Will LGBT People Be Absent In The Near Future?

****Edit: I wrote this when I was feeling depressed and I realize my error of over-generalizing my statements!****

It is undeniable that if progress continues as it has been, in the next 10 years, our world will look very different compared to now. As we speak, there are a whole bunch of scientists world-wide, doing multitudes of experiments to give more knowledge and better technology to our world.

LGBT(Q) People

To start off, I do not go by a specific label, but I still consider myself apart of this group. Although, in my opinion, "Gay Rights" should really be apart of "Civil Rights" as the former implies a distinct separation between gay and straight people. LGBT people have gained a strong political platform, but I disagree with the statement that "we are born gay". Ever since I discovered I had feelings for the same-sex when 15 years-old, I never settled well with "we're born that way". I believe that genes play an important role, yet it doesn't fully define our sexual orientation. Sexual orientation can be discovered at a very young age, yet I still believe that it is a developing process that eventually becomes ingrained, in most cases. No one is born either gay, straight, or bi as people do not develop much, sexually, until puberty hits.

Despite what many LGBT people and others think about sexual orientation, there is very little science backing their statements. Also, we have to mention that there are still many LGBT people, including myself, struggling with coming to terms with our own gender and orientation, even with general social progress. Then there are many religious groups who are working to "correct" homosexuality, further increasing the pressure. There are even a few secular groups who work to "help" people struggling with their orientation. There has been much self-denial, depression, self-harm, and suicide-attempts because of attraction to the same-sex. I've even experienced, personally, what I've mentioned in the former sentence, as for many, if not, most of us, are caused much stressed in a variety of ways because of our orientation/gender. I want to be hopeful that one day, it simply won't matter, but I see there is a different trend at work.

Scientists are already to manipulate the sexual behavior of animals like rats. They have been able to change what we consider love and affection in these animals. In society, there are many concerns regarding paraphilia and you can bet scientists are looking for a way to correct it which can prevent rape, child-rape, incest, and bestiality. Even though homosexuality has slowly become more socially acceptable, many people still find it to be an abnormality. Many LGBT people who haven't come to terms will say that if there was an option to change their feelings, they would. I'm proud of those who have already come to terms with it, but I believe there are many more struggling quietly.

Maybe in the near future, say several decades or, at most, a couple of centuries, scientists find a way to make anyone attracted to the opposite-sex. Many LGBT people today observe their pre-dominantly heterosexual environment and wish to have an opposite sex partner with children as well. If the science prevails with an undeniable solution, who would deny it, besides those who have already come to terms with their feelings? If I were presented with that solution, I'd feel that life would be much easier, but I also worry that I'd be submitting myself to the notion that "heterosexuality is superior" and it isn't inherently superior. No one ever says "I want a gay child". They will either wish for a straight one or just accept the person that their child becomes. Who would complain about a purely heterosexual environment if there was really a way to change all other attractions that typically create dysfunctional connections in our society? If such a solution came to be, LGBT people, as we know them, would eventually be bred out of existence.

I've been thinking about this for a long time. I AM NOT saying that LGBT people SHOULD be bred out of existence, but who would resist a passive solution that doesn't require self-denial? There also wouldn't be nearly as many family related complications regarding sexuality.

What do you guys think about this, have you thought about this, and what do you think about the future of LGBT people?

 

 

Views: 1308

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Feminism and Humanism have similar but different goals. For example a woman might wish to be taken seriously at work, to make the same income for the same work, be able to feel safe walking down the street alone, not be ignored or laughed at for her ideas or input, not be treated as an object etc. If these are the biggest problems she is faced with and the issues she is willing to fight against/for then she is likely to find support, opportunities and satisfaction with a feminist group. While she might be sympathetic with the ideals of humanism and perhaps to some extent her efforts will further the cause of humanism. She is a feminist and only maybe a humanist.

There can be much in conflict between feminists and humanists. A feminist can be religious or atheist. There's nothing stopping a typical Christian from fighting for the rights of women. Reason, science and healthy scepticism is important to humanism and humanists. A feminist may work hard at seeing the world through reason and scepticism but may also be fairly uncritically minded. You don't have to be a rationalist to be a feminist...and so humanism doesn't encompass feminism. A feminist may be a socialist, a centrist, a rightist or a full out free market capitalist pig. There's nothing keeping a hard core libertarian from being a woman who fights for greater equality of women in the workplace or feeling safer in the street or being considered less a person than men. Humanism tends towards political compassion leaning towards leftist ideals, political protection and economic aid and social programs. While feminists may benefit from such governments, a woman can happily vote for a party, be a member of a party or the leader of a libertarian party and still fight for women's rights and consider herself a feminist. And so feminism doesn't fall under the umbrella of humanism nor should feminism be replaced by humanism. Feminism is feminism and feminists should fight for woman's rights and if they feel so inclined fight for gender equality in general and perhaps for the tenants of humanism. It's up to them.

LGBT(I)Q The Intersexed people such as myself are often left out of the equation ... Well the truth everyone is unique to their own genetic code. I don't think it is humane to force people to be attracted to people they are not attracted to. Transgender people differ from the stereotype assumption of gay and lesbian. Some transgendered people are attracted to same sex, and some not. hence you get straight transsexuals and you get lesbian transsexuals with women transsexuals in context. The brain of a transsexual women for example is identically wired to that of a woman who had been born with women's parts. Basically a transsexual woman is a woman who had been born with mens parts. (The reverse of this is with transsexual men). Then intersexed people are people who are born with both womens and mens parts like myself. Their brains may be more woman or man, or even like their bodies, in the middle.  This enforcement of binary gender and binary gender sexual orientation would cause suffering and harm on transgendered and intersexed people.

Are we just going to keep adding letters to that until they spell a word? Because you're endorsing six syllables here and I absolutely refuse.

LGBTQIA stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex and Allies

But no sooner had that gone into circulation than someone suggested LGGBTQQIAAPPK.  http://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-relationships/details/2012-06-wha...

Believe it or not I don't feel I fit into any one single  "LABEL" they've devised for sexual variations and I'm in no hurry to try to conform just to "fit in."

After taking the Flexuality Test that charts individual sexual identity as multi-dimensional and not as simple as a fast food menu, I finally got a sense of affirmation about myself and see no reason to push to get my own letter added to this.  

I only identify myself as gay to keep it simple for others.

 

South Park did a wonderful critique of cis-genderism gone besirk in their latest episode. I found the episode helarious and also touching. It seems as though...at least in the south park world that the more relevant issues these days are post-queer. Very interesting.

And the still haven't included porn addicts, fleshlight jackers, buttpluggers, voyeurs, BDSM and several others!!!!!

I refuse to participate in the alphabet sexuality parade. I'm me.  I'm in love with a guy I've been with for almost 7 years.  On the Flexuality Test I rated

Straight ..............0

Heteroflexible....4

Ambisexual........8

Flexamorous......7

Queer..................3

Gay......................0

I've quit thinking of sexuality in two dimensional fast food menu terms.

I rated 1 in all six categories.  But that doesn't make any sense...at least to me.

Anyways....there were some pretty funny questions:

When a man penetrates does that make him more of a man? 

I'd love to know peoples responses to this (other than yes/no)

Are you talking about scoring straight ones on the hexagonal graph?  That's impossible since ones are the lowest possible out of six with sizes being on the outside edges. 

You might want to try taking the test again.

I don't get the allies bit, and feel that its unnecessary , since they are straight people who support the LGBTIQ....but not part of it.

The thing is not many people understand what its like being intersexed , and often we get excluded and shunned upon and seen as freaks of nature.

You statement is as true for  intersexed people as it is for everyone else, aspergers, quadraplegics, sociopaths, gays, morbidly obese.  Try not to expect everyone to understand everyone else because it's not ever going to happen. 

Just getting tolerance from the majority is a more realistic expectation

I guess it's a pet peeve of mine: tolerance/tolerate. If I show "tolerance" toward a person or group it means that I, through my grace and charity, permit them to exist in my reality. What gives anyone the right or standing to tolerate anyone else?

Occasionally you see a more "open-minded" beneficent xian who is able to tolerate the atheists in their midst and even pity them their lot in life. I neither need nor want their tolerance. But I will have simple basic respect.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service