H is for...

Christians mostly put up with the New Atheists comments against their worldview, and the New Atheists mostly put up with the Christians responses. In these type of discussions, at least both sides know they are not relativist (even if the atheists can't justify the ontology of morality) and they both hold to informed discussion based on reason, empiricism and emotion.

However, there is another front where worldviews are in conflict, but it seems there can be no civil discussion because one side immediately labels the other intolerant, and the intolerant side holds the standard position of sexuality which is at least two thousand years old.

But it seems however tolerant you are of your own kind (which of cause isn't really tolerance), you can never be inclusive enough. Whatever group or category you fight for, implicitly puts down other categories and groups.

The LGBT group know this. This is why they have added "QQIAAP" to their group. No longer can you be just in favor of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people. If you are, then what are you saying about the Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies and Pansexual people (sometimes 2S is added for those who have two spirits in them)? Do you not accept them?

At lest the "P" doesn't stand for Pedophile, or Polygamy. We have to draw the line somewhere. Those in Cambridge saying that paedophilia is “natural and normal” and those jumping on the legislative bandwagon in America to legalize Polygamy are just wrong... aren't they? If not, why not add two more P's to what we are meant to all be in support for? Don't be so oppressive and narrow.

Another "P" that isn't included is "polyamory", meaning "many loves" which is different to polygamy which is "many marriages". Richard Carrier came out earlier this year as one. It seems he is wired to love more than one woman at a time. This is why he had a few brief affairs in his marriage and now after his divorce he will continue to have multiple girlfriends. That is just who is he, why can't you accept it? I'm sure his wife and her family is happy now that he has come out. Carrier can't change who he is you insensitive and intolerant fool.

"I" for Incest should be right out because there is that "yuck" factor about it. Except, according to an assistant professor in California, should we really be basing laws that make us say "yuck"? Germany has decriminalized incest. We should be more progressive than those European countries. Where is the love and acceptance of all humans?

Of cause "B" for Bestiality is just a step too far, but maybe "Z"for Zoophilia should get a look in. After all, Singer has been saying for years that taboos on sex that do not result in reproduction is illogical, and that zoophilia is OK, as long as you are not harming the animal (because you know, you have to have a moral standard somewhere). The NY Mag late last year also put out an interview with a guy who loves his horse. If you don't like it, the problem is with you. Don't be so judgmental and full of hate.

So what I propose is that we should cut with the hate and narrow bigoted ideas of supporting the LGBTQQIAAP2S community and extend our arms to the LGBTQQIAAP2SPPPIZ community. Surly this new meta label will cover all bases for about 45 seconds... until you find there are people out there who want a strong, stable and solid relationship with a bridge. I don't even know what letter they should get... but just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean you should judge it... After all everyone should be free to express themselves however they want (unless they say they are black when they aren't. That is just straight up wrong).

So, if you are all for this rainbow group (without my stupid additions), then my main question is: what about the H's - the Heterosexuals? If the "QQIAAP" group didn't feel like there were being included in the "LGBT" label, then what is that saying about the Heterosexuals? Where is the love for them? All I ask is that the LGBTQQIAAP2S community be a bit more inclusive.