Infighting In The Church Of LGBT: GLAAD & Others Face Off With "Drop The T" Movement

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where is the headquarters of the church of LGBT?

Its "Bethlehem" is San Francisco, CA. Its "Rome/Vatican City" is West Hollywood, GLAAD headquarters and affiliates.

Bigotry, hate, ignorance, and stupidity all in one post, well done.

 

[Blackrook]

The transfolks are destroying the movement. After the unfair and undemocratic victory of same-sex marriage, LGBT was doing victory laps. In Time Magazine, they even ran an article proposing that churches have their tax-free status revoked for opposing the LGBT agenda. It was truly a heady time of wine and roses.

Now, with the restroom issue, LGBT has all kinds of opposition it never had over same-sex marriage. The argument for same-sex marriage was "it doesn't affect you." And millions were willing to buy into that argument.

But men in the women's room and locker room and sports teams does affect straight people. People are very angry about this issue, and it threatens to destroy all the progress LGBT movement has made with a backlash against all LGBT issues.

 

[Syriusly]

L
Discuss.

Who is the Pope of the Church of LGBT? And where is the LGBT Vatican?[/QUOTE
Obama, and the democrat party.

Hmmmm you mean like Obama is the Pope of the Catholics?

 

[Syriusly]

Where is the headquarters of the church of LGBT?

Its "Bethlehem" is San Francisco, CA. Its "Rome/Vatican City" is West Hollywood, GLAAD headquarters and affiliates.

So you are saying that GLAAD is a church? and being homosexual is a faith?

 

[Syriusly]

We have been told, have we not, that transgenders are not homosexuals? The problem with that, of course, is then which gender attraction is homosexual for them? If a man says he is a woman, wears a dress and shaves his legs, yet still lusts after women, is he a lesbian, heterosexual, or just confused? It really comes down, does it not, to whether he is actually a man or a woman?

Let's let science decide. If a man is genetically a man and is attracted to women, he is a heterosexual, period (We would, naturally, need to accommodate the extremely rare cases where the genetics are murky).

If he is then, in fact, NOT a homosexual OR a lesbian, does he really belong in that group? I can see where the acolytes could be upset, not desiring hetero membership.

And that also raises the issue of giving heterosexual men access to women and girls in various stages of undress, but that's a different topic.

Or we could let the LGBT community decide who is part of their community and who is not?

Just like we let Catholics and Mormons decide who is part of their community and who is not.

 

[Syriusly]

People are very angry about this issue, and it threatens to destroy all the progress LGBT movement has made with a backlash against all LGBT issues.

Blackrook- ever so hopeful that Christians can start putting gays back in prison again.

 

[Syriusly]

I have heard of gay people bitching about this before.
I get it. The trannies completely took over their movement. Gay and transsexual aren't even sub categories of the same thing..

You remind me of the bitter old white guys telling us all what the black community is thinking.

 

[Silhouette]

Some gay people are assholes that felt the movement would advance quicker without them.

How so?

Because they thought it appease anti-gay assholes such as yourself, but we both know people like you cannot ever be appeased when to comes to LGBT community. Ever.

That doesn't answer the question with specifics. As usual, only generalities and an ad hominem diversion. Shocker, coming from you. Let me know when you're brave enough to delve into specifics as to why "some gays think trannies aren't part of the LGBT movement".

 

[mdk]

Some gay people are assholes that felt the movement would advance quicker without them.

How so?

Because they thought it appease anti-gay assholes such as yourself, but we both know people like you cannot ever be appeased when to comes to LGBT community. Ever.

That doesn't answer the question with specifics. As usual, only generalities and an ad hominem diversion. Shocker, coming from you. Let me know when you're brave enough to delve into specifics as to why "some gays think trannies aren't part of the LGBT movement".

I already did. You just don't like the answers.

 

[TNHarley]

I have heard of gay people bitching about this before.
I get it. The trannies completely took over their movement. Gay and transsexual aren't even sub categories of the same thing..

You remind me of the bitter old white guys telling us all what the black community is thinking.

That was gay people talking about it. Not me.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It wouldn't sound right without the "t" on the end and would sound more like a sports car or bank or something.

 

[Silhouette]

It wouldn't sound right without the "t" on the end and would sound more like a sports car or bank or something.

"LGB" Remind me not to bank there...

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It wouldn't sound right without the "t" on the end and would sound more like a sports car or bank or something.

"LGB" Remind me not to bank there...

The gays cannot be checking you out anymore.

 

[mdk]

It wouldn't sound right without the "t" on the end and would sound more like a sports car or bank or something.

"LGB" Remind me not to bank there...

The gays cannot be checking you out anymore.

Or making any deposits. lol

 

[hadit]

We have been told, have we not, that transgenders are not homosexuals? The problem with that, of course, is then which gender attraction is homosexual for them? If a man says he is a woman, wears a dress and shaves his legs, yet still lusts after women, is he a lesbian, heterosexual, or just confused? It really comes down, does it not, to whether he is actually a man or a woman?

Let's let science decide. If a man is genetically a man and is attracted to women, he is a heterosexual, period (We would, naturally, need to accommodate the extremely rare cases where the genetics are murky).

If he is then, in fact, NOT a homosexual OR a lesbian, does he really belong in that group? I can see where the acolytes could be upset, not desiring hetero membership.

And that also raises the issue of giving heterosexual men access to women and girls in various stages of undress, but that's a different topic.

Or we could let the LGBT community decide who is part of their community and who is not?

Just like we let Catholics and Mormons decide who is part of their community and who is not.

Sure, they can decide, but I can understand why some would decry the loss of group homogeneity.

 

[Silhouette]

Or we could let the LGBT community decide who is part of their community and who is not?

Just like we let Catholics and Mormons decide who is part of their community and who is not.

Sure, they can decide, but I can understand why some would decry the loss of group homogeneity.

Yes, every religion has the right to decide its own membership. Just not the right to dictate to others not in its fold using the force of law to worship at their altar.

 

[Syriusly]

Some gay people are assholes that felt the movement would advance quicker without them.

How so?

Because they thought it appease anti-gay assholes such as yourself, but we both know people like you cannot ever be appeased when to comes to LGBT community. Ever.

That doesn't answer the question with specifics. As usual, only generalities and an ad hominem diversion. Shocker, coming from you. Let me know when you're brave enough to delve into specifics as to why "some gays think trannies aren't part of the LGBT movement".

Let us know when you are brave enough to delve into the specifics as to why you consider every homosexual in America to be a member of the Church of LGBT.

 

[mdk]

Yes, every religion has the right to decide its own membership. Just not the right to dictate to others not in its fold using the force of law to worship at their altar

Hysterical considering many of the arguments against gay marriage are faith based.

 

[Syriusly]

We have been told, have we not, that transgenders are not homosexuals? The problem with that, of course, is then which gender attraction is homosexual for them? If a man says he is a woman, wears a dress and shaves his legs, yet still lusts after women, is he a lesbian, heterosexual, or just confused? It really comes down, does it not, to whether he is actually a man or a woman?

Let's let science decide. If a man is genetically a man and is attracted to women, he is a heterosexual, period (We would, naturally, need to accommodate the extremely rare cases where the genetics are murky).

If he is then, in fact, NOT a homosexual OR a lesbian, does he really belong in that group? I can see where the acolytes could be upset, not desiring hetero membership.

And that also raises the issue of giving heterosexual men access to women and girls in various stages of undress, but that's a different topic.

Or we could let the LGBT community decide who is part of their community and who is not?

Just like we let Catholics and Mormons decide who is part of their community and who is not.

Sure, they can decide, but I can understand why some would decry the loss of group homogeneity.

It has been my observation- as an outsider who lives in San Francisco- that in general the 'group' has been about including those who have been historically discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or sexual differences. The Gay Pride Parade evolved over the years to include transexuals- not because transexuals dominated gay politics, but because the gay community could relate to transexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Or we could let the LGBT community decide who is part of their community and who is not?

Just like we let Catholics and Mormons decide who is part of their community and who is not.

Sure, they can decide, but I can understand why some would decry the loss of group homogeneity.

Yes, every religion has the right to decide its own membership. Just not the right to dictate to others not in its fold using the force of law to worship at their altar.

So tell us all about this 'Church of the LGBT'- what is the basis for your claiming such a church exists?

Can a church exist when its members aren't even aware of its existence?

Do I get to declare the Tea Party a church because I find their doctrine offensive?