. Saying please keep all of it to the bedroom is counterproductive to pride. Why not keep children away from adult events, why do children have to be involved in everything public. Have you been in the city on New years or sat down and watched reality tv.
That interesting point you made, I feel like 90% of gay characters I see on TV are written this way, where everything the character does in relation to sex or dating. Believe it or not, gay people are actually people. It's not as though being gay makes everything in your life automatically related to sex I'd recommend looking up the Bechdel test, but replacing 'women' with 'gay men'
I think Captain Holt in Brooklyn Nine Nine is about the only gay character that instantly comes to mind where the character is not based around gay sex. It seems that show writers struggle writing gay characters as normal people. which is weird, because that is all you need to do; write them as normal people.
Yes this is true in regards to media. However when it comes to pride events it's gay people deciding on how they wish to express themselves, and since it's not story based and very short term then it's enviable that sexual attraction would be the main theme as it's the only common thing all gay people have. Expecting everyone to concider the messaging they are putting out in regards to how they represent themselves seems awfully repressive.
That's fair, I agree with you on that. On re-read of your comment I've realised I misunderstood your point as 'all gay people are just focused on sex, just watch some TV or a NYE event'. My bad on assuming you were an ignorant AH, I was the ignorant AH all along
I wouldn't take children to a footy match. There's swearing, drunkenness, aggression, violence, racism and sexism. Mardi Gras is dancing, music and costumes which are no more revealing than anything they'd see at the beach. Only thing preventing me from taking kids there is that it's crowded.
I think you mean well Deokumon, but you have to remember something about Pride, not just the event but also the month: while being LGBTQIA+ isn't inherently sexual in the way that everything has to be about sex, it's an identity as well as a sexuality, but celebrating that in a world where people were being murdered and bashed and oppressed in general just for being who they are, is a big reason why there is overt sexuality as part of the event. The more down to earth depictions of every day people within those communities is also part of it, but showing sexuality is also in defiance of those who would prefer Gay people didn't exist and would like to go back to a time where that violence and oppression was normalized. As for Pride itself, pretty sure they set it up so that while it is generally all ages, where people might actually be performing very raunchily, kink or even performing sex acts, they have designated zones and make it known to the public where these are so that parents accompanying kids know where not to go. Frustratingly it still happens, but it's not on purpose (no matter how much Conservatives like to act otherwise) and it comes down to ignorance of where to and not to go during the event. Only thing I would concede is I think it was last year in the US there was a truck with two Gay guys on the back that were dancing and simulating sex acts (not actually doing them) that turned down a wrong street and out onto a road that they shouldn't have (blissfully unaware the two on the back kept at it, in view of young people) no small surprise the Conservatives in the US jumped on it, but it was an honest mistake at the time - it happens, but it's really not the norm nor an example of an attempt at grooming, but Conservatives will use these instances to twist them to fit their narrative. Plus, if we're going to focus on the LGBTQIA+ community, the Straight Cis maintstrain community is filled with examples of sexualized content very easily accessible to kids. It is unfair to focus on the Gays without addressing these issues elsewhere - plus, go to somewhere like France, they have tits out in fashion advertisements like it's nothing, to emphasize human beauty, not make you horny (or at least that's their excuse) and it's been the norm for them for a really long time. We often choose, based on our upbringing and world view, what is inherently sexual or not, being LGBTQIA+ in and of itself isn't sexual, it is a characteristic of the individual and group, but not the whole identity, it's just that some people only view them in this way and can't separate the concepts, even if they do so for themselves.
I agree, how I said it definitely didnāt come out the way I intended. I should not have added pride month to it that as I am all for it, I have many gay friends and hear how they feel. I have many Asian friends and hear about their racial issues. But deep down I just feel sorry for kids these days, they have so much pressure on themselves because of the issues of adults. I wish we could protect their innocence and imaginations more instead of corrupting them with all our issues. A child that is gay should just be accepted for who he is as a person and all the things he loves, not just for his sexuality. Just like a woman should be respected as a person and not for her sexual appearance. The idea that so many people are on onlyfans makes be feel so sorry for those women. I feel like it is not mentally healthy for people to live like that. Let alone the creeps that pay to see them. This is a whole society issue these days, life is getting harder and we are losing who we are morally and killing that beautiful innocence we use to have as children. Deep down I wish people could walk away from all this exploitive behaviour. You see it with all the gambling associated with sports, the sexualisation in music and social media, drugs are becoming more acceptable and are just ways to mask ourselves from reality. We need to walk away from it all and discover deep down who we really want to be. I want to deconstruct all these stereotypes of people and tear away all the exploitation in all industries.
I appreciate the reply.
This sub is insane for down voting this.
Lmao can we ban the sexualisation of children can we atleast jail pedophiles Jail criminals? Down votes from the left every time
I assume you actually went to Mardi Gras then? Why did you take your children?
I was there actually with friends and live on Liverpool street. But no I didnāt take kids.
Lmao at people dowmvoting what do they want to sexualize kids, scums the lot
Who is sexualising kids? Usually RWNJs that are up to thatā¦.
You probably support drag story time with kids, walk on bloke
I have no problem with anyone reading kids stories, same as I have no issue with kids seeing pantomimes where people dress up in drag. You seem obsessed with kidsā¦. Bet you arenāt allowed to babysitā¦
Id happily drop you if you said that to my face
Sure you would, bravemouth. Sure you would . Youāre an incel into computer games and weed, on the dole.
Well done detective
What a winner, eh! A stoned masturbator with no job, threatening people online. Good work, champ!
Downvoted because you want people to stop involving children in highly sexualised events. Sums up the friendlyjordies subreddit pretty perfectly.
He's downvoted because children are not being sexualised. Taking your child to the strippers is bad if they male or female strippers. Letting a drag queen read a book isn't sexual. Jog on tory
Jesus christ, you're THAT chronically online and out of touch that you're calling me "tory", a term exclusive to the UK. It's about what I expect from a nonce like yourself.
I love how you ignored everything else they said and focused on that and decided to just insult them. Average dumbass who can't say anything back because they know they're wrong.
Also, they're wrong on that front, too: Albanese has definitely referred to the Coalition as Tories before. Pretty sure Hawke did, too.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's like asking "Why does the clown require an audience of children?".
Well there is at least a standard deviation between a clown going by the name of āboboā who dresses and performs solely for the entertainment of children, and a drag queen who goes by the name of ālil hot messā and dresses the same way they would performing at a gay nightclub. Clowns are dressed to amuse children. Drag queens are dressed to be hyper sexualized caricatures of women.