Of course! Plus, no one can force you to have a relationship with anyone.

@Jedly If you won't be intimate with transfolks, you're transphobic.
[yourtango.com]

Super funny.

Hello there. This boy's video was taken down, he and his family received death threats from some LGBT+ people (possibly activists?), it has been quickly associated with the far-right and now it is called "super-straight movement", etc., etc. Why are people so reactive and keen to politicise everything? I don't understand.

Teen virgin from tic tok

What exactly is a "normal" person though? If you are basing that on what is most seen in nature, then marriage isn't normal, and the most normal thing for people to do is be polyamorous.

This is really a bunch of people having an overreaction to an extremely small subset of a minority group. The overwhelming majority of people in the LGBTQ community do not care about your sexuality. No one is trying to "erase lesbians" or force people to sleep with people they don't want to. The small group that does have this mentality are basically the "incels" of the LGBTQ community, who think they are owed sex from whoever they want, regardless of personal preferences or attraction or free will. You don't see other groups doing this in reaction, like "super feminist" or "super sexual" to combat incels.

Hello. Even some trans people are irritated by this all. "My sexuality is my business, leave me alone" like.

@JacksonNought

Marriage is not normal? You know how many species mate for life? Marriage is just wary civilisations way of formalising it.
And it had massive benefits to early civilisations who practiced it over those who did not.
Just as mating for life have huge advantages for some species over those that don’t.
Marriage has everything to do with forcing fathers to raise their children. It has almost no impact on women.
Not forcing fathers to take care of their children are one of the main reasons we have so many societal problems and is a much bigger cause than colonialism or racism or any other -ism people want to blame.

I agree with everything else you said.
The super thing is a cry for attention.

Well, except search the phrase... multitudes of media sites felt it necessary to report on it as a transphobic right-wing internet campaign.

@Naomi, yes I know. It's a marginal minority. That's maybe why they are so empowered.

@Hanno I am just asking where from the definition of "normal" is based. Govols seemed to use it in a way to call LGBTQ people abnormal, and so I am trying to find out what normal is. Again, if the argument is what is most common in nature, then a lot of what humans do isn't normal. Are there benefits towards marriage in society and mating for life? Sure. But is it normal? Not really. Only 3-5% of species mate for life, with a large portion of them being birds. There have been more occurrences of homosexual behavior in species than monogamy.

@JacksonNought
Agreed, picking on marriage (or rather long term relationships where fathers are involved in their children) is however a bad example to pick on.
However as usual that is my opinion.

In my view homosexuality is “normal”.
We use the word “normal” in context and it may mean several things and is different for everyone so fair call to ask that “normal” is qualified.

@JacksonNought, @Hanno
Normal means conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. I think it is only fair that what you call normal is different from what @govols calls normal, the same as your reality is different from his.

@JacksonNought

I put it in quotes for a reason. By it I intended something like in accordance with cultural norms with which a broad majority of ones oldest living fellows would have been accustomed in their child rearing years.

@JacksonNought "Normal" means nothing until you put it in context.
Normal human behavior is not necessarily normal throughout all of nature. In that context, wearing pants would be abnormal.
It's also not relevant that this is a "small subset of a minority group". The LGBTQ+ community, itself, is a small subset of the larger group. Actually it's a conglomeration of 5+ smaller, distinct communities banded together in an on-going quest to appear statistically significant; together still making up less-than 5% of the population or so.
And yet... the other 95% are expected to hang on their every word or be chased out of polite society as "*-phobic".
Why should they be heard, but their own minority contingent be ignored?
What's the threshold for who's voice matters?

@rway ok well only a little more than 13% of the people in the USA are black... and we are expected to hang on their every word and be chased out of polite society? Why should they be heard? Why does their voice matter? Why should they get equal rights to get married or get housing or job protection or medical care or be allowed to go into public and be granted public accommodation at restaurants and public transport...

Yeah, that's basically the argument that you are making. Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? You can't (well I guess in the US you can, until recently, and even still today) deny civil rights to people just because they are in a minority.

@JacksonNought umm... that's like the exact opposite of the argument I'm making.
I'll type it slower this time:
You suggested that we dismiss the "incels" of the LGBTQ community, as an "extremely small subset of a minority group."... because "The overwhelming majority of people in the LGBTQ community do not care..."

I merely suggested that we don't dismiss people's voices simply because they are a minority.
In actual practice, we do the opposite; which sounds like the "nice" thing to do and all... but we take it to a ludicrous extreme. Now we deny rights to people just because they are not in a minority, and I'm talking about actual Rights, not "civil rights". Case in point: that White couple that had their guns actually taken away because they got them out when their home was threatened. Which is.... uh..... what they're for; and more importantly: what the 2nd Amendment is for.
That's why it's become fashionable... desperately fashionable, for people to trip over each other these days trying to establish some claim... any claim, to "minority" status of one kind or another. Or, more than one if they can get away with it... the more the better. Whoever checks the most intersectional boxes gets to be first-up at the podium. And you're not allowed to disagree with them. So just agree with whatever they say or you're a This-ist or a That-ist, or a Whatever-they-claim-to-be-ist. In which case you'll be viciously ostracized, mostly by all those self-loathing simpletons who are so desperately trying to prove to themselves, and to everyone around them, that they're "woke".

I think I do see your point, though. These wack-jobs are just that... wack-jobs; don't lump them in with all LGBTQ. Agreed.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum...”
—Noam Chomsky