Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Posting in here to migrate a discussion, there's been a bit more said in the other thread so you may want to check that out.

But how can a gay pride parade be equated with people having sex in public?

Wearing inappropriate clothes is a less extreme version of it. Inappropriate is not rational here. As well as ban of public sex. No rational thinking can prove that it should be banned.


Unless anyone will show me that some gene(s) that makes a person a (be)homosexual and lack of that gene(s) makes a person heterosexual, I will see assumption that sexuality is 100% innate as unproven hypothesis without any scientifical grounds. It may be true. It may be partially true. It may be untrue

Logic says me that human behavior is determined both by genes and what was pushed in the brain by society\experience. Usually the second part is more important.  Unless proven otherwise I will assume that it is true for sexual preferences, too.

The clothing issue, if it is so obscene, can be solved with clothing/decency laws. Not by banning any pro-gay discussion anywhere.
Meanwhile this propaganda law perpetuates a culture of shame & prevents gay youths from learning about safety- in-person or online.

Personally I'm more inclined to believe sexuality is formed by the tiniest little experiences in early childhood- what you see, who you talk to, smells, sounds or concepts. Somewhere in there your brain latches onto little tidbits to formulate its own baseline sexuality. And this process is so far under the radar parents (and the child) have little to zero control over it.
Once that's been solidified, there can be additions and small changes as the person grows older but the base is implacable, and thoroughly not a choice.
(any fellows have more to share on this and how I'm right/wrong?)

As for how this effects the conversation at hand, what you seem to be more interested in is how these people behave in public- that they should hide it away like a sado-masochist keeps their hobbies in the bedroom.
But as Owlbread pointed out, this doesn't address relationships-- a sado-masochist can marry their loved one, or forget marriage, they can go out on a date with them, or screw it, they can talk about who they are without fear of legal or illegal reprisal, while a gay person cannot. Their sexuality can't be kept behind closed doors- if a gay person wants to have a family or a loved one in their life, they are forced to fake a heterosexual relationship and/or to hide their true relationship like some criminal. What other alternative is there, other than sneaking away from the sexless wife to cavort with your gay lover? How do you think she'd feel about that? What's the outlook for the family?
Meanwhile, say you are in a secret relationship and you get into a car accident; the person you care for and who cares for you cannot visit while you are laying in a hospital bed in critical condition. And if you die? They are entitled to none of your possessions, which go to the rest of your family or, worse, the state.
This is a big issue in the US when it comes to gay marriage.


As for gay couples adopting, gay couples turning children gay is patently false.
Here's a decade-old reference, (though I couldn't find the base studies). Hopefully others in here have better sources?



Here is another quote to spur conversation in here.

That, and LGBT orientation are not really something that can be swayed by "propaganda". You choose your political alignment or at least have it influenced by your surroundings, but people do not choose their sexual orientation.

Is it experimentally completely proved, or is it just a current, most convenient assumption?

Tell kids that homosexuality is wrong, and they will believe it - giving rise to a generation of straight homophobes and self loathing, confused non-het people. Pride marches are not where LGBT individuals get put on a podium and feted some how by the rest of us in a big apologetic scenario, and instead are an acknowledgement that they are as valued a part of a open and secular nation as any other, free to live their lives as they see fit.

The idea of pursuing acknowledgment by dressing as ass-clowns in public is one of the main reasons why LGBT is loathed in the first place.

Oh, and giving all sub-groupings of people the same rights (for example, gay marriage) is not privileged treatment. If anything, it is the exact opposite.

Same rights mean same responsibilities. Marriage - is a juridicial mechanism designed by government to form productive cells of a society. Same-sex pairs do not exactly fit the criteria.
Therefore, either we expand the criteria of marriage as "whoever wants whatever with whom", but then it would be logical to allow, for example, polygamous/polyandrous/whatever-else marriages as well (which is still opposed in the West), or we do not allow gays to have marriages at all. Because, otherwise, it would be a privilege.

Bwahaha. Do you seriously believe this short of bullshit?

What special privileges do you imagine this "higher caste" of people gets, exactly? Because I haven't seen any...

And how the hell do the minorities "suppress" the majorities? And suppression isn't nearly as bad as oppression anyway.

Yes.
Having to have certain quotas of minorities in large organizations. Harder to fire them from job, for example, even if they are incompetent. Because else they would accuse you of discrimination.
Suppress, oppress, whatever - but being white heterosexual male in the West means being the most vulnerable social group.

[GavJ]

PTW mainly.  But also, I suggest that a rule or guideline be added to the thread/OP of "No loaded adverbs allowed." Or similar devices..
You'd be amazed at how effective that is at making discussions more civil.

By "loaded adverbs" and similar I mean things like the following examples:
"That's ridiculously wrong."
"It'd be much much more likely that..."
"The preposterous viewpoint"
"Obviously, XYZ is true."
"That doesn't make any sense at all."
"Are you seriously saying that..."
(In most cases, always and never)
"You do know that ___"
"It's extremely possible that..."
"It's merely/simply an issue of..."
etc.

They raise tension levels at best, and do worse things at worst. Not using words and phrases like these essentially forces you to remove anger and unnecessary emotion from your writing and helps reduce fights.

Personally, I'm pretty bad at following my own advice, but it's still good advice.

[MonkeyHead]

That, and LGBT orientation are not really something that can be swayed by "propaganda". You choose your political alignment or at least have it influenced by your surroundings, but people do not choose their sexual orientation.

Is it experimentally completely proved, or is it just a current, most convenient assumption?

Tell kids that homosexuality is wrong, and they will believe it - giving rise to a generation of straight homophobes and self loathing, confused non-het people. Pride marches are not where LGBT individuals get put on a podium and feted some how by the rest of us in a big apologetic scenario, and instead are an acknowledgement that they are as valued a part of a open and secular nation as any other, free to live their lives as they see fit.

The idea of pursuing acknowledgment by dressing as ass-clowns in public is one of the main reasons why LGBT is loathed in the first place.

Oh, and giving all sub-groupings of people the same rights (for example, gay marriage) is not privileged treatment. If anything, it is the exact opposite.

Same rights mean same responsibilities. Marriage - is a juridicial mechanism designed by government to form productive cells of a society. Same-sex pairs do not exactly fit the criteria.
Therefore, either we expand the criteria of marriage as "whoever wants whatever with whom", but then it would be logical to allow, for example, polygamous/polyandrous/whatever-else marriages as well (which is still opposed in the West), or we do not allow gays to have marriages at all. Because, otherwise, it would be a privilege.

Bwahaha. Do you seriously believe this short of bullshit?

What special privileges do you imagine this "higher caste" of people gets, exactly? Because I haven't seen any...

And how the hell do the minorities "suppress" the majorities? And suppression isn't nearly as bad as oppression anyway.

Yes.
Having to have certain quotas of minorities in large organizations. Harder to fire them from job, for example, even if they are incompetent. Because else they would accuse you of discrimination.
Suppress, oppress, whatever - but being white heterosexual male in the West means being the most vulnerable social group.

Oh my.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation might make some interesting reading. Research suggests that sexuality is a complex mixture of genetics, hormonal factors and social factors are at play. So, an individual will be more likely to be homosexual due to their genetics in addition to environmental influences. Nothing to do with it being convenient. A landslide of personal testimonies from people within the LGBT circles should also count for something. You cant simply assume it is totally due to "gay propaganda" and that "banning" it will make the "problem" go away.

You refer to pride marches as consisting of ass clowns. Yet Owlbread showed you what one in the UK looked like. Normal people. I tried googling images of pride events in Russia. You know what Google presented me with, from a wide range of sources, both pro and anti Russia? Mostly images of average people on a peaceful march being brutalized by security services. Some may have been there to provoke, sure, but what is wrong with speaking out against oppression? You don't have to like homosexuals, or what they get up to. They don't have to (and probably wont) like you. You do however have to tolerate the fact that they are people, just like you or I, and that they exist, and let them get on with their lives. LGBT individuals are not out there to prey on you.  Your repeated use of "ass clowns" highlights you as a homophobe.

Why do same sex couples not fit the criteria for marriage? We let infertile couples marry, so it cant be about creating offspring. Marriage is a legally binding social contract between 2 individuals - nothing more, nothing less. Its definition varies from nation to nation, but its nature has changed over time - for example, women are no longer property of their husband.  Why should 2 consenting adults not be allowed to form a social contract? You are falling into the slippery slope fallacy - nobody is pushing for poly-marriage, incestuous unions or anything further than 2 adults of any gender being allowed to form a union. If the definition of marriage does not fit society, then change the definition. Do not force an oppressive change on society. You want to remove the loathing, and what you call "ass clowns"? Then stop swimming up hill. Educate your young people about LGBT issues. Don't stick your head in the sand and ignore it.

... and as to where you get that "quota" idea, I have no idea. LGBT individuals I know would DETEST such an idea - they want to be treated as people, not their sexuality. They would hate the idea they only had their job due to orientation, not due to merit. Equality means that a gay person is in as much trouble for being incompetent as a hetero individual - not that they will be able to hold on to their job protected by law. This seems to be a strawman of your own making. Sure, someone can claim discrimination, but a fair employer would have a body of evidence to fall back on, required by laws that prevent rather than encourage discriminatory behaviour.

I am a white, hetero male in the west. My life is easy, and I am thankful I do not face the trials others do. There is nothing vulnerable about my position. I wanted to write so much more, but will need to take some time to collect my thoughts in a cool rational manner.

[GavJ]

Same rights mean same responsibilities. Marriage - is a juridicial mechanism designed by government to form productive cells of a society. Same-sex pairs do not exactly fit the criteria.

I agree that government has the right and sometimes the responsibility to encourage productive behaviors via incentives.
The problem with your logic, however, is two-fold:

1) You haven't established that the country actually NEEDS more children. if we don't, then it's not something we should want to incentivize in the first place. In fact, if we have too many people, then we should do the opposite -- tax children and not have any marriage legally for anybody.

2) Marriage as it sits on the law books right now does not require children to be born, thus it isn't actually incentivizing children.

Marriage laws currently reward all sorts of "non-productive cells":
* People past menopause can get married. By your logic, this should be illegal.
* People with hysterectomies or testicular damage or certain kinds of paralysis, etc. should not legally be allowed to marry by your logic, but they are.
* People who are simply uninterested in having children should not be allowed to get married by your logic. You should have to sign a contract or something to have children in, say, 5 years, otherwise you face forced annulment and fines.
etc. etc.

You have to choose one or the other to have a logically consistent position. Either:
1) Gay people can marry just like all the other people who don't produce anything of special value for the country by their marriage. And yes, this WOULD logically include polyamorous and so forth marriages as well. OR

2a) (IF the country needs more children) Only people who are actively having children can marry and enjoy the associated legal incentives, and their status will be revoked if they stop for too long at any given time. Let's say 5 years, your marriage is cancelled unless you reset the timer by having another kid.
2b) (IF the country is overpopulated) Legal marriage in general is abolished, and child taxes are imposed.

Which do you prefer?

[Darvi]

Also, the burden of proof is on the accuser, so if you're claiming that X is bad, it's actually your job to show it's not just a "convenient  assumption".

[Leafsnail]

I would add that gay people can also adopt children, or even have their own in the case of lesbians with sperm donations.  Thus they can help in the raising of the next generation.  That's the important part of what marriage is trying to encourage, if squeezing out babies was the key then you'd surely want to instead encourage college students to get drunk and have unprotected sex.

[GavJ]

if squeezing out babies was the key then you'd surely want to instead encourage college students to get drunk and have unprotected sex.

I don't think that's necessarily a fair reply, because marriage provides an opportunity for regulation and registration and accountability. So it could logically be better than encouraging random people to hook up and have babies and then have no consistent caretaking environment.

However, if you don't want to incentivize random unprotected sex, then marriage would have to actually HAVE such accountability, which it does not right now. See updated options below.

I would add that gay people can also adopt children, or even have their own in the case of lesbians with sperm donations.  Thus they can help in the raising of the next generation.

Yes, true. So actually the choices are:

1) Gay people can marry just like all the other people who don't produce anything of special value for the country by their marriage. And yes, this WOULD logically include polyamorous and so forth marriages as well. OR

2a) (IF the country needs more children) People who give birth to or adopt or foster children get any legal incentives and can marry (including gay people who adopt, etc.), and their status will be revoked if they stop for too long at any given time. Let's say 5 years, your marriage is cancelled unless you reset the timer by having or adopting another kid. Your marriage is also revoked if regular inspections determine that you aren't living together or both watching and helping raise the child or providing a nurturing environment, etc.

2b) (IF the country is overpopulated) Legal marriage in general is abolished, and child taxes are imposed.

[BlindKitty]

Well, for starters, because it bugs me somewhat every time I see it (and I see it *a lot*), the term 'homophobia' is actually a misnomer, and a hard-core one at that. That term would actually mean 'the fear of the same', but I can agree that it is easy to see it as a 'fear of homosexuality/homosexuals'; *not* any form of hatred/opposing/whatever is now called that.

With that out of the way - I, too, am for the laws banning LGBTQI propaganda, especially in schools. At least in the current law situation; in general, I'm always for cutting unnecessary laws*. While I'm against police beating anybody without a good reason (by a good reason I mean somebody trying to beat the police, for example), so Russian situation seems somewhat extreme, but it is to be expected from a authoritarian state, really.

As for gay marriage - again, I'm against unnecessary laws*, and I would see no problem with there being no legal marriage at all in current form. I mean - if a marriage is just a legal union, why even have it sanctioned by special laws? Just let people write down a contract at a notary and be off with it. If a country needs more children, give incentives in form of various benefits to pregnant women and on per-child basis after a child is born, not for marriages, and off you go. Than you can have whoever you want getting into any sort of agreement with whoever else you want. Gay marriage, polygamous marriage, BDSM contracts, whatever, whether you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, queer or whatever the 'I' stands for. Yet, I have never heard anybody asking for that, and what is more, in Poland for example you can pretty much get all this with legal contracts, and there is pretty much no difference between that contract and marriage, and still you hear nothing about that, but every other day there is somebody asking for gay marriage. Why is that?

There was also some talk in the last thread about minorities getting upper hand in general (while it was probably worded differently and more strongly); I don't know about the West, but again, in Poland, being homosexual gives you a distinct set of bonuses, so to speak - for example, homosexuals have a big over-representation in media, granting them not insignificant amount of money. Also, they have non-trivial over-representation when it comes to government grants for various activities, and it is much, much easier to get money from Ministry of Culture for homosexuality - oriented projects like theater plays and so on. Which is actually great recipe for disaster, as people who are heterosexual start to feel oppressed, and not without reason.

*A small explanation: I think that all laws in a country concerning an individual (so, no corporate laws in this category) should fit in one paperback book, small enough to read in no more than 24 hours (of continuous reading, which gives us about 400 pages). That book should be sent in the pdf form to an official e-mail account** of a citizen on his/her 18th birthday to allow learning all the laws that are affecting a citizen as soon as a person hits legal age (also, 18th can be changed to whatever legal age is in the country, and there should be only one for every aspect). In Poland, there are some bills I should personally know, but are hundreds of pages long... And there are literally dozens of them. I have no chance to know the law, and that can be used against me, and this situation is very, very not cool. Bro.

**Yes, I think that there should be such a concept as a official e-mail account, just to cut on mail spending, which is in millions every year for every office, which are - again - counted in dozens here in Poland.

[Phmcw]

I mean - if a marriage is just a legal union, why even have it sanctioned by special laws?

I want to answer to this specifically : marriage is an institution that give you a lot of rights. Not only about children but also about inheritance, choice in case of incapacity of your partner, taxes, benefits,... And recreating this bundle by yourself through a contract would be time consuming and expensive.

[GavJ]

I, too, am for the laws banning LGBTQI propaganda, especially in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Recommended reading. Not being sarcastic, since you seem to be implying you are from Poland and may be unfamiliar with U.S. constitutional amendments, but this makes laws like you are describing illegal for legislators to pass in America. You can potentially pass laws dictating school curriculum, but:
1) It's generally a poor idea to teach from the legislator's seat versus leaving it to teachers and educators.
2) Even if you do, it does not make talking about stuff in school outside of curriculum (such as in clubs or in the hallways) illegal, nor anything outside the school.
3) You didn't actually explain what you think "LGBTQI propaganda" actually is, or why you don't like it, which is sort of important for discussion.

Yet, I have never heard anybody asking for [removal of all marriage, etc.]

Uh... I just suggested it as an option that I would support further up on this page of this thread... In two different posts, in fact. That would be a perfectly fair solution, yes.

In general, I suspect that the reason people don't most often prefer this option is very simple -- people don't like paying taxes etc., and they do like inheriting things, and they enjoy visiting each other in hospital, so if you have to fight for equality either way, why not fight for the one of the two options that lets you GAIN rights like everyone else, versus the option that makes the other guys LOSE rights?

Also, they have non-trivial over-representation when it comes to government grants for various activities, and it is much, much easier to get money from Ministry of Culture for homosexuality - oriented projects like theater plays and so on. Which is actually great recipe for disaster, as people who are heterosexual start to feel oppressed, and not without reason.

I find it very unlikely that it is easier to get funding for gay-related projects than for heterosexually-related projects. That's a major [citation needed].  Or is that not what you meant? If not, "easier to get money" than what?

I mean - if a marriage is just a legal union, why even have it sanctioned by special laws?

I want to answer to this specifically : marriage is an institution that give you a lot of rights. Not only about children but also about inheritance, choice in case of incapacity of your partner, taxes, benefits,... And recreating this bundle by yourself through a contract would be time consuming and expensive.

Well yes, but they're really privileges, not any sort of fundamental human rights or anything. It WOULD be fair and equal to simply not let anybody marry.
It would just happen to be a drearier, less happy place. But not a less fair one. And there would be side benefits like more taxes raised, etc.
I prefer the rights being expanded to everybody, but it wouldn't be the end of the world the other way.



Also, note that you and your spouse can't "just write a contract" to somehow let yourself pay fewer taxes... Unless you're marrying the IRS.
Many of the privileges are ones that cannot be covered by nuptial contracts, because they are legal obligations to third parties.

[BlindKitty]

@GavJ - I was writing a little in a hurry, and in parallel to actually writing on Polish site, which is why (probably) I got a little misunderstood here, so I will try to explain myself better here.

Most importantly, I'm from Poland, I'm writing from my perspective due to that; I have little knowledge about USA, and somewhat more about Europe, as this concerns me directly (especially EU situation).

About banning propaganda - it was mostly about the Russian/Ukrainian laws concerning that. I have never really thought about what should such laws exactly say, as I won't ever get into writing such laws, even as proposals. If such a proposal would be raised, I could be 'for' if it was good enough. Not that it matters, as our government throws away any notion of a referendum whenever citizens try to go for it. Actually, in Poland there is probably nothing in the constitution preventing such law from being passed, but I can't know for sure, as our constitution is so long, boring, and law-language-oriented that I never read it through (it is literally dozens of times longer than US one, and makes much less sense).
The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it. In current state of affairs, with school being pretty much obligatory, banning it from school is the way to go. More sensible way to do it would be to allow different worldviews in schools (which is, I believe, a case in USA? I mean, there are places when they teach creationism, and places where they teach evolution, and places where they teach both?), so that a parent can choose where to send the child.

About suggesting removal of marriage - I was referring to situation in Poland, not the thread. Also, it was said above (and you seem to reinforce the view) that marriage is a way to gain rights. Yes, it is, but as I said before, most of the rights can be gained otherwise (by a simple legal contract; it is possible to get those mostly standardized and thus to limit the costs to very reasonable levels; I mean inheritance, visitation rights and so on) - again, this is from Polish point of view, where the tax gains are actually pretty negligible for marriages! - and rest should be moved anyway (I mean here children - related tax cuts and other bonuses). There was actually a major point in making marriages recognized by civil law, to promote the stable family and stuff, assuming that it is good for the state. With introduction of divorce, it has pretty much gone for a walk never to return already, so... You see, marriage is actually like writing a whole different program, when you really need a bunch of methods and maybe a class. From the state point of view, at least - the church sanctioned marriage is different, but should be governed by church's laws.

About homo- and hetero- sexually-related projects, it is... Well, it will probably depend on what you consider 'heterosexually oriented'. I actually have quite a few articles on that, but those are all in Polish, so I would not expect from you to learn a new language for that. But for starters, in Warsaw, capital of Poland, there is a six-color rainbow made out of steel scaffolding and some sort of paper flowers, which is widely recognized and sort of manifestation from homosexuals. It stands in very prominent point of the city, and after it was burned (really, making a paper sculpture of any sort doesn't seem like all that hot of an idea, but this is different topic) it was rebuild using city's money - twice - and now it is constantly guarded by city police force, it has special surveillance cameras and custom sprinkler system to put out any fires out... Despite the fact that there are 10 times more people petitioning for it removal than ever gathered there, *and* the fact that there is still no sign whatsoever of the city memorializing president who was killed during his term (and was city's major before becoming country president).
This is strongly related to inferiority complex our government has, which has to do with us being the 'new' Europe. They are trying to one-up EU in being more european than Europe...

Also, the marriage - related privileges would need to be moved a little out from the flow; those are probably very different in Poland and in USA, so that might be part of the confusion.

[martinuzz]

.. or even have their own in the case of lesbians with sperm donations.

This is the only thing I have a problem with. But that is not a problem I have with homosexuals, but more in general, with the modern practice of sperm donation, and surrogate mothers, where it is possible for the donor to remain anonymous.

On topic, I hold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in very high regard, and in my opinion, homosexual people should have all equal rights as anyone else, and be free from prosectution because of their sexuality.

Part of that declaration handles the Rights of Children. One of these rights states that every child should have the opportunity to be raised by both it's biological parents. By using sperm donation, or surrogate mothers, combined with a right to anonimosity of those, you deny the child this basic human right.

I'm fine with adoption though, for hetero and homosexual couples alike. Those children did have the opportunity to grow up with their biological parents, but apparently something went wrong.

[Phmcw]

The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

[Frumple]

Part of that declaration handles the Rights of Children. One of these rights states that every child should have the opportunity to be raised by both it's biological parents. By using sperm donation, or surrogate mothers, combined with a right to anonimosity of those, you deny the child this basic human right.

Eh. If one (or more) of the biological parents waive their connection (or whatever it should be called) with the kid, then m'of the opinion that should be that. So long as the child's got support and the parent is uninterested, then... okay. Kid's got a right to support of some sort, but not necessarily by their biological parent if there's other options available. So long as said support is available, I wouldn't say the child's right to support supersedes the biological parent's right to be left the hell alone, y'know?

Personal experience has strongly demonstrated that biological means precisely jack and shit when it comes to parenting. What's important is all that... love and support and that sort of rot. There's nothing about biological decent that privileges biological over non-biological parents, at least from what I've seen. What matters is care and willingness, not blood.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

I thought the problem was why the zog is the parent trying to influence the child's sexuality at all instead of just letting them do what they do and supporting them in that? Parent doing their job otherwise and the kid's choice of partner is going to matter basically none, so...

[BlindKitty]

The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.