Suggestion - Gender equality "Battle Stance", "Victory Pose" and weapon idle emotes

[Ceallach]

First of all, you're dead wrong because not all gay men are "camp" or effeminate. A pretty decent number of them are, but they're not all like that. In fact, you probably know a few gay men you may have otherwise considered straight because they're not camp. I'll digress, this wouldn't be an issue if we didn't demonize people who behaved outside of the traditional gender conforming norms instead of demanding that they do arbitrarily. There is no biological bases for women wearing dresses or makeup just as there's no biological basis for men to be the breadwinners while women stay home and raise the children. It's scientifically verified for my latter example to be a tremendously malleable thing regardless of gender. By your very logic, lesbian couples who raise children should be rearing some well-developed, well-rounded, superhuman children.

Except that they'd have no strong male influence.

You're playing with some fine fire here, as I'm familiar with the conspiracy that academia is out to dismantle "traditional values" in favor of "degeneracy". I'm not sure if this is where you're headed with the topic and I'd hope not because this is a nice change of pace.

But if that really is the hill you want to die on, I will kill you on it. I mean that with respect and metaphorically speaking, of course.

Well, ultimately, I am a Christian and I will adhere to the Bible above even what peer-reviewed journals state. In light of that, I believe our understanding of science can be flawed, and all people have inherent biases we cannot escape from, some of which are categorically in favor of what the Bible teaches is right or wrong. Whether there is or is not actually a "degeneracy" agenda running amok in academia isn't really the point, though it wouldn't surprise me if that actually was the case. Either way, different people are going to see the same things in different ways.

What we're seeing in our culture is that gender roles need not be this rigid thing considering gender roles are arbitrarily decided by us. People have been having our exact conversation for centuries, my friend and it was all to reach this singularity of egalitarianism that we continue to steadily march towards that will overall be more beneficial to the species when we stop allocating ridiculous standards that have no biological bases towards the sexes. Women wearing pants, women going to work, men being stay-at-home parents, this was all a long time coming.

I'd simply argue that traditional gender roles are the ideal. I recognize they are not always possible. I just worry that, once you've achieved this totally egalitarian society, it will be that equality that will prove its downfall. You'd end up with a more extreme version of a real life Amaurot: a culturally Marxist community in which individuality does not exist, and self-destruction is the only escape. You say certain standards are ridiculous, yet you have yet to accomplish the proof of egalitarianism as a moral high ground. I posit that you cannot, though this discussion would take us away from peer-reviewed journals and well into the realm of faith and philosophy. I'd like to bring this to your attention, as I found it interesting. It may or may not be proof of much of anything, but I'll get to why I think it's worth looking at in a moment.

In response to your edit, Ceallach.

And yet there are more studies being published with an increased efficiency in methodology to support that the science is pretty much settled at this point. For instance, that article you've provided was posted int 2012, one of the articles I linked was submitted in 2014 for posterity's sake. If you want me to find more up to date articles, that can be arranged.

Yet science purports that it's literally nothing to do with "claiming the taboo" and more evidence supporting the fact that there is a biological precedent considering heterosexual parents are having gay kids. This is precisely the reason why you can't "cure" homosexuality. Yes, there is a psychological aspect present, but that also includes heterosexual individuals as well. They didn't wake up and decided to prefer the opposite sex, that's something literally hardwired into them. The same goes for homosexual individuals. If you want to tell me that heterosexuality is a social construct, feel free to claim that. Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon, it's existed since the dawn of humanity. The difference is that we kill people a lot less now for simply being gay.

If you're positing that homosexuality is a choice for the sake of taboo and degeneracy, I pinky promise I'll crush you on that topic. No question.

You say that, but science hasn't found anything resembling a "gay gene." I'm sure you'd say "not yet," but until then, you may as well claim Oort clouds create comets.

As I understand it, science would not function without laws of several types. There are, of course, the laws of physics that we can test against empirically, but there are also laws of logic. I argue that such laws require an absolute to set them in place and cannot be the product of random chance. After all, if something like gravity worked differently at some given time and without some workable pattern, you obviously couldn't rely on it. That's not what we observe, however, and there are even mathematical formulas to figure out the force of gravitational pull.

Now here's why I bring such things up. If there are indeed laws of logic, then such laws must be static, eternal, and impossible to change. These prerequisites make it impossible for them to have been created by mankind. Discovered? Sure. Taught? You betcha. But not created. Like the laws of physics, the laws of logic would be inherent in reality well before there were people to think about them. Without these laws, science would be impossible. Therefore, logic dominates science in much the same way it dominates philosophy.

As a Christian, I believe it was God who put these laws in place. It's fine if you don't, I'm simply explaining my stance. As a result, it is also my belief science "submits" to God, and human logic has limitations. We can debate all day about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, about whether traditional gender roles are better or worse, and so forth. But at the end of the day, when there's a Final Authority, it's only logical to side with the Final Authority. It is on Him the laws of logic are based, in addition to the laws of nature and the laws (yes, laws) of morality. This is why I would posit moral relativism, as one example, is an extremely flawed view.

It is also on this basis that I challenge the morality of egalitarianism. Upon what absolute(s) can you say it is morally correct?

Traditional gender roles are old and boring. It's 2019. And that link? Not only does it sound fishy as hell ("traditional gender roles bring the greatest happiness"? This isn't the 50s, and it literally says that households with men that do household chores have sex less? Gross x1000), but definitely not accurate. I defy gender roles and would be considered gender nonconforming at the very least, and I like it so much more than being forced to dress, act, etc. a certain way based on gender. I can do whatever I want, and that makes me a lot happier than whatever garbage you're clinging on to.

This is getting off topic, and you seriously creep me out. You sound like you'd send me to conversion therapy. I'm not interacting with you anymore.

And thank you ScarboroughFairy for tackling something I'm tired of fighting from dealing with it irl.

We were being respectful enough to hide this conversation from those who didn't want to look at it (like you, apparently). You could at least show the same decency. But as an aside, that sounds like selfish pride to me, and that is always a bad sign no matter what one believes.