Florida HB 1557 ("Don't Say Gay") gutted in settlement - now applies only to instruction on LGBTQ+

[Ferguson97]

No.  This ruling reflects how the law was written and meant to be enforced.  Liberals overreacted (as they always do) and this outcome simply codifies what the law was really always about: no classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.

It’s genuinely pathetic how much water you carry for a party that hates you.

It's pretty pathetic how you always post personal attacks and can't debate actual issues with a semblance of nuance.

Criticism of your beliefs and hypocrisy is not a personal attack.

[Del Tachi]

No.  This ruling reflects how the law was written and meant to be enforced.  Liberals overreacted (as they always do) and this outcome simply codifies what the law was really always about: no classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.

It’s genuinely pathetic how much water you carry for a party that hates you.

It's pretty pathetic how you always post personal attacks and can't debate actual issues with a semblance of nuance.

Criticism of your beliefs and hypocrisy is not a personal attack.

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

[Ferguson97]

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

It includes both. What do you think “carry water for a party that hates you” means?

[Del Tachi]

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

It includes both. What do you think “carry water for a party that hates you” means?

That is not a criticism of anyone's beliefs.  If you think my "take" on this issue is wrong, you are welcomed to offer up arguments to change my mind (or at least make me sound stupid.)  All you have done is show how ungracious you are to the idea that queer folks are diverse in their politics and lived experiences, probably because it is simpler for you to treat LGBTQ+ people as political props in service to an agenda.

[Ferguson97]

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

It includes both. What do you think “carry water for a party that hates you” means?

That is not a criticism of anyone's beliefs.  If you think my "take" on this issue is wrong, you are welcomed to offer up arguments to change my mind (or at least make me sound stupid.)  All you have done is show how ungracious you are to the idea that queer folks are diverse in their politics and lived experiences, probably because it is simpler for you to treat LGBTQ+ people as political props in service to an agenda.

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

[Dan the Roman]

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

It includes both. What do you think “carry water for a party that hates you” means?

That is not a criticism of anyone's beliefs.  If you think my "take" on this issue is wrong, you are welcomed to offer up arguments to change my mind (or at least make me sound stupid.)  All you have done is show how ungracious you are to the idea that queer folks are diverse in their politics and lived experiences, probably because it is simpler for you to treat LGBTQ+ people as political props in service to an agenda.

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

He might believe in rights for L, G, B, and even T individuals but oppose any "LGBTQ+" specific rights or inclusion. I mean I fall into rhat category. I tend to believe LGBTQ+- refers to an ideological movement that is inherently anti Conservative and anti gay male because it is anti any male who dosent fit into a specific, leftwing, urban definition.  It's definitely anti large numbers of women, including Lesbians if they think sex is real. If Trans individuals dare to agree they are called "Truscum".

So no, why should he or I or any conservative  owe any loyalty to a movement or organizations which in their present form hate us? At least one side agrees on some issues.

But the error is assuming we agree on "LGBTQ+" labeled stuff

[MasterJedi]

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

It includes both. What do you think “carry water for a party that hates you” means?

That is not a criticism of anyone's beliefs.  If you think my "take" on this issue is wrong, you are welcomed to offer up arguments to change my mind (or at least make me sound stupid.)  All you have done is show how ungracious you are to the idea that queer folks are diverse in their politics and lived experiences, probably because it is simpler for you to treat LGBTQ+ people as political props in service to an agenda.

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

He might believe in rights for L, G, B, and even T individuals but oppose any "LGBTQ+" specific rights or inclusion. I mean I fall into rhat category. I tend to believe LGBTQ+- refers to an ideological movement that is inherently anti Conservative and anti gay male because it is anti any male who dosent fit into a specific, leftwing, urban definition.  It's definitely anti large numbers of women, including Lesbians if they think sex is real. If Trans individuals dare to agree they are called "Truscum".

So no, why should he or I or any conservative  owe any loyalty to a movement or organizations which in their present form hate us? At least one side agrees on some issues.

But the error is assuming we agree on "LGBTQ+" labeled stuff

Yeah, suuuuure the people who go “we want to have the same rights as straight people and be left alone to live” is an idea logical movement.

The actual ideological movement is the opposite men’s rights/groomer/rapist culture that proliferates online.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

The mental gymnastics of a “gay” republicans are as consulates as they are gross

[Dan the Roman]

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

It includes both. What do you think “carry water for a party that hates you” means?

That is not a criticism of anyone's beliefs.  If you think my "take" on this issue is wrong, you are welcomed to offer up arguments to change my mind (or at least make me sound stupid.)  All you have done is show how ungracious you are to the idea that queer folks are diverse in their politics and lived experiences, probably because it is simpler for you to treat LGBTQ+ people as political props in service to an agenda.

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

He might believe in rights for L, G, B, and even T individuals but oppose any "LGBTQ+" specific rights or inclusion. I mean I fall into rhat category. I tend to believe LGBTQ+- refers to an ideological movement that is inherently anti Conservative and anti gay male because it is anti any male who dosent fit into a specific, leftwing, urban definition.  It's definitely anti large numbers of women, including Lesbians if they think sex is real. If Trans individuals dare to agree they are called "Truscum".

So no, why should he or I or any conservative  owe any loyalty to a movement or organizations which in their present form hate us? At least one side agrees on some issues.

But the error is assuming we agree on "LGBTQ+" labeled stuff

Yeah, suuuuure the people who go “we want to have the same rights as straight people and be left alone to live” is an idea logical movement.

The actual ideological movement is the opposite men’s rights/groomer/rapist culture that proliferates online.

Online is not real life. Both sides online often forget that. The problem is that LGBTQ+ is an online ideological concept. It is not how people think of themselves unless they are already political.

This is not just an LGBTQ+ issue. Most modern identity politics, whether general, sexuality, or even racial, is an online creation which is politics invading identity rather than identity-defining politics.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Funny how your post includes neither, eh?

It includes both. What do you think “carry water for a party that hates you” means?

That is not a criticism of anyone's beliefs.  If you think my "take" on this issue is wrong, you are welcomed to offer up arguments to change my mind (or at least make me sound stupid.)  All you have done is show how ungracious you are to the idea that queer folks are diverse in their politics and lived experiences, probably because it is simpler for you to treat LGBTQ+ people as political props in service to an agenda.

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

He might believe in rights for L, G, B, and even T individuals but oppose any "LGBTQ+" specific rights or inclusion. I mean I fall into rhat category. I tend to believe LGBTQ+- refers to an ideological movement that is inherently anti Conservative and anti gay male because it is anti any male who dosent fit into a specific, leftwing, urban definition.  It's definitely anti large numbers of women, including Lesbians if they think sex is real. If Trans individuals dare to agree they are called "Truscum".

So no, why should he or I or any conservative  owe any loyalty to a movement or organizations which in their present form hate us? At least one side agrees on some issues.

But the error is assuming we agree on "LGBTQ+" labeled stuff

In my experience, "think sex is real" generally is code for a host of beliefs and general hatred of trans people that go well beyond simply acknowledging that sex chromosomes and hormones exist.

[Del Tachi]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

Jesus Christ

[Del Tachi]

The mental gymnastics of a “gay” republicans are as consulates as they are gross

You would only put "gay" in quotation marks if either (1) you think I'm lying about my sexuality to gain some type of credibility for my beliefs, or (2) my political beliefs make my lived experience as an openly gay man less valid (i.e., I'm a gay  Uncle Tom.)

So which is it?

[Horus]

Well, just based on this thread it is clear that The Gays are more politically depolarized than ever. We are everywhere now. Truly a victory for the Gay Agenda.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

The mental gymnastics of a “gay” republicans are as consulates as they are gross

You would only put "gay" in quotation marks if either (1) you think I'm lying about my sexuality to gain some type of credibility for my beliefs, or (2) my political beliefs make my lived experience as an openly gay man less valid (i.e., I'm a gay  Uncle Tom.)

So which is it?

You throw your own community under the bus for a fleeting approval of people who only tolerate you at best and if you stay in line. You may be a MSM, but you’re not gay.

[afleitch]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

Putting the rest of this to the side for a second, the part in bold is blatantly untrue.

Saying that gay people are okay with conservative institutions 'exerting influence' is not a serious statement, given than those institutions in the exercise of influence have and continue to push back against gay rights.

I understand you are trying your best to justify your own niche position within what may be a small bubble (and trust me, I used to be in a similar bubble), but don't propagate general assertions about the majority of gay people that aren't true.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I will add, I used to think like DT. I grew up in the rural south and for years I thought if I just am a well behaved pillar of the community people won’t mind I’m gay, but that just ain’t true. If you tried to be too visible, too open, you get shoved back into the closet. Even if you don’t people still call you a f@gg@t behind your back.

Respectability Politics are a myth

[Del Tachi]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

Putting the rest of this to the side for a second, the part in bold is blatantly untrue.

Saying that gay people are okay with conservative institutions 'exerting influence' is not a serious statement, given than those institutions in the exercise of influence have and continue to push back against gay rights.

I understand you are trying your best to justify your own niche position within what may be a small bubble (and trust me, I used to be in a similar bubble), but don't propagate general assertions about the majority of gay people that aren't true.

Most gay people do not want to burn down the church or erase the nuclear family.  Even if growing up as gay in the culture is hard (and really what makes us queer, to boot), it's still preferable to a world where those institutions cease to be societal cornerstones (which is what progressive ideology, and thus "LGBTQ+", is all about.)  As someone who chose to elevate my identity as a Christian and as a conservative above being gay, it is not surprising that I would know/interact mostly with gay people who come from the same mindset.

Of course, I have plenty of interaction with the activist set because that's what the political media is most interested in showcasing (and many younger gay people do identify with and parrot it, if only because their first experience of queerness will likely be informed by media) but those people mostly seem to be sad, angry, or quite unfulfilled.  That is, they suffer from the same disease afflicting educated liberals globally.  But isn't being gay supposed to be fun?   

[cg41386]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

Putting the rest of this to the side for a second, the part in bold is blatantly untrue.

Saying that gay people are okay with conservative institutions 'exerting influence' is not a serious statement, given than those institutions in the exercise of influence have and continue to push back against gay rights.

I understand you are trying your best to justify your own niche position within what may be a small bubble (and trust me, I used to be in a similar bubble), but don't propagate general assertions about the majority of gay people that aren't true.

Most gay people do not want to burn down the church or erase the nuclear family.  Even if growing up as gay in the culture is hard (and really what makes us queer, to boot), it's still preferable to a world where those institutions cease to be societal cornerstones (which is what progressive ideology, and thus "LGBTQ+", is all about.)  As someone who chose to elevate my identity as a Christian and as a conservative above being gay, it is not surprising that I would know/interact mostly with gay people who come from the same mindset.

Of course, I have plenty of interaction with the activist set because that's what the political media is most interested in showcasing (and many younger gay people do identify with and parrot it, if only because their first experience of queerness will likely be informed by media) but those people mostly seem to be sad, angry, or quite unfulfilled.  That is, they suffer from the same disease afflicting educated liberals globally.  But isn't being gay supposed to be fun?   

Hi, I consider myself fairly progressive, and I don't subscribe to this belief one bit, and most progressives I know don't either.

[Dan the Roman]

I will add, I used to think like DT. I grew up in the rural south and for years I thought if I just am a well behaved pillar of the community people won’t mind I’m gay, but that just ain’t true. If you tried to be too visible, too open, you get shoved back into the closet. Even if you don’t people still call you a f@gg@t behind your back.

Respectability Politics are a myth

I think there is a middle ground. Just because conservatism in a society where gays are going to be 2-4% of the population(and bisexuality is always going to be a question how society relates to sex, rather than to homosexuality per se) is going to treat their existence as regrettable does not mean there is no place for a gay conservatism.

In a sense, the decision that gay culture and identity must conform to the left-wing paradigm is assimilationist in and of itself because it suggests that the wider spectrum has to be copied.

Someone like Harvey Milk could recognize the need to ally with the left without ever having to become a man of the left. It was a political alliance against a common enemy, but it did not require embracing socialism.

There is no particular reason so much of Gen Z LGBT online discourse, especially further down the alphabet has become intertwined with socialism/marxism.

In short - believing that the far-right are your friends is a delusion for Gay Conservatives.

But it is also perfectly legitimate to say that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and I am not required to become them.

And it is also legitimate to do a cost-benefit analysis, eyes fully open as to who is a bigger threat. Because right now in many urban left-wing areas, the effort of far-left activists to takeover LGBT groups, and ban corporations, police, and now Jews/Pro-Israel folks from any participation in the community is a much greater day-to-day threat to a large number of LGBT individuals than what DeSantis does in Florida.

But that is not a reason to support what DeSantis does. It is merely a reason to possibly vote for Lee Zeldin in NYS or Hochman in the LA DA race.

[afleitch]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

Putting the rest of this to the side for a second, the part in bold is blatantly untrue.

Saying that gay people are okay with conservative institutions 'exerting influence' is not a serious statement, given than those institutions in the exercise of influence have and continue to push back against gay rights.

I understand you are trying your best to justify your own niche position within what may be a small bubble (and trust me, I used to be in a similar bubble), but don't propagate general assertions about the majority of gay people that aren't true.

Most gay people do not want to burn down the church or erase the nuclear family.  Even if growing up as gay in the culture is hard (and really what makes us queer, to boot), it's still preferable to a world where those institutions cease to be societal cornerstones (which is what progressive ideology, and thus "LGBTQ+", is all about.)  As someone who chose to elevate my identity as a Christian and as a conservative above being gay, it is not surprising that I would know/interact mostly with gay people who come from the same mindset.

Of course, I have plenty of interaction with the activist set because that's what the political media is most interested in showcasing (and many younger gay people do identify with and parrot it, if only because their first experience of queerness will likely be informed by media) but those people mostly seem to be sad, angry, or quite unfulfilled.  That is, they suffer from the same disease afflicting educated liberals globally.  But isn't being gay supposed to be fun?   

Okay, so you concede that your outlook and your social group is self-selecting. That it is in fact a minority view. That's fair enough.

You then claim that everyone else is 'sad, angry or unfulfilled.'

That's a very bold statement about what, by your own admission, is the vast majority of the gay community, who by extension are creating the vast majority of gay 'content'; from bars, to pride, to music and media.

Which is the anti-thesis to the minority (in a minority) identity you move in.

If conservative gays produced anything of comparable value; art, culture, a 'good time', gave the community a 'choice' then I could see your point.

But instead we have either anti-trans or anti-'LGBT' 'pick-mes' ,contrarians, grifters and burnouts. People who want to speak to and appeal to and apologise to straights, conservatives and authority. That's not 'a good time'.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

Putting the rest of this to the side for a second, the part in bold is blatantly untrue.

Saying that gay people are okay with conservative institutions 'exerting influence' is not a serious statement, given than those institutions in the exercise of influence have and continue to push back against gay rights.

I understand you are trying your best to justify your own niche position within what may be a small bubble (and trust me, I used to be in a similar bubble), but don't propagate general assertions about the majority of gay people that aren't true.

Most gay people do not want to burn down the church or erase the nuclear family.  Even if growing up as gay in the culture is hard (and really what makes us queer, to boot), it's still preferable to a world where those institutions cease to be societal cornerstones (which is what progressive ideology, and thus "LGBTQ+", is all about.)  As someone who chose to elevate my identity as a Christian and as a conservative above being gay, it is not surprising that I would know/interact mostly with gay people who come from the same mindset.

Of course, I have plenty of interaction with the activist set because that's what the political media is most interested in showcasing (and many younger gay people do identify with and parrot it, if only because their first experience of queerness will likely be informed by media) but those people mostly seem to be sad, angry, or quite unfulfilled.  That is, they suffer from the same disease afflicting educated liberals globally.  But isn't being gay supposed to be fun?   

Across societies and throughout history where the family unit dominated, it has usually been large relative to the "nuclear family", and multi-generational. The work of raising and caring for children, as well as other essential tasks like putting food on the table were distributed across a large number of family members or an entire community(communities too large for everyone to know everyone have only become the norm recently. The nuclear family is a relatively modern invention caused by the development of capitalism and industrialism changing circumstances to make it very difficult to keep a larger family together.

For the record, most institutions seen by many as societal cornerstones either are surprisingly modern or have changed so dramatically over the centuries that they are unrecognizable when compared to their former state. Protestantism itself was a challenge to the European societal cornerstone of the Catholic Church, and successfully removed it in many places. Institutions are never as stable or eternal as people like to think.

[Ferguson97]

Most gay people do not want to burn down the church or erase the nuclear family.  Even if growing up as gay in the culture is hard (and really what makes us queer, to boot), it's still preferable to a world where those institutions cease to be societal cornerstones (which is what progressive ideology, and thus "LGBTQ+", is all about.)  As someone who chose to elevate my identity as a Christian and as a conservative above being gay, it is not surprising that I would know/interact mostly with gay people who come from the same mindset.

...You're insinuating that destroying the church and erasing the nuclear family is the goal of the broader LGBT+ movement?

This is not a sentiment that is tethered to reality.

Of course, I have plenty of interaction with the activist set because that's what the political media is most interested in showcasing (and many younger gay people do identify with and parrot it, if only because their first experience of queerness will likely be informed by media) but those people mostly seem to be sad, angry, or quite unfulfilled.  That is, they suffer from the same disease afflicting educated liberals globally.  But isn't being gay supposed to be fun?

Well, you have all but said that the idea of you and your partner raising a child together would be incompatible with the tenants of your broader political beliefs, so it doesn't really sound like you're having that much fun either.

[Badger]

No.  This ruling reflects how the law was written and meant to be enforced.  Liberals overreacted (as they always do) and this outcome simply codifies what the law was really always about: no classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.

It’s genuinely pathetic how much water you carry for a party that hates you.

It's pretty pathetic how you always post personal attacks and can't debate actual issues with a semblance of nuance.

Ooh,  someone struck a nerve

[Del Tachi]

Alright, I'll rephrase my post as a question: how can you, as a gay man, support the political party that is hostile to LGBT rights? Even if you agree with the Republican Party on every other issue, how can you not view your civil rights as the most important thing? I genuinely do not understand it.

The "movement" for "LGBTQ+ rights" has never spoken for the majority of gay people, who mostly just want to exist unbothered and unnoticed and are ok with conservative institutions (i.e., churches, families, etc.) exerting influence in the ways they traditionally have.  The LGBTQ movement has always been a platform for progressive politics and has become even more cross-contaminated with the "woke" ideology of intersectionality and victimhood in recent years.  Your question is assuming that all gay people should identify as gay first, before any other identity or belief system.  But the very many gay people I know who exist outside the amplified, progressive political bubble have a lot more interesting things going on in their lives.  The activist class has mostly left no room for these types, because it doesn't serve their version of zero-sum identity politics.

"Don't say gay" is not about preventing teachers or students from talking about what goes on in their own households or from referencing gay characters in history/literature in an age-appropriate way, but about making sure classroom instruction isn't an opportunity to push a particular belief about gender or sexuality.  That's defensible because no child should be subject to potentially confusing ideas about gender or sex from empowered adults acting beyond the responsibility given by his parents. 

Putting the rest of this to the side for a second, the part in bold is blatantly untrue.

Saying that gay people are okay with conservative institutions 'exerting influence' is not a serious statement, given than those institutions in the exercise of influence have and continue to push back against gay rights.

I understand you are trying your best to justify your own niche position within what may be a small bubble (and trust me, I used to be in a similar bubble), but don't propagate general assertions about the majority of gay people that aren't true.

Most gay people do not want to burn down the church or erase the nuclear family.  Even if growing up as gay in the culture is hard (and really what makes us queer, to boot), it's still preferable to a world where those institutions cease to be societal cornerstones (which is what progressive ideology, and thus "LGBTQ+", is all about.)  As someone who chose to elevate my identity as a Christian and as a conservative above being gay, it is not surprising that I would know/interact mostly with gay people who come from the same mindset.

Of course, I have plenty of interaction with the activist set because that's what the political media is most interested in showcasing (and many younger gay people do identify with and parrot it, if only because their first experience of queerness will likely be informed by media) but those people mostly seem to be sad, angry, or quite unfulfilled.  That is, they suffer from the same disease afflicting educated liberals globally.  But isn't being gay supposed to be fun?   

Okay, so you concede that your outlook and your social group is self-selecting. That it is in fact a minority view. That's fair enough.

You then claim that everyone else is 'sad, angry or unfulfilled.'

That's a very bold statement about what, by your own admission, is the vast majority of the gay community, who by extension are creating the vast majority of gay 'content'; from bars, to pride, to music and media.

Which is the anti-thesis to the minority (in a minority) identity you move in.

If conservative gays produced anything of comparable value; art, culture, a 'good time', gave the community a 'choice' then I could see your point.

But instead we have either anti-trans or anti-'LGBT' 'pick-mes' ,contrarians, grifters and burnouts. People who want to speak to and appeal to and apologise to straights, conservatives and authority. That's not 'a good time'.

Yes, my outlook and social network is self-selecting (how could it not be?) but I don't concede it's a minority view.  The majority of gay people are not activists.

Gay conservatives are not trying to compete in the same ideological space as gay 'content' creators.  They simply don't see their sexuality as the most important aspect of their identity, and the rest flows naturally.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what many gay men would be if they weren't gay.