Proof the LBGTQ+ Does Not Want Equality

[FlyingClayDisk]

First off, I don't have an issue with anyone who is a member of the LBGTQ+ community.  I only ask that they, like everyone else, stay in their lane as it relates to their sexual identity.  In other words, don't push your sexual preferences on me, just like I don't push my sexual preferences on anyone else.  I have a BIL who is gay (great guy).  My employer, my boss, is gay.  I have an employee (an Engineer) who is a lesbian non-binary.  All great people whom I associate with on a daily basis, and whom are welcome in my home, at my table, any time.  I am honored to have them as colleagues and friends.

In the same breath, I have to say it is now clear to me that the larger LBGTQ+ community at large is not really interested in equality and/or acceptance.  More specifically, the LBGTQ+ community allows themselves to be represented by people who want not equality and peace, but rather the exact opposite.  They want division and conflict.

So, what am I talking about here?  Well, today I am talking about the recent opening ceremony for the Summer Olympic Games in Paris, France, and in particular the mockery made of the Biblical Last Supper by a group of Trans peoples.  Unless the promoters, and the participants themselves, and their leadership, are completely blind to world demographics, there are about 2.4 billion Christians on this planet (yes, billion).  Christians are not the only religion, but there are still a sizable number of Christians on planet Earth.  In just about ANY religion, it is considered blasphemy to mock the founding elements of that respective faith.  Had such a ceremony mocked Muhammad, Allah and the founding elements of Islam, there would be riots and attacks going on.  Christians don't operate that way, but it doesn't diminish the significance of what took place.  Bottom line...this was very misguided and wrong.

This makes it clear to me that the world leadership of the LGBTQ+ community isn't interested in equality, no, what they really want is attention and conflict.  Did the organizers of this event not even bother to think about the outrage over such a ceremony mocking the Christian Last Supper??  Did the leadership of the LGBTQ+ community not even bother to think about the outrage they would receive from the Christian community over such an event??  Did they not even bother to think that many of their own membership belongs to these larger communities??  Apparently not. 

People who demand equality talk about breaking down obstacles and barriers which they believe separate them from the rest of society.  This is the definition of equality.  When a person or group demands these things (which they should), they are also demanding these walls, barriers and separations be dismantled.  When you have a ceremony in front of the biggest audience on planet Earth which openly mocks Jesus' Last Supper depiction by the famous artist Leonardo de Vinci you are not dismantling barriers, you are making them bigger.  People who condone these events are building walls and barriers, not tearing them down.  In fact, quite the opposite.  They are creating division, not removing it.

There are those who will argue this event was just some light-hearted 'parody', but anyone who says this fails to recognize that something of this nature may be deeply offensive to other people who do not find the humor in such things.  This failure to recognize is the definition of hypocrisy.  It is an open invitation for division, the exact opposite of equality.

In my heart of hearts, I would love to believe that the opening ceremony in Paris was not representative of the LGBTQ+ community, but how can I believe this when the leadership of this world community were so insensitive to allow something like this to be put on stage, in front of the World, during the one event the entire World watches?  No other event brings the world together like the International Olympic Games does.  So, their answer was clear...they didn't care.  What this suggests to me is, they don't want equality...they want conflict, and they want attention.  And, when they don't get it at the Olympics, they will attempt to get it somewhere else...forever.  I stand willing and receptive to being proven wrong.

There is no argument to say, "Well, I'm LGBTQ+, and I didn't support this!"  Why then, did you allow your leadership to condone this?

Sure, we can write all of this off by saying..."Get over it, it's just the goofy Olympics, and they're already nutty!"  Yes, we could dismiss it in this way, but it begs another issue...and in my opinion, this is the real underpinning issue, and it's the issue of trans athletes competing in the Olympics.  After all, isn't this the real underlying motivation for the Trans Last Supper performance?? 

Okay, I have no issue with trans athletes competing in the Olympics IF they are given their own class to compete in.  Create a "TRANS" class of competition.  Fine!  Done.  Trans athletes are allowed to compete in every class of competition EXCEPT women's classes.  They can compete in men's, or Trans' classes (regardless of their birth sex).  At the end of the day, the trans element of the overall population of any group, state, or country is down in the single digits percentage wise, but they want their voices to be heard above all others, because why?  Because they demand...equality.

That's not how you go about getting equality.  And, they've taken over as the spokespeople for the LGBTQ+ community.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Edit - In many segments of Islam, Islamic law metes out the death penalty for anyone who mocks Muhammad, Allah, and/or the Quran...regardless of how innocent the intent may have been.  It doesn't matter.

[RuchardHurt]

Have you given any thought into how Christianity has been attempting to convert everyone far longer that the LGBTQ+ has?
If you want to make the argument that they are way too in ones face about their "program" then you must consider the others attempts to do so. The LGBTQ+ folks have been attacked and put in camps by the Christian faith for generations and even ongoing.
Honestly I believe some people are looking at this in the wrong way. Just look at it as art because that is what the ceremony is. And it seems fairly fitting for the French would you agree?

[FlyingClayDisk]

Have you given any thought into how Christianity has been attempting to convert everyone far longer that the LGBTQ+ has?

Absolutely no argument about that, but is this about 'converting' people, or is this about equality and tolerance?  Two different things in my book.  I thought it was about the latter of the two.  Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the performance.  If the performance was about converting people, I have 5x more problem with it than I did before.  Plus, I don't agree with converting anyone to anything other than what they choose to be (other than criminals).  I don't like it when someone shows up at my door, or bothers me in a public place, trying to convert me to their religion, political ideology, or anything else. 
 

If you want to make the argument that they are way too in ones face about their "program" then you must consider the others attempts to do so. The LGBTQ+ folks have been attacked and put in camps by the Christian faith for generations and even ongoing.

I don't disagree with what you are stating, but in the same breath...two 'wrongs' don't make a 'right'.  And, here again, it seems like you are talking about converting people to the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, over tolerance and equality in society for the same.  The Christians are equally wrong for their persecution (no argument there either).
 

Honestly I believe some people are looking at this in the wrong way. Just look at it as art because that is what the ceremony is. And it seems fairly fitting for the French would you agree?

"Art" I can understand, but true 'art' generally doesn't mock something different from the culture of the artist, it usually celebrates something central to their beliefs.  So, in this context, da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper was celebrating the Christian faith and it's founding.  The opening ceremony was just the opposite, it was making fun of it.  Clearly no sane person would ever make the case that all of the people at the Last Supper, including Jesus, were all LGBTQ+, right?  Perhaps some were, but certainly not all. 

And here's the thing...if a similar performance had been done using Muhammad and the Islamic faith instead, there would be rioting in the streets right now.  Muslims do not see that form of 'art' as art at all, but rather blasphemy of the highest order.  And, I'll bet if you ask the organizers and promoters of this event this exact question their response will be an emphatic..."NO WAY would we EVER consider doing THAT!!  Not using Islam...NO WAY!!"  Therein lies your answer. 

If the opening ceremony for the Olympics wanted to have a celebration of the LGBTQ+ community, then they should have done just that, and ONLY that.  That would have been okay.  But they didn't do this.  Instead they had to attach a religion to it.  This is where the colossal mistake lies, not the fact that it celebrated LGBTQ+ community. 

As to the French doing something like this, yes, it is certainly consistent with the French culture of rocking the boat for the sake of rocking the boat.  No argument.  However, the International Olympic Games isn't about one country, not even the host.  So, in my humble opinion, the IOCC should have stepped in and stopped this before it became the international incident that it has. 

One final thought...what if this event caused someone like the Pope for example, or some Cardinal, to come out and render some sort of an official statement of position?  Did the organizers think about this?  What if the Pope were to come out and take a stand against the LGBTQ+ community for this performance; what then?  This builds more of a wall, more of a divide and creates less equality and less tolerance for the very thing they were trying to achieve.  Did they think about this?  Did they even care?

[Karl12]

Yes everyone is 'tolerant' and they should be.

Guess where the problem lies is in the 'hijacking' of the movement.

Some of the kindergarten books now promoted to extremely young kids are truly disturbing and most gay people I know are truly disgusted as well.

Would really advise looking into the founding document of the 'Q' movement and its open promotion of pedophilic antics - the MAP movement is also completely insane (unless a person thinks it's socially acceptable for adults to rape kids).

Here's Prof Jensen discussing it.

[Maxmars]

...

I kind of am writing this as I read your OP, so I apologize if I don't edit it correctly to avoid confusion.

I have always held reservations about the entire concept of "gay community."  I suppose it comes from considering the idea of "hetero" community a laughable notion.

I get that it's only my opinion, so this may be superfluous but, private sexual behavior seems an illogical principle to choose as the quintessential definition of 'communal existence.'  Perhaps it reaches back to a more puritanical social order which placed such a high taboo on 'sex' in general, but I always felt that the subject was strictly a matter of personal intimacy... and making it a public thing changes, or even eliminates, it's spiritual value.

But it is not my place, or anyone's to intrude in personal, sexual, intimate preferences... so I am only willing to entertain the subject intellectually, if it is pertinent.  

Enter activism as practiced by today's 'activists,' all of whom use blatant theatrical tactics, and heavy rhetoric to manipulate topics expressly to make them relevant (not that they are in some cases.)

The "community" of LGBTQ+ seems to only exist where 'public behavior' is the issue.  So I might say that while talking a good game of equity and equality, it is not so much about 'freedom to exist' as it is about 'freedom to proselytize imagery.'

Insofar as the Olympic opening ceremony... I think of it like this... They are 'acting.'  To what end, and what point, I can only speculate.  Clearly the blanket justification of freedom of expression will suffice as protection against censure...  People will respond according to their own judgments (and biases) - and that particular freedom is being 'represented' by the media in such a way as to "play the game" of making this a "look and see" subject.  

It's good for business.  

So the media will stoke fires where it can, and/or 'virtue signal' for the masses that generate clicks and income.

But this matter will not be served by activism.  To resolve the problem takes more than imagery ("Oh, perish the thought" - said the media.)

"Equality" is the buzzword.  It is used to evoke moral judgment, yet taken alone it means nothing moral at all.  Like defining misinformation, the word "equality" only has 'perspective' relevance.  This is the real world, not math theory... there is no equal in the human world ever.  We may negotiate equality... but is is simply a desired path... not an ultimately achievable goal (except in our memories.)

Because of that, activists can abuse the spirit of the concept to any end.

Yeah, some 'activist' minded folks wanted an "In-your-face, I'm gonna be famous!" piece for the Olympics... and they did it...  They only thing that would really be consider 'counter activism' would be a mass boycott of the Olympics... and that won't happen because: money.

I won't accept their claims of "parody" because it's just an excuse to "do whatever they want."  Explain the parody value if you can...  and when parody has no point, it has no value.

[FlyingClayDisk]

...

Max,

Just to be clear, my OP wasn't about LGBTQ+ -ism (is it okay to express it this way?), I am ambivalent about it.  My post was about the flaunting of it in the face of Christianity at the Olympic Games opening ceremonies.  On the one hand, like yourself, it's not my place to intrude on others lives, but on the other hand, I feel others should respect the same about my life.  I support their cause in the sense that I support freedom for people to act, and love, and be as they wish.  I object to their cause when 'some' try to shove it down my throat.  But I think you knew all this (hopefully) from my opening paragraph in the OP.

I agree with much of what you say at the end of your reply.  I'm not sure I agree with the 'need' for the MSM to "fix" anything; they have done more than enough damage to this country and the world at large.  The MSM has no interest in "fixing" anything, anything at all.  If they can inflame it, or make it worse, they most assuredly will...for selfish reasons.  Their interests are only served by sensationalism, conflict and doom-porn; this gets clicks, and it sells advertisements, without which these mercenaries, ambulance chasers, and purveyors of evil would cease to exist.  Clearly, I have no love loss for the media (MSM, or other).

I write this reply not to take issue with what you wrote, but to applaud it for the most part.  The only correction, or advice, I would offer is...it is my feeling you have every right to fully express your opinion (in my opinion).  There is no shame in that; it is the fabric from which true freedom is cut.

I appreciate your thoughts and your input.

[Maxmars]

Perhaps unnecessarily, I want to extend an apology of a sort, I responded to you, immediately after conversing on that subject, which left me possibly making it appear that I meant it as specifically for you.  (I call that "poster's baggage," an unhappy but mostly innocent thing, when you find yourself talking to past stimuli.

Sorry about that.

 

On topic,

The "mockery" of the Last Supper was intentional.  It was paid for.  The "Pontius Pilot" defense doesn't mean they didn't know what they were doing when they produced this performance for this venue and time.  But they did it because they could.  We need to get over that... somehow.

[Lysergic]

They told me we were going to explore the stars... but here we are.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

In a song?



Same rules apply as sexually charged shock rock. When I was young, I liked Marylin Manson specifically because people said all the disturbing crap he did. Him and Peter Steele.

This is exposure of gay subculture to the masses that weren't ready. When it was the 80s and it took place in NY Subways (Party Monster) and it was a daytime TV novelty or weird trans-kids. Still very much outsiders.

All I saw from that "desecration of Christian iconography" were Club Kids. The overthetop self-expression culture that started in the 80s and exploited transgressive behavior.

Or more up to date, "Burning Man," which is a bunch of weird French looking costumes in the desert. It's the Left-leaning expressive culture.

And it's sexualized, which I don't think is realized by everyone. They see their liberation, or some personal expression, but everyone else a sees a guy that didn't tape off his junk fully in what is seen as a perverted costume.

And that's what you get for trying to normalize the transgression of in your face sexual deviation. And it is. Though I echo "Get over it" sentiments, I'm not going to care if it offends people and they fight it. It wouldn't be humanity if they didn't.

And if there's going to be Christian Nationalism, it had a catalyst.

To simplify: The collective hive mind of LGBT concerns didn't think people were used to it yet.

They are going to play cultural Satan. As religion seeks to get them out of the limelight they are going to use shock tactics to transgress the christian status quo.

In sandskrit it would be a Vamachara reflex. Like instead of an aghori shocking hindu by covering themselves in ash and scaring children in graveyards, they do weird satires of DiVinci and Christianity.

That opening bit might as well be an aghori performance at a festival for Parvati.