Print

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

[Dakk]

I actually wrote out a very logical post, and thanked Footkerchief for his sensible comment on a deeper issue. It described the trends leading up to homosexuality, which on the male side generally involve an insecure young man with personal problems and the need for a father figure being approached by or approaching an older homosexual man. On the female side, the problems can be the same or often stem from the poor behavior of men around and involved with them.

However DF forums shot me down through a technicality "you have already replied to this post ..." and deleted it. So, this is what you get.

Homosexuality is still considered a disease within the psychological community. It's not some sort of old bogey, it's just fact. (Leeches are a notoriously bad example for your argument, as they're very often an excellent form of treatment when other methods are not available for some conditions.) It produces undesirable suffering in individuals. It can have positive effects, when people find acceptance etc, but generally speaking its effects are negative and must be factually and universally recognized as such by the psychological community in order to treat people. It's a fact they face up to, I don't see why as a non-professional in the field you could possibly suppose our opinion holds more weight than the reality they have to face in dealing with them(Edit:it).

Surely all homosexual relationships steem from psychological problems, totally proven medical fact, aye? Just like society's morals never ever changed from stone age to now. Oh yea, all effects of homosexuality are negative, so negative that there's people that choose to remain homosexual rather then submit themselves to ideals that appeared during the middle ages and are still being preserved despite not fitting the needs of society. Also, no generalization here, like, at all.

[Eagleon]

Homosexuality is still considered a disease within the psychological community. It's not some sort of old bogey, it's just fact. (Leeches are a notoriously bad example for your argument, as they're very often an excellent form of treatment when other methods are not available for some conditions.) It produces undesirable suffering in individuals. It can have positive effects, when people find acceptance etc, but generally speaking its effects are negative and must be factually and universally recognized as such by the psychological community in order to treat people. It's a fact they face up to, I don't see why as a non-professional in the field you could possibly suppose our opinion holds more weight than the reality they have to face in dealing with them(Edit:it).

Absolute nonsense. I'm one of these people you're talking about, and I can tell you right now that I'm happy in my homosexual relationship, because I love my partner. That's all there is to it. To be recognized as a psychological illness, it has to cause personal distress or disability to the person that has it. The fact is, the only reason homosexuality was considered a "disease" in the first place is because people objected to it, and psychologists assumed the objections were reasonable without hard data. You can point to statistics and say that homosexuals are mentally ill because they have trouble in life, but you can also say the same thing about women. I really don't think you can argue that all women are mentally ill.

In any case, closer to the original topic, no one can resist the dwarf.

[Dragooble]

[Footkerchief]

^^^ nobody cares about your image spam

It described the trends leading up to homosexuality, which on the male side generally involve an insecure young man with personal problems and the need for a father figure being approached by or approaching an older homosexual man.

Where are you getting this from?  Anecdotes?  Family-values publications?

Homosexuality is still considered a disease within the psychological community. It's not some sort of old bogey, it's just fact.

I'm sure you can back it up then, despite the fact that the DSM stopped classifying it as such in the 70s.  Maybe there's a silent majority of psychologists who are still trying to cure homosexuality.  Like Alan Turing, they sure cured him.

[Neonivek]

Frankly I can't stand that Derailing picture... Though that is because huge picture posts are the equivilant of yelling.

As for Architect's views or observations on Homosexuality... I can vouch that they have been around. So he isn't making them up.

[Dakk]

We're not discussing if they have been around or not, we're discussing if they're valid and have connections with reality, rather then just old habits and old concepts of family values which barely exist today.

[Neonivek]

We're not discussing if they have been around or not, we're discussing if they're valid and have connections with reality, rather then just old habits and old concepts of family values which barely exist today.

Well then that isnt a very useful area of discussion. Of course the answer your going to get is yes.

This isn't the best forum for debating whether or not it is true.

[The Architect]

Well thank you. I was about to just stop posting, since people seem to only have knowledge of the very recent view of things. You really can't simply take our modern, accept everything and we will all be OK viewpoint and apply it to history nor practicality.

@Eagleon: Sure, your relationship is fine right now, in fact wonderful for you in some ways. But statistically speaking you're going to go through several of those during your lifetime, with significant suffering at each breakup and problems with insecurity and personal inadequacy throughout that time. I'm sorry, I wish the future was brighter.

On another note, it's very important to consider point of view in history, yes. But I really don't think you can argue that there are not basic morals which everyone must acknowledge, that have never changed. Morality doesn't change, and where you find it violated you will always find someone espousing that violation who stands to gain from it. You may argue that it is alright to steal at some point because you're immoral and you want the right to rob Islamic caravans during the Crusades, or whatever the situation at hand, but no one debates that it's wrong when they don't stand to gain from violating basic moral code.

Natural laws and that point of view were popularized during the Renaissance, but are by no means a new concept dating from that time. As far as morality goes, that's not really something that has changed at all. If you have an example that isn't exactly what I described above, bring it to the table.

[The Architect]

A little double-post:

For everyone who has just now jumped on me for hating gay people, espousing hate toward gay people, and saying they are bad people, I haven't done that.

If you'd read my posts, you'd realize that. I have very, very specifically stated my relationship toward homosexuals in general and the fact that I owe the generosity, honesty and general upstanding nature of many such people for the good life I enjoy today. I particularly respect and admire two of my father's business associates. But that doesn't change my point of view about the disease, nor does it change the morality or nature of what they do just because I like them.

[Christes]

The derailing picture might qualify as spam, but this is seriously not the forum to be discussing this.  Can we split off the off-topic discussion away from a DF forum?

[Neonivek]

Yes seriously this isn't a productive area of discussion.

[Roxorius]

The western society as we know it is completely changing, ask any sociologist or even a economist, the world has changed, and so is society. Homosexualism is now becoming a part of it much like women's rights and black people. It is only natural that social changes meet strong resistance, but as generations go by, things change, values change, and laws must change to adapt to values, laws do not exist to control society, they exist to protect and serve it, if a law doesn't fit society, it must change, the concept of what is marriage is changing dramaticaly, and it will not stop untill a consensus is reached.

I see a problem in your thinking, Dakk. If we use modern Western culture as an example of what can be a valid morality, then we presume modern Western culture is a stable and strong contender among other cultures.

Yet we know that birth rates are lower than ever in all places that have a modern Westernized lifestyle, and that many places in the West have large immigrant populations who subscribe to different moralities and appear to be more dynamic as western populations age and decline. Should we look to a society that is declining for what is best to belief, or to societies growing and supplanting the dying one?

In short, is there a macro-level evolutionary process in which each society competes with its particular cultural memes, and should we be praising what appears to be a cultural equivalent of the dodo bird or the carrier pigeon, in store for a very short lifespan?

[The Architect]

In short, is there a macro-level evolutionary process in which each society competes with its particular cultural memes, and should we be praising what appears to be a cultural equivalent of the dodo bird or the carrier pigeon, in store for a very short lifespan?

There are multiple problems with applying natural selection or evolutionary thinking on a large scale and/or to human behavior. If we followed that model, we'd have an excuse to do many things which are considered immoral based on this same code you're referencing, including genocide of various sub-groups and persons less useful to society, and sterilization of some individuals.

But the aforementioned inviolable moral code of humanity, seemingly a part of us at the DNA level, forbids such things. Otherwise logic like Hitler's would have taken over. There is, in short, a certain part of us that knows what is right and what is wrong, generally that causing suffering in others for our own gain is wrong.

[CaptainNitpick]

This discussion has proven to be a blight on the forum, as predicted.

All the argument about human history and psychology and sociology is irrelevant. These are virtual dwarfs. They will behave however Toady programs them to behave. If he wants them all to be straight, they will be. If he wants gay dwarfs, they will be. If he wants to turn the game into a forum simulator, then I'd suggest dwarfs beat their own heads against walls whenever homosexuality is brought up.

The only questions of importance to Dwarf Fortress are has this actually happened; is it supposed to happen; and does it add something interesting to the game?

Of course, there's little chance of the discussion becoming on-topic. Personally, I'd nuke the thread from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[The Architect]

Yes seriously this isn't a productive area of discussion.

There's a point to all of these statements. More importantly: This is a Forum, in other words a place for open discussion. The topic has served its purpose (it's just an instance of a well-documented old bug that is fixed afaik). There's no reason not to take it wherever we like. We're not polluting a useful topic, nor a thread where it is problematic like DF Questions or DF Suggestions.