By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hiku on 10 May 2023
Edit Thread

Maybe we should move this to the Politics section since it has gone off the rails.

Lavamelon said:
Ka-pi96 said:

What tradition and cultural values exactly?

Allowing gay people to exist doesn't mean you're forced to participate in any gay activities. Just like allowing a video game with a gay character to release doesn't mean anybody would be forced to play that game.

Saudi Arabia is a country where having families and raising children plays an important role in society. Since homosexual relationships do not produce children, it doesn’t really fit in with Saudi tradition of starting families. If homosexual relationships could produce children, then perhaps it would be more compatible with Saudi Arabian society.

I know that we are steering away from the topic of FF16 being banned in Saudi Arabia, so I will end my discussion here. But if you wanted to know why homosexuality is not seen favourably in Saudi Arabia, there is your answer.

I think someone else went into this, but there are people who physically cannot have children. People with no interest in having children. People who should not be parents. Who are asexual (little or no sexual desire). Who never find a suitable partner. Who don't have time to make a family. Who can't afford it. Etc, etc.

The list of the many scenarios where producing children are not an option goes on and on.

So why the hyper focus and scapegoating on gay people?
I mean, I'm straight. And I absolutely do not want to have children. Neither does my gf. And I know several other couples like that. But no one is persecuting us for that. It's just the gays, who probably want to adopt, that get the blame. So this sounds like a weak excuse.

There are millions of children, many of whom are unwanted, but forced into this world by those same people because they limit or ban abortion, due to "caring about the children" but then leave them to rot in an orphanage, foster care or on the streets for the rest of their lives.

If only there was a group of people who could not produce children of their own, and would have to adopt. (Or find a surrogate.)
But no. Let's make their existance illegal.

DonFerrari said:
LurkerJ said:

I applaud the right for the way they drive their message effectively even if their entire line of arguments are based false hypotheticals. I don't understand how it became a mainstream opinion that LGBT rights are a threat to families. 

The family structure in the west has been under attack by the right and by the Neo-liberal policies for over 20 years (unfortunately, pushed forward by the centre left). But nope, it's the LGBT rights (which ironically would encourage gay to start families of their own through adoption or other means). 

Houses not being affordable anymore on a single salary working full-time, unless you're in a competitive field and at the top of your game 100% of the time or being asked to spend more time and money chasing college degrees to be "worthy" of a decent salary, or get two jobs or signed mortgages from cradle to grave etc. Yet, all I hear is how the LGBT community is a threat to families and birth rates, what a nasty cop out. 

Attacks against traditional family is very much a left view action, I don't remember anything from the right wing that is target on destroying families or its meaning. And usually when LGBT are target on the destruction I do agree most of the time it is wrong, because real world LGBTs have and valorize families but media pull is usually "against patriarcade", "against monogamy", etc.

What do you mean by 'attacks' and 'destroying'?
Me and my girlfriend for example don't want to have children. (We have cats though.) Is that considered an 'attack' and 'destroying'? Something we didn't want in the first place?

Last edited by Hiku - on 10 May 2023