Posts: 15,943
Threads: 2,941
Joined: Oct 2014
Magical Realist
Jun 5, 2026 04:57 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 5, 2026 08:52 PM by Magical Realist.)
I actually agree with this thought by Charlie Kirk. But I also don't think being gay should be censored from conversation either. It's a fine line. Being gay is really more than about just sex. It's about who you can love and how you find meaning in your life when you don't fit into society's mold for you. It is less a chosen "lifestyle" and more a destined "plight"..
https://www.facebook.com/reel/3414738888686471
Posts: 22,379
Threads: 14,290
Joined: Oct 2014
C C
Jun 5, 2026 05:37 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 5, 2026 05:40 PM by C C.)
Yah, the "label" part is dead on in terms of being evaluated as an individual rather than being defined [politically and beyond] by a generic identity. But Kirk's own Christian identity is publicly inserting itself with regard to part of the conversation...
For instance... He and Dave Rubin were close friends, despite his similarly disagreeing with Rubin's marriage. Though I don't see how Kirk could justifiably classify the latter a "lifestyle", since it's a monogamous relationship (and apparently not just in terms of mere appearance). Not that he did do that, but his kind of playing loose in assuming a stranger is automatically part of a promiscuous "lifestyle" just because of the orientation sort of suggests he might have done similarly with Rubin.
Posts: 13,486
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
Jun 5, 2026 05:57 PM
No one, other than the LGBT, introduce themselves by who they are attracted to or their gender. Even Christians don't regularly go around introducing themselves as "hi, I'm so and so and I'm a Christian," even though the linchpin of your worldview would be much more informative. Of course, the LGBT do seem to make that part of them central to their worldview. So unless one is conservative, there's really not much difference between saying you're LGBT or saying you're a Democrat, worldview-wise.
(Jun 5, 2026 05:37 PM)C C Wrote: Though I don't see how Kirk could justifiably classify the latter a "lifestyle", since it's a monogamous relationship (and apparently not just in terms of mere appearance). Not that he did do that, but his kind of playing loose in assuming a stranger is automatically part of a promiscuous "lifestyle" just because of the orientation sort of suggests he might have done similarly with Rubin. The "lifestyle," for a Christian, is living outside of God's will. Promiscuity is objectively worse, but homosexuality is still a Biblically sin.
It would be hypocritical for a Christian to disapprove of promiscuity but then approve of something else the Bible forbids.
Posts: 15,943
Threads: 2,941
Joined: Oct 2014
Magical Realist
Jun 5, 2026 09:04 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 5, 2026 09:47 PM by Magical Realist.)
Quote:No one, other than the LGBT, introduce themselves by who they are attracted to or their gender. Even Christians don't regularly go around introducing themselves as "hi, I'm so and so and I'm a Christian," even though the linchpin of your worldview would be much more informative. Of course, the LGBT do seem to make that part of them central to their worldview. So unless one is conservative, there's really not much difference between saying you're LGBT or saying you're a Democrat, worldview-wise.
Identification based on their sexual orientation was never something LGBTQ just willingly opted for. It was historically foisted up on them in a society always trying to sniff them out and label them for purposes of demoralization and pathologizing. If it was indeed never such a big deal who one goes to bed with then society and especially religion would never have made it such a vital sticking point. Once you were identified as a queer or a homosexual or a poof or a fag or a fairy or a queen or bent or a flit or a bugger or a pansy etc and etc then you were ostracized by others and stigmatized as someone inherently immoral and perverted. That's the only reason being LGBT is retained to this day as an identity--half as a defiant flaunt in the face of a majority that continues to stereotype and marginalize them and half as a legacy of being historically persecuted and exiled from the mass of "normal" society simply by being reduced to a label.
Posts: 13,486
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
Jun 5, 2026 11:27 PM
No ones talking about historically here. Today, you're free to choose how you introduce yourself. If you make it about your orientation or gender, that's you're choice. Undermining everything else that makes you a unique individual is also a choice. Might as well wear a label.
Posts: 15,943
Threads: 2,941
Joined: Oct 2014
Magical Realist
Jun 5, 2026 11:43 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 5, 2026 11:55 PM by Magical Realist.)
(Jun 5, 2026 11:27 PM)Syne Wrote: No ones talking about historically here. Today, you're free to choose how you introduce yourself. If you make it about your orientation or gender, that's you're choice. Undermining everything else that makes you a unique individual is also a choice. Might as well wear a label.
Depends on the situation. If you are out in public and a woman takes interest in you, it's best to either explicitly or indirectly imply that you are gay so she doesn't waste her time and yours. If a conversation steers as they typically do towards your personal life then telling people you're gay sheds light on that and what sort of values/politics and even spirituality you might espouse. As I said, being gay is more than about sex and includes a whole distinctive way of being-in-the-world that determines who you are as a person. It doesn't necessarily define you but like your career or hobbies or spirituality it helps people get a quick idea of the person you are. More information is never a bad thing, unless you are trying to censor people from speaking about such. Which is what the right is notorious for doing.
|
