Does the environment affect ones sexuality?

dteowner said:
See, though, this sliding goalpost thing troubles me. We're quick to demonize anyone that doesn't buy into society's sense of "normal" at any given point in time. Right now, society has determined that it's cool to be gay so anyone that doesn't buy into that opinion is a loon. A few decades ago, that exact same nebulous "society" was decidedly anti-gay due to the HIV outbreak and anyone that didn't buy into that opinion was a loon. And these ever-shifting definitions of "normal" aren't always moving in the direction of greater tolerance, either— Muslims haven't always been deemed terrorists one-n-all, but that's certainly the "normal" these days and anyone thinking otherwise gets tarred as a loon or enabler.

So really, we're demonizing HHR and Damian not so much because they must be bigots, but rather because they've failed to keep up with the changing opinions of the current prevailing "normal". That bothers me just a bit.
Click to expand...

DTE - your examples make no sense.

Gay people have been ostracized in our country for a long time, and remained closeted out of shame and fear - and the rights of homosexuals were not equal. It is similar to how the marriage of black & white was illegal in many southern states until the supreme court, and it remained a fearful subject for decades after. As for HIV, the loons were ones like Reagan who used the spectre of the so-called 'gay plague' to mobilize the 'moral majority' and make it seem righteous to non-science people to defund research into the disease until more than 20,000 American citizens had died ... he wouldn't even mention or discuss it.

As for HHR and Damian ... well, HHR in particular. He isn't just saying "I am opposed to gay marriage because I interpret the teachings of my church to say that same-sex marriage is not permitted, that marriage is meant for procreation between one man and one woman." While I oppose that view - it is an opinion that we could debate ... and my basic reply would be that the government should divest 'marriage' and instead confer a contract for 'domestic partnership' that contains the legal details of marriage (shared property, hospital rights, etc), but leave the religious interpretation to each church.

The problem is that he seeks to existentially eliminate them, ostracize them, and dehumanize them. The first by diminishing their existence to a 'bad choice' using bogus studies. The second by pretending it is 1979 and Studio 54 is all the rage with gay bath houses, promiscuity and so on. And finally by singularly attributing all negative characteristics to them and seeking to outlaw them.

At that point it stops being about 'norm-shaming', and about a truly hate-ful form of discrimination and attempts to marginalize them to the point where they can be openly hunted like in Russia.

We can have spirited discussions about rhetorical subjects, but when your clear goal is to cause harm to and marginalize the life of hundreds of millions of people ... that is a different deal.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,976
txa1265 said:
DTE - your examples make no sense.

Gay people have been ostracized in our country for a long time, and remained closeted out of shame and fear - and the rights of homosexuals were not equal. It is similar to how the marriage of black & white was illegal in many southern states until the supreme court, and it remained a fearful subject for decades after. As for HIV, the loons were ones like Reagan who used the spectre of the so-called 'gay plague' to mobilize the 'moral majority' and make it seem righteous to non-science people to defund research into the disease until more than 20,000 American citizens had died … he wouldn't even mention or discuss it.

As for HHR and Damian … well, HHR in particular. He isn't just saying "I am opposed to gay marriage because I interpret the teachings of my church to say that same-sex marriage is not permitted, that marriage is meant for procreation between one man and one woman." While I oppose that view - it is an opinion that we could debate … and my basic reply would be that the government should divest 'marriage' and instead confer a contract for 'domestic partnership' that contains the legal details of marriage (shared property, hospital rights, etc), but leave the religious interpretation to each church.

The problem is that he seeks to existentially eliminate them, ostracize them, and dehumanize them. The first by diminishing their existence to a 'bad choice' using bogus studies. The second by pretending it is 1979 and Studio 54 is all the rage with gay bath houses, promiscuity and so on. And finally by singularly attributing all negative characteristics to them and seeking to outlaw them.

At that point it stops being about 'norm-shaming', and about a truly hate-ful form of discrimination and attempts to marginalize them to the point where they can be openly hunted like in Russia.

We can have spirited discussions about rhetorical subjects, but when your clear goal is to cause harm to and marginalize the life of hundreds of millions of people … that is a different deal.
Click to expand...

I just can't believe what I'm reading, it's like you're trying to depict me like a mad hooligan orthodox priest, it's completely crazy. I don't want anyone hurt or harassed, this is utterly wrong.

No, that is not what I am saying, I certainly never claimed it was a choice. All I am trying to do is both defend my faith and protect the nuclear family model above all else, because a society is only healthy when as many families as possible raise their own biological kids. As such, only those who normally have the faculty to raise their own biological kids in a life-long commitment should be entitled to the status and incentives that constitute marriage.

Nuclear families and the institution of marriage represent an obstacle for many activists, which is why they seek to chip away at it.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/h...rriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy/

Conservative pundits are saying that a homosexual activist exposed the hidden agenda behind homosexual “marriage” when she told an audience last year that the movement is not seeking equality but rather a total dismantling of the institution of marriage itself.

Masha Gessen, a journalist and author who campaigns for homosexual 'rights', made the comments last May in Australia on a panel at the Sydney Writer’s Festival. She said:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

Providing her own life as an example for her advocacy to do away with marriage, Gessen described the complex family structure in which three children whom she parents live: one of them is adopted with her ex-partner, another - whom she birthed – has a biological father in Russia, and the third is the biological child of her current partner and Gessen’s brother. These three children have five adults in parenting roles, but not all five adults parent all three children.

“The five parents break down into two groups of three,” she said. “And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
Yes it can. "They all". You made the assumption that i was referring to all gay people when i didnt.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,229
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
"They" is a grouping word meaning more than one. But doesnt infer how many at all.

As for your other post. It doesnt do them any favours. Its "attention whoring" just like behaving like a idiot is. Behaviour like that is a disservice to them. And by them i mean people who lisp and are flamboyant.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
Pladio said:
Not really true, they take the conclusions they want from the studies.
As one example:



They don't mention the following :


Another one is the following where:


Does not explain the following :



And just as one example….



Source:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

Also, you missed my last post to you :
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1061311257&postcount=127
Click to expand...

I'm the first to say that many studies, especially pertaining to social sciences, have a host of methodological problems, and oftentimes cherry-picked candidates.

But there is such a body of these studies documenting these problems that it simply cannot be discarded. In fact many of these were conducted by gay psychologists, psychiatrists or scientists.

You also can't dismiss all the evidence from the CDC, the problem with reckless promiscuity and STDs is tragically not anywhere close to being being curbed:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

It's even to the point that the CDC is recommending to all men who have sex with men to take anti-HIV drugs.

In light of all this, while it is not the reality of all homosexuals, the sad truth is that promiscuity and dangerous behavior along with psychological pathologies are rampant among the gay community, and it is irresponsible to downplay them for the sake of political expediency because the result is many innocent lives being ruined.

As for the last post, you don't have the right to do absolutely everything you fancy just because it happens in a private setting, in some cases compelling government interests can prevail, although in application in most cases nothing will happen. But the benchmarks are important, because they become paradigms to be followed. One such paradigm, a pillar of society, it to maintain the association of sex toward procreation and not toward wanton hedonism, for the overall good of society. Otherwise the family falls apart and everything falls apart. No one will be arrested for engaging in these acts in a private setting, but in an ideal world the procreative aspect of sex would be the one that is nurtured, and it is an instrumental part of that.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,229
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Damian said:
"They" is a grouping word meaning more than one. But doesnt infer how many at all.

As for your other post. It doesnt do them any favours. Its "attention whoring" just like behaving like a idiot is. Behaviour like that is a disservice to them. And by them i mean people who lisp and are flamboyant.
Click to expand...

So even if that were true, how is that a problem? Many people act like idiots everywhere in the world. I'd say acting flamboyantly is better than beheading people. It also doesn't mean you have to become their friends.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,229
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Humanity has risen! said:
It's in the last paragraph of the post.
Click to expand...

Would you say masturbation should be outlawed too then ?
Since it is for hedonism rather than procreation ?

Again, where do you draw the line ?

Also, do not forget that IF it is in the law, people MAY get prosecuted for it, even if rare.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,229
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Pladio said:
So even if that were true, how is that a problem? Many people act like idiots everywhere in the world. I'd say acting flamboyantly is better than beheading people. It also doesn't mean you have to become their friends.
Click to expand...

I would like to be their friend regardless. But i would think more of them if they werent attention whoring.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
Give me a direct quote where i say all gay people lisp and are flamboyant. But then again this is expected, atheist tactics and all.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom