https://x.com/normalgaypsych/status/2087275439110705406?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"I’m gay. Not “queer.” Not “part of the community.” Not an activist. Not a walking rainbow flag. I’m a normal guy who likes men. That’s it. I don’t want to redefine reality. I don’t want kids in the conversation. I don’t want pronouns shoved down my throat. I don’t want the alphabet mafia speaking for me. Most of us just want to live our lives, date, work, and be left the hell alone. The loudest ones don’t represent us. They embarrass us. If that makes me a “bad gay,” good. I’ll take normal over crazy every single time."
Such a refreshing point of view.
https://x.com/normalgaypsych/status/2086820385970901094?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"I’m a gay man and a psychiatrist. I’ve watched the explosion of rapid-onset gender dysphoria cases, especially in teenage girls. I’ve seen the desistance data, the comorbidities, the regret, and the sterilizing effects of blockers + cross-sex hormones. And I have never supported medicalizing children. Not once. Never. Kids cannot consent to infertility, loss of sexual function, or permanent alteration of healthy bodies. “Affirmation” is not neutral care — it is an ideological intervention that locks many of them onto a medical pathway most would have grown out of. Being gay does not require me to pretend that sex is a spectrum or that a distressed 13-year-old girl is actually a boy. It requires the opposite: protecting same-sex attracted and gender-nonconforming kids from a medical fad that pathologizes them. I will not shut up."
6 comments:
These two, especially the first, seem to think because they're not outrageous, it means they call themselves "normal". They have to choose. They can't be both normal and "gay" at the same time.
I get that you are making a semantic point, but the authors point still stands.
We went from “stay out of our bedroom” to pride parades showcasing every brand of fetish and perversion imaginable. Dude just wants to live his life without bring co-opted for political purposes,
That they have any freedom to take such license is due to the very political activism which indulges in public perversions today. They can't whine about that which they brought about. And again, neither are "normal" any more than they are "gay".
Yet, the point still stands despite you being pedantic about the word normal. All sorts of people engage in all sorts of abnormal behavior (sins) without this level of scrutiny. If someone chooses to engage in behavior that is sinful, harmful, abnormal, or otherwise but does so in a way that doesn’t affect me (obviously this only applies to people I don’t actually know), I usually don’t get to worried about it.
Again, I prefer that everyone stopped engaging in sins, and that people don’t rub their behavior in everyone else’s face, I’d gladly share the gospel with any other sinner and pray for their repentance.
I get that you have a point you want to hammer home, great. It’s pretty obvious.
The point of the post is that society would be better off had the LG movement stayed in the bedroom.
Who someone sleeps with has no bearing on the vast majority of their life outside of their home.
But if you feel the need to keep repeating yourself, feel free to
Last thoughts on this.
1. Normal is a range, not a point. Normal, as we were created, and normal now are not the same.
2. English words meanings tend to be fluid, sometimes for good sometimes not. In this case, it seems clear that you’re defining normal in a very focused way.
3. I will absolutely make common cause with anyone who is working against the woke, alphabet, nonsense. If someone is in agreement with controlling the “trans” mania that we’re seeing, I’ll be thankful for them being on the team. Just like politics, any defections are good defections.
That's not "defection". It's a group seeking to distance themselves from the consequences of their own actions. I'm not being pedantic in insisting homosexuality is not normal in any form in which it appears. It's fact. What we see now was predicted when the homosexual activists first sought to have their perversion legitimized. "Normalized", if you will. They are absolutely not "normal" because they're not outrageous. You're allowing them to do what they do...redefine words and terms to their advantage and benefit. That can't be allowed lest the culture follow. I greatly prefer the culture does not.
I would also insist that opposition to the behavior is apart from the more important opposition to the activism which has led to that normalizing by their demand to be so regarded. Now laws and practices have been altered to accommodate that perversion, which has an effect on the perceptions of the next generation. It decidedly leads others to sin by insisting there's nothing at all "abnormal"...and thus nothing at all wrong...with indulging in the practice.
Yeah...it would have been better had they satisfied themselves with the corrupt Lawrence v Texas ruling and kept their perversion to the privacy of their own hovels. But that, too, was key in their getting us to this point, which they now try to disown and from which they seek to distance themselves.
And it shouldn't be overlooked that this particular sinfulness is unique in the fact that it's been so actively pushed to the point of achieving legal protections. "All sorts of people engage in all sorts of abnormal behavior (sins) without this level of scrutiny", but they don't march for acceptance or push for legal accommodation and by doing so force the rest of us to pretend they're not sinning at all. How many of those "all sorts of people" can successfully sue you for not baking a cake for their celebration of their sinfulness? See the difference?
Post a Comment