A note of caution. This seems to be related to the stories going around that SCOTUS is going to overturn Obergefell. This seems a bit premature. It would require that SCOTUS actually choose to hear the case, and it's likely that Roberts and at least one other "conservative" justice would not vote to overturn if the case was heard. Finally, there is still a preexisting law that would seem to prevent "gay marriage" from being done away with anyway.
Having said that, listen to the gays. When they refer to the "alphabet mafia"' they're referring to useful idiots like Dan who simply repeat the Q+ narrative with no regard for Truth, accuracy, or harm.
https://x.com/againstgrmrs/status/1955060517715972541?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"We tried to warn everyone. Even people in our own LGB community. But the cult didn’t care. They kept going after innocent children anyways. They kept fighting to set back women’s rights. They are the real cause of the serious degrading of LGB acceptance in America. When we got EQUAL rights, we were happy. We just wanted to be left alone. To live in peace, equally to everyone else! But then the alphabet mafia took over and tried making it all about them - forcing & demanding (and even SUING) for attention from everyone, forcing acceptance of mental illnesses, and started the downgrading of LGB acceptance everywhere! YOU went after the children. YOU went after women’s rights. The nation was overwhelming fine (for the first time) with the LGB until the alphabet mafia went way too far."
18 comments:
While that COULD be written by a progressive "LGB" person, it's almost certainly conservative BS. "Alphabet mafia" is a conservative term, an attempt to demonize (in yet another way) LGBTQ folks. Its origin and typical use is in conservative circles. Likewise, for the rest of the nonsensical comment. It reads like a stereotypical conservative, not an open minded, morally rational person.
I'd be willing to bet that you can't find an actual LGB person saying something like this.
Ah, it IS probably a conservative, but a conservative lesbian or gay person. Rare creatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gays_Against_Groomers
A few problems. I'm not sure Roberts wouldn't be on board because he was among the four dissenters in the Obergefell, v Hodges case which forced this crap on a non-consenting nation. In a real way, his opinion came across to me as possibly the most aggressive rejection of the majority opinion...which was crap, just as Roe was.
Next, I don't know what pre-existing law you have in mind. This is a federal level situation, just as Roe was and like Roe, to overturn Obergefell would simply return the issue to the 50 individual states.
I would also disagree with the speaking stating that the nation was "overwhelming fine" with the LGB being forced into compliance under pain of litigation, termination and public rebuke by the LGB radicals and their cowardly, nagging enablers is being "fine" with it at all. I think, even during their brief heyday after Obergefell, a true polling would not produce a result of "being fine" at all.
Whether or not this gets overturned is a matter of how well the plaintiffs have their ducks in a row. There is a case which seems likely to be taken by the Supremes, with Kim Davis of Kentucky being the main litigant. I can't wait to see what happens. I hope Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett will be in solidarity with the other three against the Three Stooges of leftism as they were in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe. They should be given Obergefell suffers from the same lack of Constitutional backing as did Roe.
Well said, excellent job of projecting your prejudices onto others. A couple of factual notes.
1. I said nothing or made no representations about the political stance of the author nor of the Twitter account.
2. I'll note that this account/author has been consistently posting the same sort of thing for quite some time.
Your hunches notwithstanding, the notion that it is somehow inappropriate for a L/G person to have a different view that you, and therefore must be negatively characterized is simply bizarre and nonsensical. This notion that anyone who doesn't drink the "trans" Kool Aid (virtually every country in Europe) is somehow less than you in the "open minded" and "rational" categories is simply one more example of your prejudices. Your hunch that there is only one acceptable viewpoint within the ABC community is simply absurd.
That you have decided, with no evidence, that the principles of Gays Against Groomers are somehow not gay, is quite an amazing leap of logic with absolutely zero factual basis. But it's not surprising that you've jumped to an irrational conclusion, absent evidence, based on your biases and prejudices.
So what? Are "conservative" gays not gay enough? Are they to be denied their free speech rights? Are they to be demeaned, dismissed, and marginalized by some idiotic straight white guy who's drunk the Kool Aid on "trans" issues?
Anything is possible, that's kind of the point. That the ABC folx are freaking out about a something that seems unlikely to actually happen. From my research, the Respect for Marriage Act (passed by congress in 2022) would likely protect "gay marriage" regardless of what SCOTUS does.
As an aside. The RMA is an example of making law the correct and proper way. Instead of allowing SCOTUS to legislate from the bench, congress actually seems to have done it's job. I'm not defending that act, merely noting that these sorts of things are best handled legislatively not judicially.
So? I'm not sure who's supposed to care about your quibble with the wording. I suspect that, absent the headlong rush to "trans" every kid who expresses even the slightest doubt, we'd have settled into some general level of acceptance of "gay marriage". Just like we settle into a general level of acceptance of any law with which people disagree.
Obviously the case hinges on the presentations by both sides before and during oral arguments, as does virtually ever case before SCOTUS. Your problem seems to be assuming that the court will even hear and consider the case. Not to mention that SCOTUS seems to avoid overturning such recent precedent, but who knows. There are many steps to go through before celebrating or whining.
That you have questions about 3 justices and can only hope that they will vote the way you want, suggests that it's not as cut and dried as you think.
This is a great example of people jumping to conclusions before enough of the facts are available to warrant drawing a conclusion.
On the one side the ABC folx are reacting hysterically to the very possibility that Obergefell might be appealed and end up at SCOTUS.
On the other side people are acting is if it's a done deal that Obergefell will be overturned.
One one more side, there's Dan who's natural response to to dismiss and demean gay people who don't toe Dan's line as to what a real gay person is, and what they're allowed to think. Dan is apparently upset that a group of L/G folx organized to fight against what they see as excesses in a movement that's been hijacked by the rest of the alphabet. What's amazing is Dan's Mafiaesque response to anyone who doesn't meet his standard of gay enough.
"Kansas Chapter
Gays Against Groomers
www.gaysagainstgroomers.com
To those on the Health and Human Services Committee and others,
My name is Elaine, and I am the Kansas Chapter Leader for Gays Against Groomers. We are an
organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans adults that all oppose the indoctrinating,
sexualizing, and medicalizing of children under our community’s name.
While we understand that our organization’s name may seem to be an offensive phrase to some,
our accumulation of peer-reviewed and internationally replicated research has supported that
doing the medical procedures, that this legislation is in favor of preventing, is harmful to
children. That is why our organization is supporting House Bills 2791.
Children are irreversibly affected by medications that interfere with the natural introduction of
puberty in so many ways, whether it is their bone grown, fertility, and the effect it has on
atrophying primary sex organs of these children. We have many medical studies that prove the
harm is being done. There is even research that proves introducing these hormones into children,
in levels their body does not naturally produce, negatively affects their cardiovascular systems.
While we falsely hear repeatedly that children are not receiving surgery to cut off healthy organs,
it is shocking how many people think it is “hate” to have legislation that stops it. We ask, “If it is
supposedly not happening, what harm is there in preventing children from having these
surgeries?” There is no harm in letting children wait until they are adults to go through these
types of surgeries without regret.
Many authentic studies found that children often outgrow their gender dysphoric symptoms by
the time they complete puberty, and their prefrontal cortex develops enough to establish self-
identity. What is so amazing about that is those children who previously identified as trans (in
this current sense, before they would just be non-gender conforming normal kids) is that these
children grow up to be amazing members of society who happen to be gay, lesbian or bisexual!
If these children can grow up and be gay or lesbian or bisexual, why is it not considered
homophobic to try to interfere with these children figuring themselves out without external
interference, exactly as we have all done for thousands of years?
There is no harm in letting children grow up first and then having those conversations with their
trusted healthcare professionals who specialize in this type of medical care. However, there is
substantial harm in not letting children wait for this type of care. There is also substantial and
proven psychological harm in having children socially transition, which is the first step in
medical transition.
We support any adult who wants to be trans and welcome them to grow into themselves.
However, we ask that children be left alone to become who they want to be as adults. Why is that
so controversial?
So, we ask that this bill be passed to help protect future gay, lesbian, and bisexual children and future trans adults"
This is an excellent explanation of what GAG is trying to achieve. It's clearly insane that they advocate following the science, following the example of Europe, and following the data in advocating that we stop "transing" children.
Dan apparently supports everything they're against.
Never meant to suggest that the outcome is certain. I merely sought to remind that given the notion Obergefell could be overturned came by way of Clarence Thomas pointing out the same flaws in it which led to the overturning of Roe. With that in mind, while as you say anything's possible, I would need help in imagining why the three I mentioned wouldn't also rule the same way based on the same flaws of the Roe decision.
I forgot about the RMA, so thanks for that. I'll have to review it. Until then, I would suggest that the overturning of Roe would bring that into question if it also failed to recognize the will of the people to decide how "marriage" should be defined. Congress is obliged to act on the will of the people as well, as they are intended to be our voice.
From what I've read...though not in depth...it appears the issue is on the docket. I haven't begun any celebrations yet which go beyond the case being attempted with a hearing more likely than ever before. I don't believe the "recent precedent" will matter here if indeed the same flaws of Roe are the focus in the Davis appeal.
Have you heard or seen anyone specific who's described this appeal as a done deal?
As an aside, I would wager there are far fewer conservative "gay" people who oppose homosexuality than those who support it while being otherwise conservative (supporting homosexuality is not a conservative position at all, even if allowing homosexuals to perv in the privacy of their own home, and to preach perving is a reflection of conservative respect for rights). I would also wager that there are even "progressive" homosexuals (the worst kind) who opposed sexualizing kids, grooming them and enabling their delusion of being of the sex opposite their biology. I only say that because I prefer to believe they can't be all as perverse as Dan.
Likewise, my entire point is based on not jumping to conclusions about a case that SCOTUS hasn't agreed to hear, let alone been argued. Anything else is speculation.
Again, things like this should be handled legislatively not judicially. Roe was bad law, implemented in the wrong way. Obergefell may be the same, yet the difference is that there is legislated law that will likely make the reversal moot.
From what I've heard, the case was not on the docket at the time I saw people going off about it. If it gets on the docket, it still doesn't mean it'll be argued. It's a long way before we actually know anything.
I've heard plenty of people on both sides either celebrating or bemoaning the theoretical reversal prematurely.
I'm not sure what your point is in the first part of the comment. It seems as though there are two general wings of "conservative" LGs.
1. Those who are gay, but believe that homosexual activity is sinful. They are likely celibate or married to a woman, and would oppose homosexual activity/"gay marriage" on religious grounds. There are probably few of these.
2. The rest are likely "conservative" on fiscal and other matters, while still holding a libertarian "live and let live" philosophy. They're probably more likely to be in a long term monogamous relationship and are not engaged in the promiscuous subculture or the "TQ+BOHICA" folx ranting.
I do agree that (much like pro-lifers) that there are a number of ASPLs who oppose much of the "trans" medical industrial complex which is making millions "transing" children who will likely grow up to be G or L. They also probably oppose the grooming and sexualizing of children. As we've seen the DFL is incredibly intolerant of dissent on this issue and on abortion.
I'm referring to people who would actually know, such as those in Kim Davis' camp as she attempts to appeal her situation. That's the one I feel has been accepted to some extent as a case which will be taken up by the Supremes. I just don't know if it's a done deal that it will be, but only that what I've heard suggests it will. I just haven't thus far heard from anyone in the know who can confirm it. What I have heard is from some related to her appeal who feel confident it is. Like you, I await confirmation and we'll see what happens then. I'm certainly hopeful, and I don't know if RMA is a deal-breaker as you seem to believe (I haven't yet researched it with all the fun which goes along with moving into a new house. Indeed, it's kinda slipped my mind.).
I keep praying, though. That's for sure.
I'm referring to people on both side who've chosen to overreact to the situation as it currently exists.
Obviously the litigants hope that the case will go their way. I'm simply pointing out what you acknowledge, that nothing has actually happened at this point to justify the overreaction on both sides of the issue.
It appears to me we're saying the same thing...though you might have done so in a more articulate manner.
Thanks.
This is an interesting issue for several reasons.
1. Politically, it's beneficial to divide the LGB from the TQ+XYZPDQ crowd as they realize that teh FFL used them for political gain and has moved on to the next subculture as their poster child.
2. There seems to be a moral/ethical line between having sex with someone of the same sex, and knowingly mutilating, lying to, ignoring science, and making millions off of confused children. I think that separating the LGB from what are essentially child molesters (both the "trans" medical/industrial complex and the actual pedos) is not a bad thing. Even if I still agree that the LGB are engaging in sinful behavior. I would argue that there is a continuum in a sense. That a monogamous gay couple who stay together for decades are at one end of the continuum, and the people that buy children to abuse or "trans" are at the other.
Post a Comment