(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best lgbt demographic studies

ha, back in high school we had the sensors on the books like public libraries, and my friends thought it would be hilarious to fuck with me. they slipped this book into my backpack when i wasn't looking, and watched from outside as the hilarity ensued when the librarian made me empty my backpack after i set off the alarms. the sight and sound of them laughing outside the library was enough to convince her that it was a joke, thankfully.

The book appears real, with a listing on Amazon showing a publishing date of 1989. However, its importance seems highly exaggerated. The book only has 25 reviews on the website, and the majority of those are from just within the last few years, by conservatives complaining about it, and the book doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia. Again, not a definitive indication, but a pretty good one.

Critics who are against gay marriage, but for social justice:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Equality-Queer-Critiques-Marriage/dp/0615392687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345951108&sr=8-1&keywords=Against+Equality%3A+Queer+Critiques+of+Gay+Marriage

One cultural commentator who see gay marriage as a desire to conform:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-Faggots-Afraid-Objectification/dp/1849350884/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

One article against gay marriage:
Is the LGBT movement walking down the aisle to nowhere?
http://inthesetimes.com/article/13466/beyond_gay_marriage/

Another gay activist against gay marriage:
http://hivster.com/?p=6315

Same sex couples by nature can’t reproduce though. The research that has been conducted reveals that the idea that there isn’t any difference between a SS and OS couple raising a kid is pretty much debunked.

Opposite sex couples who do not have children are a difference in degree not a difference in kind as SS couples are.

The most recent publishing I would begin with is The Tolerance Trap or Queer by Choice.

In summary, they represent changes made in Queer studies of the past five years which criticize how the current LGBT movement have become severely misguided outside the original challenges of gender and sexuality offered by LGBT academics during 1950-80s, which were not motivated by genetic determinism [born-this-way argument].

Essentially the LGBT political movement in the early 1900's rested on this notion that sexuality is biological truth, despite scientists never fully advocating this and evidence that early environmental factors still play a role; this notion became internalized and unchallenged leading to sexuality developing into a comprehensive biological identity similar to being a women or african-american. The issue still remains that no conclusive evidence has proven that sexuality is anything more than genetically predisposed (with environmental factors also having influence). A double-edged sword comes along with that since many undesirable things, such as schizophrenia and alcoholism, also have genetic predispositions.

These newer books, as well as contemporary Queer theorists in their line, want to challenge the moral claims of sexuality and develop out Queer morality that have nothing to do with biological aspects. In effect sexuality could be a personal choice rather than a genetic punishment. Some queer theorists I have talked with are critical towards the LGBT categorization system, which require and reinforce the uneven foundations of genetic determinism for authentic meaning. Personally, I believe the system hyperinflated nonsense; sexual preferences should not constitute personal identity in that degree.

Some earlier works I would recommend is "Compulsory Heterosexuality" by Adrienne Rich or The History of Sexuality by Foucault. But I would add that Foucault's historical record [which has some problems] is not as important as his critique; One Hundred Years of Homosexuality by Halperin is seen as the better alternative to defend Foucault's views. These theories, however, are within the postmodern era and carry significant problems that are associated throughout the tradition.

I highly recommend Sex and Social Justice by Martha Nussbaum, which argues that so far our history has supervised sexuality rather than proven anything resembling moral truth.

Gayle Rubin's Deviations is a personal favorite that is a mix of queer (lesbian, gay, gay leather, lesbian leather, and other deviant sexual practices) history, anthropology, and theory.

Okay. once again. I AM NOT SAYING PEOPLE ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY. You are saying if someone is not born that way, they cannot change their preference? Whose the mike pence type here?

How the FUCK have I been bigoted? Is anything that questions your rather narrow worldview.. not to mention your devotion to telling others they are wrong in their experiences and feelings, bigoted?

Or are you just utterly incapable of realizing that there are people within the gay subculture who, while a miniscule portion, have nefarious goals and purposes?

For "absolute lunacy", well.. it's happened, and is still happening, but I guess it's easier to put your hands over your ears and pretend it doesn't.

This is why people like Breen got away with it for so long. Because the people who wanted to promote the lifestyle at all cost refused to do anything about it, and figured the net benefit outweighed the abuse of kids that was endemic in the group.

https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Love-J-Z-Eglinton/dp/1589636376

You can read the book by the authors daughter, if you like, about how she was raped by both parents, and watched both parents push an agenda of getting kids early was the only way to get them to recognize their true sexuality. But you probably won't.

On the issue of homosexuality in particular, I've heard good things about Michael Brown's A Queer Thing Happened to America. Been meaning to pick it up myself, but I've other books in queue and this one is a bit lengthy (691 pages).

insert link to the Amazon page for Queering Anarchism here

This

Books:

• Bi: Notes on a Bisexual Revolution by Shiri Eisner
  
  
• Anything edited by Robyn Ochs...
  
  
• Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World
  
  
• Recognize: The Voices of Bisexual Men
  
  
• Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out by Lani Ka'ahumanu and Loraine Hutchins
  
  
• The Bisexual's Guide to the Universe: Quips, Tips, and Lists for Those Who Go Both Ways by Nicole Kristal
  
  Blog: In Focus Blog from bisexual.org
  
  Podcasts:
  
  
• The Bi Talk
  
  
• The BiCast
  
  

Link to book

There was literally a book written about this over 15 years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Queering-Anarchism-Addressing-Undressing-Desire/dp/1849351201/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488722684&sr=1-1

[Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections, and Policy Representation (American Governance and Public Policy series)]
(http://www.amazon.com/Out-Running-Candidates-Representation-Governance/dp/1589016998/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334884978&sr=1-1&tag=bookforyoums-20)

[The Crabapple Tree]
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Crabapple-Tree-Lyndsey-DArcangelo/dp/0557128102/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331352151&sr=1-2&tag=bookforyoudm-20)

a quick google found this book which i doubt is what you refer to? maybe it was this guy? i've read enough of the anti-nazi stuff to think i don't need to be tolerant of the intolerant, and i realise the irony there but i just want people to get along, not genocide each other. there's lots of people who can agree to disagree without wanting the other people to disappear/be migrated against their will etc

Snapshots:

1. Foe those who like reading - archive.org, archive.today, removeddit.com
   
   
2. https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Queer... - archive.org, archive.today
   
   
   
   I am just a simple bot, not a moderator of this subreddit | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

Want to see something scarier? This is something that has been happening for awhile, but most aren't even aware of it, and it's literal propaganda more or less.

https://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0385239068/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=After+the+Ball&qid=1551050012&s=gateway&sr=8-6

Good read.

I read this book many years ago and in one of the essays he starts off stating, in effect, that the most prejudiced people against any minority are members of that minority. It was a bombshell in my brain at the time but I've experienced that to be true. Among gays, racial minorities, religious groups, etc., the most venomous and vociferous prejudice will come from those inside the group, not outside.

The Mafia and the Gays - A really in depth look at this. The Mafia and the Gays

Also the new documentary The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson touches on this. Really cool doc.

> You're right, Democrats were far more supportive of Russia when our trainers were directly fighting theirs in Vietnam and Korea.

This is an even better example of the point I'm trying to make: that wasn't Russia, it was the Soviet Union! There is no such thing as a historically invariant entity called "Russia" such that it makes sense to be "pro-Russian" or "Russo-skeptic" for principled reasons. (You're also conflating a lot of different groups under the heading of "the left" and a lot of different positions under the heading of "support for Russia" --- this whole argument involves a lot of dubious reifications.)

I get that people flip-flop for opportunistic reasons, but people also change their views in response to changes in the state of the world (otherwise you're basically arguing that the end of the Cold War was historically irrelevant), and we should try to do the work to distinguish those things. For example, Darel Paul makes a relatively strong case that Obama's change in public position on gay marriage was tactical rather than principled. But we can't just lump everything into that category without looking at the specifics.

>You haven't proven that

For fuck's sake.

>Fone reveals how and why same-sex desire has long been the object of legal, social, religious, and political persecution.

Look at the word in bold you big fucking dummy. Persecution is an infinitely broader concept than irrational fear. It is looking at the persecution of same sex relationships and using "homophobia" as a catch all title. I do not get why you are making this so fucking difficult. "-phobia" has, for a long fucking time, been used in various political contexts to refer to persecution that doesn't necessarily stem from irrational fear. It took me twenty seconds to find an example. For your sake, here's another:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spectacle-Violence-Homophobia-Knowledge-Corporealities/dp/041518956X/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463864250&sr=1-22&keywords=homophobia

and another:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Love-Homophobia-Bisexual-Transgender/dp/1873328575/ref=sr_1_43?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463864338&sr=1-43&keywords=homophobia

>even addressing it as part of the problem justifies the title under the old definition.

But that's true of this definition of Islamophobia too.

>titles aren't 100% accurate representation of a book.

No, they're just hand-picked by the author for the sake of summarizing what the book is about.

>Bible-believing

Demonstrate it.

> At that point it's a much more nuanced debate that requires a careful look at the whole of scripture,

It's so obvious just reading Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. that homosexuality is a wicked sin in of itself. Cultural peer pressure to accept homosexuality is purely the result of what can be accurately called a psyop. Almost none of what the LGBT crowd proposes is based on logical propositions derived from fundamental principles of truth. Rather, it's based on emotional manipulation (think how the word bigot is used), collective shame (think what happened with Chick-Fil-A and the author, Orson Scott Card), and repetitive propaganda dissemination techniques (homosexual characters in sitcoms, now children cartoons, to the point where "it's not a huge deal).

Think, a few decades ago, homosexuals weren't as ostracized as previously, but it wasn't culturally condemned to hate or revile them. At this time, people who can be described as propagandists and agitators wrote about using effective propaganda techniques in order to switch the moral paradigm. Why is it that you can look back on the past today, and think of how "backwards" people of the past were? It has nothing to do with us being "better," it's because the paradigm of morality and tradition was different. Because moral paradigms are never intrinsically true or universal, even if they're hypothetically based on true and universal morals.