As we now have trans as a protected class it has shown the slippery slope in full free fall from the “gay rights” debate a decade ago. The problem is that laws based on fallacies will always be abused because their is no need to prove that any additions are legitimate. We have known for centuries men and women are not equal, we have known for centuries that racial aggregates depended on the culture dictating genetics. When we pretended that this didn’t matter we opened the door for non-biological protected classes. There has never been any evidence that being gay or trans is genetic, and there has been inconclusive evidence that gay and trans is biological at all aside from the biological impact occurring from grooming. In fact the best biological evidence we have is that external stimuli (aka other people) is what causes biological changes in the individual. Yet now we have more protected classes that are inherently non-biological than provably biological. These abuses are meant to subjugate not protect, they are meant to deny reality in place of accepting it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
Right, I didn't say that it was. Neither was gay marriage. It was a genuine cause that the state didn't need to regulate families to that degree. Gay marriages themselves have changed effectively nothing because the number of people it effected in reality was so small.
Yes, I know you believe that, and you’re wrong. Gay marriage was always a political ploy sold to people as a civil rights issue. Most gay people didn’t even care about marriage until they were told that denial of marriage was a denial of their identity. The desire for societal acceptance of homosexuality was a thing long before gay marriage ever became a thing. Gay marriage was a natural progression for the political machine that always needs a new cause to justify itself.
Even if I were wrong, it’s irrelevant because it ultimately became political the moment it entered mainstream conversation.
Then we'll have to disagree.