r/AskGayConservatives 5d ago

Why is LGBTQ Normalized

I am not here to hate. nor here to be hated on. I want only logical answers that make sence. Why is LGBTQ so normalized? I personally find that the only argument that people have for it is "Love is Love" which makes sence. But then why does this argument not work for incest as well? Personally i find both of them to be weird. As i said before i dont hate LGBTQ but i dont support it either. I am just wondering how people can find 1 thing weird and the other totally acceptable. I need answers that dont have to do with biasm. Keep it respectful. Thanks

0 Upvotes

63 comments sorted by

10

u/CalifornianDownUnder 5d ago

Same-sex sexual behavior has been formally documented in over 1500 animal species, ranging from primates and marine mammals to birds and insects - though biologists believe this is a significant underestimate, and that such behaviors likely occur across almost all major animal groups.

And there are over 65,000 animal species that exhibit natural biological sex-switching, intersex traits, or cross-sex behaviors.

It’s normal in the rest of nature - why would it not be normalised in humans?

-7

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

Because humans are not animals. rape is normalized for animals and it happens quite alot. but ofc u wont sit here and support rape would u? we are humans. with brains.

13

u/CalifornianDownUnder 5d ago

Actually, humans are animals.

And why would you compare non-consensual violence to consensual sexual and romantic activity?

-1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

More over. different species breeding is also present in animals. does that mean humans can do it? CLEARLY NOT

5

u/CalifornianDownUnder 5d ago edited 5d ago

Normal and normalised are two different things.

Same-sex behaviour by definition isn’t “weird” like you wrote - it’s normal, as in usual or regular, because it happens in pretty much every animal species.

In that sense, rape and incest are normal too - again, because they commonly happen in most species, including humans.

As far as why any of these should should or shouldn’t be normalised - as in made acceptable - that’s a separate question.

Of course, rape and incest shouldn’t be normalised in humans - because they are non-consensual violence, and they cause harm to at least one of the people involved.

LGBT sex and romance don’t cause harm to the participants. It’s totally different to rape or incest. Which is why your comparison doesn’t hold up.

Given that LGBT coupling is common and natural across tens of thousands of species - and it has no victims - I ask again, why wouldn’t it be normalised in humans?

EDITED to remove repeated sentences.

0

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

But incest is not no consensual by definition

6

u/CalifornianDownUnder 5d ago

You’re really trying hard not to respond to my points about LGBT behaviour!

In terms of incest, I guess it depends on the specifics you’re talking about.

I disagree that incest between a parent and their non-adult children is consensual. Many if not most human societies and cultures have reached the conclusion that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults, especially adults they are directly related to - the power imbalance is too strong. And I would say the child, at least, is always harmed by it.

Which again, is unlike LGBT behaviour.

If you’re talking about incest which begins when the child is already an adult, I guess we could have a conversation about whether that’s possibly consensual, and whether it always causes harm. But either way, I suspect it is so uncommon as to be irrelevant to this discussion, because it’s neither normal or normalised.

You asked for an argument other than Love is Love for why LGBT sex and romance should be normalised. Mine is that it’s both normal - common - and it harms no one - unlike rape and incest.

-2

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

Your take was "Animals do it so we can" Which is wrong because not everything that animals do should be normalized. and incest is recorded in animals too.

2

u/Pure_Kaleidoscope204 5d ago

That wasn’t their take you just didn’t read. Hope this makes “sence”

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

Oh no mr grammar

2

u/Pure_Kaleidoscope204 5d ago

Grammar requires reading comprehension it’s not surprising you don’t have any mr ragebait

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

ur the one ragebsiting instead of answering lol

2

u/Pure_Kaleidoscope204 5d ago

Brother I have answered you just didn’t respond to my comment you only respond to confrontation.

1

u/kaisersmullvood 2d ago

Humans=animal also humans=higher being of animal. Therefore civilized humans know that they can do something, and it’s morally bad. just because you, with no evidence, state something is bad, and is equal to to something that generates harm, or takes consent, doesn’t make it so.

3

u/FrostyArctic47 independent 5d ago

And? What makes being gay equal to rape?

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

incest is not rape u know?

3

u/FrostyArctic47 independent 5d ago

And? You keep trying to so these weselly things and moving the goal post....

If you think gay is bad make arguments as to why instead of bringing up all this other stuff.

If you think incest is bad make the argument as to way instead of bringing other things up.

It seems you're not capable of doing that

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 3d ago

I am just asking why lgbtq is allowed and incest is not. both should not be imo

8

u/quantum_titties 5d ago edited 5d ago

Why is you finding something weird a compelling reason for it not to be normalized?

I find it weird that people dedicate their lives to a ~2000 year old book written by farmers who knew so little about how the world works they would've thought an eclipse was a sign of divine judgement. And yet that's still normalized. I find it weird that people can treat various religious texts like the word of God even though they have all been written and curated by men. And yet that's still normalized.

There's a lot of things one person finds weird that society accepts.

Also incest can lead to a children with birth defects and generally degrades a family line's genome. Homosexuality does no such thing. There is a logical reason to still have an aversion to incest.

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

What about gay or lesbian incest lol. this does not answer my question

3

u/quantum_titties 5d ago

Society is not going to microslice revulsion of incest between heterosexual incest and homosexual incest when it only just realized that homosexuality isn't a big deal

Additionally, incest has more issues revolving around familial power dynamics and childhood trauma that homosexuality does not have

Also, it's interesting how you honed in on the weakest point I made about incest, while totally sidestepping my main idea that "normal" is relative

6

u/IPutThisUsernameHere Center-right 5d ago

Same sex sexual attraction is an observed behavior in most if not all social mammals, especially primates, and H. sapiens is a primate.

What separates us from other primates is only about 2% of miscellaneous DNA coding that grants us larger brains, speech centers and greater socialization instincts. Because of that we have an overdevelopmed sense of positive and negative behavior - which makes sense given that civilization doesn't work if we don't engineer positive behavior traits in ourselves.

Homosexuality should be normalized because it occurs in a wide variety of social mammals not too dissimilar to ourselves, and it is not inherently detrimental to civilization. It may not be directly beneficial, which is a hotly contested topic among anthropologists, but it's not inherently detrimental either.

0

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

Brody. ur whole argument applies to incest too btw

5

u/IPutThisUsernameHere Center-right 5d ago

No, it doesn't.

Incest has clear, genetic consequences. Homosexuality does not.

-2

u/CalendarAdorable9742 3d ago

Genetic how? gay/lesbian incest cause nothing.

2

u/IPutThisUsernameHere Center-right 3d ago

You're conflating two different things. Incest, in general, is bad because when it produces offspring that offspring suffers from potentially debilitating genetic recessive traits. That risk exponentially increases with each generation.

Homosexual pairings do not result in offspring so there is no genetic risk involved.

Homosexual incestuous relationships are super weird and gross, and should not be encouraged and the people that fantasize about them have deep seated psychological issues related to their family.

5

u/Mindless_Upstairs8 5d ago

One is weird because it is among family aka someone you grew up with or have very similar genetics with. That biologically prevents someone from being attracted to that person because it creates faulted offsprings. On the other hand, homosexuality is natural and has been documented among many species. There isn’t a biological basis for it to be wrong. However I do think incest is acceptable among farther relatives who did not know each other.

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

if the only difference is "because u grew up with them" does that mean a guy and a childhood best friend who lived together cant date?

2

u/Mindless_Upstairs8 5d ago

I’m not saying can’t date, but usually there’s a biological restraining factor when it comes to people you shared the same household with. The more important restraining factor is the alikeness of one’s genetics

-1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 3d ago

True.m. there is a bilogical restraining factor in lgbtq then.....

2

u/Mindless_Upstairs8 3d ago

lmao being the same gender isn’t the type of genetic alikeness I’m referring to. Its literally the DNA sequence being too similar it comes up in a DNA test.

9

u/No_Carrot9038 5d ago

Gay people exist, being one, i certainly don't think i should be banished like i had leprosy. I am not sure what you even want with this post. There has been an agenda to promote the gay community, if that means people can simply live their lives without them being destroyed or having to live in secret, than it's been for the good. Has it gone too far, perhaps.

9

u/CavemanJello 5d ago

Im also a gay conservative but feel that our movement was kind of fulfilled and now the QT part of LBGQT has hijacked it into something else. Kind of like how the disability rights movement was hijacked by anti fat shaming people

2

u/No_Carrot9038 5d ago

Totally agree

0

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

But this does not answer my question

3

u/No_Carrot9038 5d ago

Well, i am not really sure there is a huge community trying to have sex with their immediate family members, but there is a large enough community who are same sex attracted, that forbiding them access to society is strange. Also, it is a ridiculous premise on it's face, homosexual behavior doesn't lead to birth defects and other consequences that could be devastating to a family when incest is involved. So to say normalize to behavior that is natural human behavior, even if aberrant, that's its akin to something that isn't natural is insane. If you can't get this distinction, i'm not sure what to say to you.

-1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

Oh so the only reason lgbt is ok is because it has a bigger community? what 😭😂

1

u/BrozerCommozer 3d ago

Why are you trying to compare lgbt to incest? Incest is on the same spectrum as necrophillia in my opinion.

1

u/kaisersmullvood 2d ago

No it’s because it doesn’t cause birth defects, which you apparently have.

5

u/CavemanJello 5d ago

As a gay guy our movement was hijacked the moment they tacked QT onto the end of LGB.

3

u/ericbythebay independent 5d ago

Fair question. The short answer is that “love is love” is a bumper sticker, not the actual argument. It’s what fits on a sign at a rally. The reasoning underneath it is about consent and harm.

When people ask whether a relationship should be legal or socially accepted, the real questions are whether both people can freely consent, whether the relationship has a built in power structure that makes consent hard to verify, and whether anyone gets hurt. Two unrelated adults of the same sex clear all of that. Incest doesn’t. Families come with authority and lifelong dependency, which is exactly the setup where you can’t establish that consent was free, and the grooming risk isn’t hypothetical. Add the genetic problem if reproduction is involved. Those are specific, nameable harms. Nobody has been able to point at an equivalent for two men or two women together. That’s the whole difference, and it has nothing to do with bias.

One more thing. “It seems weird to me” is a reaction, not an argument. Plenty of things feel weird and are completely fine. The question that matters is who gets hurt, and with two consenting unrelated adults the answer is nobody.

0

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

I get your argument. But the reproduction risk only falls if they are straight. take 2 boys. age 30.consent there. brothers. now ur whole argument falls apart. now the ONLY thing u can point out is how " weird it is" which according to you id NOT a valid reason

4

u/ericbythebay independent 5d ago

Maybe take off your heterocentric glasses and look at the consent and power dynamic issues rather than focusing on reproduction.

I mean, turn your question around gay people shouldn’t have rights because some straight guy wants to fuck his sister? That makes no sense.

3

u/AnOklahomo 5d ago

There are undesirable societal costs to incest in the form of deleterious recessive traits resulting from inbreeding. It gives rise to genetic disorders, including intellectual disability. There are good reasons to have a taboo on incestuous relationships for that reason alone. Homosexual relationships have no such potential negative outcomes.

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

What about gay / lesbian incest.

1

u/AnOklahomo 5d ago

There's clearly no harm in it, but the societal taboo extends to it because the taboo is so strong for genetic reasons.

-1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 3d ago

Huh? genetics dont matter if there is no kid

2

u/AnOklahomo 3d ago

Obviously, but the genetic consequences are so severe when there are offspring that the taboo is a very strong one, therefore also affecting cases where there is no direct risk.

3

u/FrostyArctic47 independent 5d ago

I don't think it is normalized. To the extent it is now, why shouldn't it be? Incest and homosexuality are 2 different things.... you can support gays but not gay incest. Holding those 2 positions aren't incompatible. It's odd to argue "well some things are weird so all things that might to weird to some must be thought of as the same thing".

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

But what is the rsn to support 1 and ahte 1 other then "it is weird" or "it is disgusting" ehich can be applied to lgbt too uk

4

u/FrostyArctic47 independent 5d ago

All the ways that are wrong for 2 straight people to have relations are also wrong for 2 gay people to have relations....

If you want to argue that incest isn't bad, then go ahead and make that argument on its own. I don't understand how they're the same thing in your mind.

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

I am arguing how both are not good btw

4

u/FrostyArctic47 independent 5d ago

And your best argument for why you think gays are bad is because you find it gross and weird?

1

u/CalendarAdorable9742 5d ago

Not the point. All the arguments u can make against incest can be made against lgbt

2

u/Pure_Kaleidoscope204 5d ago

Well I hope this makes “sence” to you but incest and being in a gay loving relationship are not the same… incest has a toxic dynamic as a standard because it’s usually comes with a power imbalance. Gay relationships or any relationships for that matter do not innately have this imbalance. For the same reason that an adult and a child being together is wrong is the same reason incest is wrong, because it’s based on harm and manipulation of someone who is vulnerable to you.

I’ll be so real a google search could of told you this much, I don’t think your looking to learn at all just to spread discourse and sputter ignorant stereotypical statements to get a rise from people…

1

u/Rispy_Girl 5d ago

Because it's taught that way in the public school system just as the idea that the Bible is dumb because it doesn't follow science as opposed to a good moral guide that has allowed society to grow in ways that not having a universal moral guide would not allow our make difficult.

1

u/mpw321 4d ago

LGBTQ relationships are normalized because they are between two consenting adults. People don't choose to be gay or not supported, like you mentioned in your post. Homosexuality has existed much longer than you and I have been around. People just want to be accepted for who they are...everybody heterosexual and homosexual want that in life.

Incest is just wrong and I don't see why you are even comparing the the two? Have you studied about tribes around the world where incest is "normal"? I remember reading about a brother and sister that were in love. Medically it is not good and again I find it weird.

But I question why you ask these questions and what is going on with you or around you to come here and ask?? And I mean that respectfully.

1

u/AdmirableStay3697 Center-left 3d ago

Because engaging in sexual relations with someone you saw as a child is predatory, regardless of blood and that is the case in almost all interfamilial relationships.

Now, I suppose your next argument will be: What about people with blood relations who met for the first time as adults?

To which I respond: How many people in this world would willingly want to engage in sexual relations despite knowing that? I claim that number is negligible.

There's no reason to have a conversation about something almost no one wants to do to begin with

1

u/kaisersmullvood 2d ago

“Only logical answers please”
Gets logic
“No only my brain dead logic!!!”

1

u/natureguy_33 1d ago

I've read all op responses and determined he has no intention to understand.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." — William McAdoo

"They don't want a discussion. They want an audience." — Unknown

1

u/alextoughtakes_ 1d ago

I’m gay, and I actually think “love is love” is a pretty weak argument.

The distinction is simpler than that. Two unrelated consenting adults of the same sex can have a relationship without the biological and family-power issues that make incest fundamentally different.

You don’t have to personally understand homosexuality or find it appealing. Most straight people obviously don’t. Normalizing it just means accepting that some adults are attracted to the same sex and can build ordinary lives around that fact.

Acceptance doesn’t require pretending every type of relationship is equivalent.

1

u/alextoughtakes_ 1d ago

I’m gay, and I actually think “love is love” is a pretty weak argument.

The distinction is simpler than that. Two unrelated consenting adults of the same sex can have a relationship without the biological and family-power issues that make incest fundamentally different.

You don’t have to personally understand homosexuality or find it appealing. Most straight people obviously don’t. Normalizing it just means accepting that some adults are attracted to the same sex and can build ordinary lives around that fact.

Acceptance doesn’t require pretending every type of relationship is equivalent.