What does it matter whether it's a tradition or a legal punishment? It's still fucked up.

Just reverse it and have a country which imprisons all those of Saudi Arabian descent, now that sounds fucked up doesn't it?

As pointed out already, the shunning of the LGBT community does put them in harms way too by treating them as different from the rest of the human race, thus emboldening acts of violence against them by similar minded bigots or harming them mentally, driving up suicide rates, taking away their basic human right to be treated equally as everyone else, etc.

Also, you can be gay without harming anyone if the bigots were just open-minded.

Weak excuse for bigotry.

People can still have families and raise children whilst co-existing equally with gay people, it literally doesn't change a single thing about whether they can do that or not. Whether you shun gay people or not, they aren't having a biological child with the opposite sex because guess what, they're gay! Some gay dude isn't going to suddenly start boning every woman he sees to produce children because laws say it's wrong for him to be gay.

Those straight people who want a child and want to start a family still can. Gay couples can start families via surrogacy or adopting the hundreds of children stuck in the adoption system and create families that way as well. As Lurker said, there are actual reasons why people are more reluctant to start families nowadays and the LGBT community isn't one of them.

Holding on to one's beliefs is fine in principle I guess, but that comes with restrictions. You cannot expect others to make changes that suit your particular needs, and that means you will have to do without some things.

Slavery were traditions based on religious doctrine and social norms and existed before civilization started to institutionalize.
Slavery is supported in the Muslim Quran, Christian Bible and Jewish Torah, all three middle-eastern Abrahamic religions are in support of it.

It's actually no different than criminalizing LGBT people which is heavily supported by religion.

But torturing Homosexuals for how they were born is okay? It's harming an entire demographic.

Seems you have double standards here buddy and it's been rather humorous to see you try and dig your way out of your hypocrisy to justify your perceived biases.

1) LGBTQI people CAN reproduce. And have Reproduced. And WILL reproduce.
It's not the 1920's. Technology has come a long way... And you need to remove yourself out of the false idea that everything is binary/black and white.

2) The world is over-populated with millions of children across the planet homeless or displaced, if only straight people are responsible for "reproduction" as you put it, maybe they should start being responsible and actually start looking after the problem they made?
Or do you just turn a blind eye to that?

Saudia Arabia is just a backwards nation that hates LGBTQI people... Will happily throw them in jail, torture them and treat them as inferior individuals... And it ACTUALLY says A LOT about a person (I.E. you) who DEFENDS another country that openly attacks an entire demographic.

Do you know another empire that openly attacked and murdered Homosexuals? Hitler and the Nazi empire. - This is the comparison here and it is NOT a good club to be in.

I think they fear that it will brainwash people into becoming gay and don't realise they are born that way. They way some societies act is like its a fad that only appeared in the last 50 years lol.

Hell I am sure that there are some fucked up people in the world, who may want to get social media attention and pretend to be, but that would be like 0.1%.

The question here is why are gay people born? and have been born for thousands of years. why are people who aren't interest in sex born? why are people who are not fertile born? why are there people born who despise kids and want nothing to do with them? simple answer is natural population control. 

Granted we now have technology to help people have children, but before we got to this point, it was as simple as that, to ensure population doesn't explode which made sense before we took over the whole planet.

We were not even meant to live this long but as we evolved we have found ways to extend our lives. To think that not that long ago most people would be lucky to get to 12-15 years old.

PS - wonder if they know that the male Y chromosome is actually slowly disappearing. Granted it will take a few million years (if we don't blow each other up before then), but if we get to that point it will be a planet of lesbian women who self reproduce lol.

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.

One of the reasons Saudi Arabia and Qatar helped Musk to buy Twitter. They love the idea to have someone who likes to shoot against that community to be the owner of this huge platform. They also love the idea that millions who might have been banned on Twitter in the past won't anymore for hate posts against this community. 

It's not only about what they don't want to see in their own country like some try to say. 

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

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.

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?

I'm sure Saudi Arabia loves how Musk is pushing twitter to have less censorship.

Perhaps were you live it is different, but in Brazil the pressure to have couples generating children is still something quite common, although I totally agree with you, even if I think being father is one of the best things in the world the decision to be one is very specific to those affected and no one else should interfere unless these people are putting the children in harms way.

Your case I totally don't consider an attack or trying to destroy family, even if you consider marrying your gf for me that is a family (even if small and personally think that in 20 years you, her or both may repent of the choice - and sometimes one of the partners say they don't want to not confront the other or lose the relationship, obviously I'm not implying it is you case as I do like you as a person and want you to have a happy life).

When I talk about attacks and destroying I'm talking more on propaganda, media and etc, individual behaviors can't be taken at that level unless they are very criminal in nature (and I would go further that they also would need to be anti-ethical and the like, because for me something being legal or ilegal don't make it also ethical or unethical as the cases of slavery even when legal is unethical and gay marriage even when illegal is completely ethical - not even sure it should/would have a classification anyway).

The attack I mean is more on a structural level. Some may say it is biggoted or retrograde if one want, but I do see the damage the lack of either father or mother figure may give to children and also that a familiar nucleus is the root for growth from generation to generation of well being for individuals. Fortunately I don't have any bad example for both parents of the same sex, but I certainly do have a lot for single parents (and sure also a lot for bad parents or houses in conflict). So for me it is very clear that when the "santity" (I'm atheist) of the marriage is dimished and parents don't respect one another, doesn't share the struggles and help each other you end up damaging the children.

Still all of that is very far from the topic =p

~ Thread moved to Politics ~

I see. And where is that pressure to have children coming from in Brazil? And in what form?

As for me, I have been open to having children with a previous girlfriend (before this one), if it was really important to her. And it was.
Luckily we didn't stay together for too long, so that didn't happen. I've had that same discussion with my current partner some years ago, but I now feel like that idea would have been a mistake.
Because some people realize later that they are not right for each other, and yet may feel obliged to stay together for the sake of their children. (Which could be better or worse for those children depending on the people.) And I definitely realized later on that my ex was not someone to spend the rest of my life with.

But even when two people are right for each other, forcing yourself to have children for someone else is probably not a great idea.
I'm pretty certain that my gf truly does not want to have children because I did tell her about me being willing to do that for my ex, and she was the one who brought up that she doesn't see herself being interested in children. If someone changes their mind, over the years you'd probably notice some signs. But with her its more like the opposite.

Last week we were in a discord group chat and someone asked if a freind of ours is dong well/is happy. And my gf replied that he must be happy because "he has 5 children. Who wouldn't be happy. The meaning of life :)". And everyone started laughing at the sarcastic tone.
Context, this friend of ours has complained on many occasions about his children, and that started long before he had as many as 5. 
No offense to anyone who has a bunch of kids and is happy, because there certainly are people like that I'm sure. But we specifically know that this person is having a rough time with them.

That's just one of many examples over the years, but I'm not getting the sense that she's just trying to humor me regarding having children.
A big part of why I don't want to is that I feel like I only have so much of my time to devote to myself, my family, friends, her, etc, that the thouht of devoting a lot of time to children (whom I currently don't even know) is very unappealing to me.
I still want to be able to go wherever I want, or travel whenever I want, etc.

One of my closest friends has two children. A daughter and a son. Both are around 10 years old by now.
He loves his daughter a lot, but despises his son. A lot.
I'm sure he also loves him at the same time in some ways, but literally every time he says something to him or about him, it's complaining, or joking about how he wishes Thanos was real because of the 50/50 chance that his son would be snapped away, etc.
And from some of the stories I've heard, it's not entierly unwarranted. (A few months ago he created a $3000 bill from microtransactions in a mobile game, and last week he destroyed his 6th controller.)

So there's that RNG when you have children since you don't know how they'll turn out. You're hoping for a 5* unit from the gacha, but it might be a 2*.

Anyway, I don't really have the same regard for a 'traditional family' as some people. Because I don't know if it is as important as people thought ages ago when that standard was established. Because back then, there were barely any other options. So that was pretty much the only frame of reference people had.

I was raised by a single mother, while my father had children with 3 different women. Me and my sister were the last ones, but my parents still separated when I was young enough to not even remember all of us living together. Dad would come visit us once every month or so. He was super nice. Never once heard him even so much as raise his voice or even express annoyance about anything. Always calm and collected.
But considering how I didn't really see him more than once a month, if even that, I wouldn't say I had a consistent father figure in my life.
And my sister... was notoriously difficult to get along with. Let's put it that way. To the point where I broke all ties with her when I was 14. We lived in the same house, but I basically wouldn't speak to her ever again since then. And things were a lot better after that.

At the same time I had two close friends who are still my close friends to this day, and we call each other brothers.
They have always been much more of a family than my sister ever was.

I never wanted more of a family than I had. (Obviously, I wanted one less sibling even.)
Of course, I can't really know exactly what I missed out on if dad had been with us the whole time and my sister had a different personality. But I think I turned out fine relatively speaking. At least I know a lot worse people out there, even though they grew up in a staple family.

To me, family isn't something set in stone, and not neccesarily defined by blood either. Or marriage for that matter.
Although I'm not against getting married at all. But I'm also not particularly interested in it. So if it never comes up, I don't really care.

I wouldn't push anyone else to think or live like me. But I would also say that if you don't have a traditional family, I don't think there's anything neccesarily wrong with that.
Not sure if that counts as propaganda to destroy traditional families though.

Family pressure is usually the most prevalecente one, although friends/peer pressure still exist as well.

Forcing yourself to have children certainly is bad in my opinion and that is one reason it is very important to have this (and other discussions) to avoid frustration down the road, you may both love one another, but if critical points doesn't match there is great chance for the relationship to not work out. Thankfully you seem to be on a good road.

Regarding the discord chat, well this friend may like to complain just for the sake of complaining just like many married couple complain about being married or being married to that specific person but can't imagine or want a life without that person, it is just self-mockery. But yes if the person isn't happy having 2 children there isn't a logical reason to keep making more (perhaps the partner wants more and the person just agree to try and make the other happy, and sometimes that is misunderstanding as the other person don't want more but is actually making more to make the first person happy but they never openly talked about the subject, so common in relationship).

About the friend with 2 children, perhaps he is falling in educating this small menace (it is hard and I do understand why you don't want to burden yourself with, and myself I'm very egotistical on this front still it really makes me happy to make and see my children happy they enter as high priority that satisfy me by pleasing them, sure it isn't something very logical or that would entice someone that didn't got through the experience).

And yes children is very much an unknow variable, you may do everything right and the result being very poor or the opposite.

Certainly today a "tradicional family" is much less relevant than past century in a lot of places, as a lot of discrimination against women makes less sense today than it did 100 years ago (because sure a lot more jobs needed muscle power that wouldn't be expected of women at that time, but today there is a lot less of those works). So as others said here, if the tradition is something that makes good for most people (preferentially all) it will naturally sustain, if it harms it will be fought and disappear with time.

From what I do know of you, you seem like a fine person, and sure we can't really know if you would turn better or worse if your father was more present in your life, or if perhaps even the once a month was enough to give you parameter. And also sure it is wrong of anyone, myself included, to measure you or anyone else using oneself as parameter or standard. I do think I turned quite well and believe it is strongly due to familial ties (sure there are some hiccups and bad cases to be remembered, but mostly all my relatives I have a very good relationship with perhaps not super deep but enjoyable).

I can certainly agree that family doesn't need or is defined by blood or marriage, but by the bonds and what they mean to you. So in that way even an "orthodox family" as a very strong tie with friends that help you develop yourself (because for me that is the key of family, support you as you support them to help one another develop and grow). And there is nothing wrong on not having a traditional family imho, as in most cases you aren't the one responsible for it.

And as I said you certainly aren't someone that makes propaganda or try to destroy families or the notion, at least I didn't perceive anything in this line from you.

The destruction I put is more on those very biggoted views that overcompensate to the opposite side of "tradition" and try to put every man as potential rapist, society as being totally oppresive of women in favor of men, traditional family as ruined and toxical for society, etc. There are some cases of ads on this line and there is a very clear editorial standard for this in newspaper in Brazil (like gender, race, etc being heavily reported when it is "a group of power" or ignored when it is otherwise and sometimes doesn't even report the case).