Gay Pandering

[Fisherking]

I just used the title as a pun to the other thread. I don’t dislike people for there sexual orientation.

But why is it that people who demographically come from and belong to an affluent background seem to think they require taxpayer assistance in forming a social network?

just an example: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/fwm/opinion/98070009.html

Any thoughts?

[al Roumi]

That's the middle class all over - knowledgeable and skilled/pushy enough to leverage the state for their own ends. It's the people who don't know that they can or how to who lose out, i.e. the working class.

[Fisherking]

The article complained that the money was spent on racial and gender groups not including gays.

Battered wives, blacks, Amer-Indians, and Hispanics usually tend to be a bit needier than upper middle class predominantly white people, even if they decide to place themselves into a minority group.

It just seems a lot of self promotion and much designed for shock value to me. Gays can’t call themselves an oppressed underclass in economic terms but want money to promote a social agenda.

If they are more deserving than the others they should do something to show it.

[Fragony]

I don't get it either, getting beat up, humiliated, AND abused without charge, you are putting us Dutchies out of business

[PanzerJaeger]

But why is it that people who demographically come from and belong to an affluent background seem to think they require taxpayer assistance in forming a social network?

Any thoughts?

Possibly because they have been harassed, mistreated, and oppressed through the taxpayer-funded government for years. Similar efforts have been aimed at African and Native Americans.

The only problem I have with these efforts in a broad sense is that they never seem to end. In many ways, blacks are still a protected class in the eyes of the government nearly 50 years after the Civil Rights Act. At some point, the sins of the past are made up for as best as they can be and you have to move on.

Gays, on the other hand, are still suffering social inequities enforced through the government. In many parts of the country they are second class citizens.


Battered wives, blacks, Amer-Indians, and Hispanics usually tend to be a bit needier than upper middle class predominantly white people, even if they decide to place themselves into a minority group.


Did you know that blacks, natives, hispanics and even poor people can also be gay? Here's another fun fact - no one decides to place themselves into the gay minority.


It just seems a lot of self promotion and much designed for shock value to me. Gays can’t call themselves an oppressed underclass in economic terms but want money to promote a social agenda.

In many states, one can be fired for being gay. That's why I would think some gays might want money and/or federal support - to counter discrimination and try to change attitudes.

However, I'm not so sure we should take your premise at face value. What exactly are gays demanding from the federal government? This guy - who is apparently only a small time activist in a small community - seems to only be suggesting that a portion of money already allocated for social programs be spent on gay-related issues. That hardly seems unreasonable.


If they are more deserving than the others they should do something to show it.

Are you serious? Do you know what life is like for a gay person? It is the only classifiable group of people that I can think of besides white, protestant males that is still socially acceptable to ridicule and discriminate against.

"Gay", in itself is a pejorative. You can get away with saying "Don't be a homo, be a man.". Try saying "Don't be a n-word, get your work done."

If anyone deserves federal assistance - and I don't really know of much demand in the gay community for huge government grants or anything of the sort, the author of your article just made some vague points about including gays in diversity funding - it is the gays.

[Strike For The South]

Because the same government was used to oppress them

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm the only white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, lower middle-class Protestant male left on the planet, and the entire world is a conspiracy that is so intricate it is against both my kind and myself personally at the same time.

[Fisherking]

Gays have the same rights as everyone else in the US and in a few locals more.

Which States violate Federal Civil Rights laws by denying people jobs on the basis of sexual preference?

As for social inequities I find that unlikely. I don’t know of any forms requiring people to list sexual preference nor how one tells by looking at people. You may discern ethnic or racial groups or gender on sight but not sexual preference.

Most of their groups and agencies are for the purpose of activism and social networking. How does that benefit the public at large?

Many groups have been systematically victimized over the past and some prejudices remain yet no other group is more invisible to society as gays. They can come from any walk of life but unless you ask or they have reason to say you cannot tell.
It is not that as individuals they are unaccepted or unacceptable as is the case with other groups.

Even as a group they are excepted in all but their own eyes. There it would seem they more wish to be first among equals, so to speak, and seek special status.
Much is perhaps a new found freedom to flaunt their sexuality. Some may enjoy shocking the more stayed types. Often as a group they come across as spoiled children always wanting more.

I once heard someone say that it had gone from the love never spoken to the love that just won’t shut up.
People tend to have more of a problem with activism than with sexual proclivity or life style.

But it seems a phenomenon of modern society that nearly everyone seeks victim status.

[drone]

Individually, maybe. I believe the oppression referred to is the gay marriage issue. Rights wrt medical benefits, estate planning, etc. that hetero married couples enjoy.

[Fisherking]

Individually, maybe. I believe the oppression referred to is the gay marriage issue. Rights wrt medical benefits, estate planning, etc. that hetero married couples enjoy.

That is not oppression!

Government has decided that marriage benefits society. Marriage in the classical sense of man and woman bearing children.

I am not debating whether this is right or wrong on the part of the government. Only that it is.

And so far as I know men and women are not prohibited from marrying and having children on the basis of sexual preference.

Other governments just pay for the kids.

[PanzerJaeger]

Gays have the same rights as everyone else in the US and in a few locals more.

So do blacks, hispanics, and poor people. Why are they more deserving of social spending?


Which States violate Federal Civil Rights laws by denying people jobs on the basis of sexual preference?

In 29 states an employee can be fired for being gay with no legal recourse.

That means a manager can say "you're doing a great job, the company is doing fine, but I don't like your sexual orientation so you are fired".

Now, as a die-hard capitalist, I completely support an employer’s right to fire anyone for anything - as long as it applies to everyone. However, if - as a society - we have decided that a person cannot be fired for a trait he or she has no control over, that too should apply to everyone.

If you cannot be fired for being black and you cannot be fired for being handicapped, then you should not be able to be fired for being gay.



As for social inequities I find that unlikely. I don’t know of any forms requiring people to list sexual preference nor how one tells by looking at people. You may discern ethnic or racial groups or gender on sight but not sexual preference.

You may want to check your local library for this (http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Injustice-Against-Lesbian-Bisexual/dp/156023122X), or any of the many other books on the subject.



Most of their groups and agencies are for the purpose of activism and social networking. How does that benefit the public at large?

What public benefit does the Rainbow Coalition or the NAACP serve?

Also and again, can you provide some more evidence of gay groups asking for federal funding? A quick google search for 'gay federal funding' yielded little other than this story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/05/gay-marriage-foes-challenged-federal-funds/) about a Christian group that used federal funds to fight against gay marriage.
:shrug:



Many groups have been systematically victimized over the past and some prejudices remain yet no other group is more invisible to society as gays. They can come from any walk of life but unless you ask or they have reason to say you cannot tell.
It is not that as individuals they are unaccepted or unacceptable as is the case with other groups.

That is not necessarily true. Some gay people have mannerisms that are hard to conceal.

Are you saying that because gay people are more capable of hiding their differences, they deserve less protection/support from the government?


Even as a group they are excepted in all but their own eyes.

What world are you living in? I'm living in the one where gay people are routinely mocked, ostracized, assaulted, and even killed (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32353) for an inherent trait that they have no control over.


The victimization of gays and lesbians based upon their sexual orientation includes harassment, vandalism, robbery, assault, rape and murder. The location of these crimes is not restricted to dark streets leading from gay establishments. Violence against gays and lesbians occurs everywhere: in schools, the workplace, public places and in the home. Those who commit these acts come from all social/economic backgrounds and represent different age groups (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Safety and Fitness Exchange, Lance Bradley and Kevin Berrill, 1986.)


Did you miss the national discussion a few months ago over gay teen suicides, or was that just typical gay people looking for attention by hanging themselves and jumping off bridges?



There it would seem they more wish to be first among equals, so to speak, and seek special status.

Can you elaborate on the special status gays are seeking? I hear a lot about it, but never anything specific.


Much is perhaps a new found freedom to flaunt their sexuality. Some may enjoy shocking the more stayed types. Often as a group they come across as spoiled children always wanting more.

Again, what is it - exactly - that they want that is so radical? Employment protections, the ability to serve in the military, hospital visitation rights... none of these would seem to impart any special status on them.

All you've provided so far is one blog posting where a gay man argues that because gay people pay taxes they are deserving of some of the money spent on diversity initiatives in his community.



I once heard someone say that it had gone from the love never spoken to the love that just won’t shut up.

Do you not see that that - in itself - hints at the social ostracism these people have experienced?


People tend to have more of a problem with activism than with sexual proclivity or life style.

That isn't true at all. Many people have a deep-seated hatred of gay people due to religious and social conditioning.


But it seems a phenomenon of modern society that nearly everyone seeks victim status.

Who is seeking victim status? Ignoring the fact that gay people are not some monolithic 'one', I see little evidence of even the activist groups in Washington seeking victim status.

You seem to be under the influence of the oft-propagated meme of the 'gay agenda' that is used by certain religious types to stir people up. Show me a gay activist that says he wants a social status that puts him in a more advantageous position than straight people. Everything that they want seems to be aimed at simply putting them on an equal footing.

And speaking of gay people always playing the victim - this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard#Murder) really took his performance seriously. :no:


Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, Shepard met Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming. McKinney and Henderson offered Shepard a ride in their car.[4] After Shepard said that he was gay, the two men robbed, pistol-whipped, tortured him and tied him to a fence in a remote, rural area, leaving him to die. According to their court testimony, McKinney and Henderson also discovered his address and intended to burglarize his home. Still tied to the fence, Shepard was discovered 18 hours later by a cyclist, Aaron Kreifels, who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That is not oppression!

Government has decided that marriage benefits society. Marriage in the classical sense of man and woman bearing children.

Eh I guess you don't know what government oppression usually amounts to. So let me simply paraphrase your post instead:


This is not oppression!

Government has decided that blacks not having equal status benefits society. Equal status in the classical sense of one person being accorded the same rights as another.

[HoreTore]

Why should Jewish holocaust centres get state funding?

Jews are highly involved in banking and finance, many jews have aa lot of money. Why should they get state funding to promote their agenda, when they're all rich?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well this gay rights group has no less right to state funding than anyone else. Homosexuals are if anything less protected than other minorities, in fact in Islamophile Europe they are often threatened by other minorities.

[Fragony]

Why should Jewish holocaust centres get state funding?

Jews are highly involved in banking and finance, many jews have aa lot of money. Why should they get state funding to promote their agenda, when they're all rich?

Ah ok. Nothing really ever changes especially socialism. Took you one sentence from 'many' to 'all'

[Strike For The South]

Ah ok. Nothing really ever changes

<3.

[rory_20_uk]

The middle classes might push for more groups, but then if they don't, no groups will be coming.

Even with all the useful and stupid groups that they clamour for, I doubt they get back more than a sliver of the money the government takes; I doubt this ratio is true of the poor oppressed "working" class...

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Ah ok. Nothing really ever changes especially socialism. Took you one sentence from 'many' to 'all'

I suggest you read it again, maybe you will notice that "many" and "all" referred to two different amounts of money.

At any rate, it was all sarcasm.

[Fragony]

I suggest you read it again, maybe you will notice that "many" and "all" referred to two different amounts of money.

At any rate, it was all sarcasm.

Sarcasm needs irony. Where is it

[Fisherking]

You know PJ, I have known people my whole life who were gay. I have never known one who had to be situation inappropriate unless it was for shock value.
I don’t buy into stereotypical gays because I haven’t met anyone who matches that description. It is a sexual preference and no one shows their sexual preference all day all the time.
I conclude that most mannerisms are effected. There may be a tendency to behave slightly more like the opposite sex but many people who are not gay also have those tendencies.

I was not talking about Federal Funding either. That is usually Nonprofit Groups or Organizations.

Teen suicide is not a gay issue. It is a teenage issue. Teens are conflicted over everything and anything, most ever teen is somehow conflicted over some sort of sexual issue, what leads them to take their lives is more individual, why make it a gay issue?

Do you have any more current information on violence against gays? I find it hard to believe that it is still on the rise 10 years later.

Perhaps I have just lived in places where it was more acceptable. I just can’t say but most of the violence I know of that was directed against gays was more because they took risks they shouldn’t have.

I also know of violence against others who took such risks.

I think that the murder of Matthew Shepard was a tragedy. But I think that anyone walking out in the night with strangers is taking a big risk.
I am fairly sure that anyone walking out with those two thugs was taking their life and placing it into their hands and I wouldn’t give squat for their chances of coming out alive.

I have had gay friends beaten up because they went with strangers but I have also had straight friends who met the same fate.

Criminals tend to take advantage of the unwary. Criminals tend to use any excuse they can think of that might excuse what they did. I generally comes down to who is an easy mark.

And yes, there are people who hate gays! And people who hate everyone else too. There is no identifiable group who doesn’t have someone who hates them.

All of us fit into some groups or sub-groups who also have hate groups who despise us but we don’t make it the hallmark of our existence.

[PanzerJaeger]

You know PJ, I have known people my whole life who were gay. I have never known one who had to be situation inappropriate unless it was for shock value.

And I've known some light skinned blacks who could pass for white with a rich tan! Wait, what?

I'm having difficulty understanding what anecdotal experience has to do with anything.


I don’t buy into stereotypical gays because I haven’t met anyone who matches that description. It is a sexual preference and no one shows their sexual preference all day all the time.

Oh, but you do. Sexual orientation may be more subtle than skin color, but it is very difficult to operate in a society without it coming out. Try building friendships, working in an organization, or having a meaningful relationship devoid of greater social awareness.

Suppose a gay man wants to take his partner out to dinner for Valentine's Day. Should they just order in to avoid shocking people?


I conclude that most mannerisms are effected. There may be a tendency to behave slightly more like the opposite sex but many people who are not gay also have those tendencies.

Interesting, and you got your psychology degree from which university?

And again, what is the conclusion you are trying to draw from that conclusion - that gay people, having the ability to live in secrecy if they really work at it, are not at as big of a social disadvantage as blacks, hispanics, or women?



I was not talking about Federal Funding either. That is usually Nonprofit Groups or Organizations.

I'm sorry. I confuse easily. What exactly are you talking about then? You opened the thread with this:


But why is it that people who demographically come from and belong to an affluent background seem to think they require taxpayer assistance in forming a social network?

And then you went on to accuse them of seeking special status and compared them to spoiled children.


Teen suicide is not a gay issue. It is a teenage issue. Teens are conflicted over everything and anything, most ever teen is somehow conflicted over some sort of sexual issue, what leads them to take their lives is more individual, why make it a gay issue?

:dizzy2:

It becomes a gay issue when teens kill themselves because of harassment due to their sexual orientation.

When an otherwise normal child (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=7702360) from loving, supportive family hangs himself for no other reason than constant, vicious bullying over his sexual orientation it is a _______ gay issue.



Do you have any more current information on violence against gays? I find it hard to believe that it is still on the rise 10 years later.

October 17, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/increase-homophobia-violence-new-york)


Perhaps I have just lived in places where it was more acceptable. I just can’t say but most of the violence I know of that was directed against gays was more because they took risks they shouldn’t have.

I also know of violence against others who took such risks.

This is too vague for my small mind to comprehend.

Are you trying to say that violence specifically targeted against gays isn't a recognized and common occurrence, or that the gays themselves are to blame for it?


I think that the murder of Matthew Shepard was a tragedy. But I think that anyone walking out in the night with strangers is taking a big risk.
I am fairly sure that anyone walking out with those two thugs was taking their life and placing it into their hands and I wouldn’t give squat for their chances of coming out alive.

I have had gay friends beaten up because they went with strangers but I have also had straight friends who met the same fate.

Criminals tend to take advantage of the unwary. Criminals tend to use any excuse they can think of that might excuse what they did. I generally comes down to who is an easy mark.

And black boys ought not be whistling at white girls in the South. It's all about situational awareness, right?

In the link I posted above, a man was targeted based on his sexual orientation, kidnapped, and beaten within an inch of his life. I guess he should have been carrying.

Are you willing to admit that gay people are in fact targeted for violence based on their orientation?



And yes, there are people who hate gays! And people who hate everyone else too. There is no identifiable group who doesn’t have someone who hates them.

And some groups are at more risk and/or disadvantaged than others.

I'm certainly averse to social engineering, but let's wait until gays start asking for extra points in college admissions or reparations before we engage in reactionary intransigence.


All of us fit into some groups or sub-groups who also have hate groups who despise us but we don’t make it the hallmark of our existence.

And gays do? Can you elaborate on that?


Maybe it would help to clarify exactly what this thread is about. I thought it was about the supposed desire of gay people to be granted, in your words, 'taxpayer assistance', but the meandering nature of your posts seems to suggest it is more about why you think gay people suck.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh I guess you don't know what government oppression usually amounts to. So let me simply paraphrase your post instead:

That was not an equivilent statement. Play fair.

There is a substantive difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. Only a heterosexual relationship can be made indivisable by the conception of children, this is impossible for a homosexual relationship. This is why even in societies with very relaxed attitudes to sexuality only heterosxeual marriage exists.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That was not an equivilent statement. Play fair. Of course it was not equivalent. The crux of the matter is that with pretty much all oppression the oppressors have decided that the oppression is “beneficial for society”. So his point about it not being oppression just because the government which refuses to grant equal status to gays says so is absurd. What boggles the mind is that he continues with the current “oppressive” (restrictive/unequal) definition of marriage which a priori excludes gays then (apparently) wonders why someone who disagrees with that definition might find it opressive.

In short I believe I played fair there. Let me try another one (it's genius, really easy to solve all the world's social problems this way):


This is not oppression!

Government has decided that censorship of the Internet benefits Chinese society. Censorship of the Internet as in blocking all content which disagrees with the party line, or could cause social disquiet and throwing every Chinese found to peruse or create such information in jail, possibly with some torture for good measure.



There is a substantive difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. Only a heterosexual relationship can be made indivisable by the conception of children, this is impossible for a homosexual relationship. This is why even in societies with very relaxed attitudes to sexuality only heterosxeual marriage exists.

Well even if I concede this point simply on the grounds I'm not sure what you mean precisely by “indivisible” here (or rather, how you apply its meaning to the concepts of marriage and relationships); I'd like to point out that there is no requirement for marriage to be granted that the married people go forth and procreate. Indeed such a thing would be a reprehensible government intrusion on the personal dignity of the married people. Absent a requirement to make the relationship truly indivisible as you say, the lack of such an option for gays by nature of their relationship should not impede their ability to get married either. (And what about heterosexual couples that are infertile?)

Therefore if gays want to get married, why should they be refused? And if they are allowed to be refused by the government where heterosexual couples cannot be, I think we must conclude that this implies an unequality of the kind which leans towards oppression (to use the famous phrase: all are equal but some are more equal than others).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course it was not equivalent. The crux of the matter is that with pretty much all oppression the oppressors have decided that the oppression is “beneficial for society”. So his point about it not being oppression just because the government which refuses to grant equal status to gays says so is absurd. What boggles the mind is that he continues with the current “oppressive” (restrictive/unequal) definition of marriage which a priori excludes gays then (apparently) wonders why someone who disagrees with that definition might find it opressive.

Marriage regularises a sexual relationship for the sake of the children that union might produce, that type of union is only ever between one man and one woman, just as the children are a direct result of their physical union.


Well even if I concede this point simply on the grounds I'm not sure what you mean precisely by “indivisible” here (or rather, how you apply its meaning to the concepts of marriage and relationships); I'd like to point out that there is no requirement for marriage to be granted that the married people go forth and procreate. Indeed such a thing would be a reprehensible government intrusion on the personal dignity of the married people. Absent a requirement to make the relationship truly indivisible as you say, the lack of such an option for gays by nature of their relationship should not impede their ability to get married either. (And what about heterosexual couples that are infertile?)

Therefore if gays want to get married, why should they be refused? And if they are allowed to be refused by the government where heterosexual couples cannot be, I think we must conclude that this implies an unequality of the kind which leans towards oppression (to use the famous phrase: all are equal but some are more equal than others).

Indivisable in the sense that once you have a child with someone your relationship effectively becomes insoluable because that child is 50% someone else, that someone else is a part of your life, like it or not. Excepting the death of the child that relationship will never end, even then though their is only one person who shares your grief as parent of that child.

If I believed marriage was about love you might have some traction here, but I believe it's about sex. If marriage is all about protecting people from the consequences of heterosexual sex it has nothing to do with homosexuals. I think I'm supported in my belief by the simple fact that a marriage can be anulled on the grounds of non-consumation.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Marriage regularises a sexual relationship for the sake of the children that union might produce, that type of union is only ever between one man and one woman, just as the children are a direct result of their physical union.

But if it regularises a sexual relationship, if that is the essence of marriage, then this means marriage really only serves a single purpose: demarcating who can have sex with who (and who is excluded). Why should such affirmations be withheld from gays? Maybe they'd like their sexual relationship being confirmed by wearing a ring in the same way that heterosexuals would?

We still haven't touched on the subject of heterosexual unions that are not able to, for whatever reason, have children or possibly even have sex. By this logic, marriage should equally be withheld from them. Or we arrive at the conclusion that it is about something else/more than the children or the sex. But then, that something whatever we may believe it is, why should it be exclusive to heterosexuals?



Indivisable in the sense that once you have a child with someone your relationship effectively becomes insoluable because that child is 50% someone else, that someone else is a part of your life, like it or not. Excepting the death of the child that relationship will never end, even then though their is only one person who shares your grief as parent of that child.


If I believed marriage was about love you might have some traction here, but I believe it's about sex. If marriage is all about protecting people from the consequences of heterosexual sex it has nothing to do with homosexuals. I think it's more about confirming a relationship. Elevating it, saying these people and their families are now officially bound. I think the concept of marriage alliance, or arranged marriages, the contractual nature of the whole thing supports this viewpoint. The modern interpretation of this is that of “romantic love” and emphasising the individual partners over their respective families. And I think this is where we should drop the whole requirement of children, sex or whatever -- since these requirements stem from the idea of union of families rather than from the union of two people that marriage has now evolved to.

And at the point where marriage is about the married people, I think there's no reason to deny gays the right to seek having their relationships enshrined the same way any heterosexual one is.

At any rate marriage certainly isn't just about sex not even limited heterosexual sex. If it were, if that were truly what marriage is about --protecting from the consequences of heterosexual sex/regularising sex-- then why does society broadly support heterosexual people living together in a relationship which includes sex? Why is sex accepted to be part of a relationship where marriage is not required at the same time?


I think I'm supported in my belief by the simple fact that a marriage can be anulled on the grounds of non-consumation.

A marriage can be annulled on grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex, or indeed with anything other than a partner simply not wishing to be bound by the marriage anymore: this is called divorce, and I would say supports my point that marriage is little more than enshrining the union of two people -- who can disband it on a mere whim if they so choose. People even marry, divorce, remarry and divorce again. In Japan people apparently have started marrying manga characters and cushions.

I think the idea that marriage is about the sex (or that the sex even is somewhat interlinked with marriage) no longer applies. At least not here in the “Western” world. So why not allow gays to enjoy the blessings of marriage, too?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But if it regularises a sexual relationship, if that is the essence of marriage, then this means marriage really only serves a single purpose: demarcating who can have sex with who (and who is excluded). Why should such affirmations be withheld from gays? Maybe they'd like their sexual relationship being confirmed by wearing a ring in the same way that heterosexuals would?

It's about reproductive sex, not nooky for the hell of it. It recognises what type of sex produces children


We still haven't touched on the subject of heterosexual unions that are not able to, for whatever reason, have children or possibly even have sex. By this logic, marriage should equally be withheld from them. Or we arrive at the conclusion that it is about something else/more than the children or the sex. But then, that something whatever we may believe it is, why should it be exclusive to heterosexuals?

Well, a couple who do not have sex are not fully married, see below. as to the couple who are incapable of having children, assuming this is a fertility issue it would generally be fair to say that one can take the view that reproduction is highly unlikely rather than impossible. Or, you could equally say that these people are unfortunate, and generally speaking infertility does not become apparent until after a marriage is consumated in any case, at which point the horse has bolted.


I think it's more about confirming a relationship. Elevating it, saying these people and their families are now officially bound. I think the concept of marriage alliance, or arranged marriages, the contractual nature of the whole thing supports this viewpoint. The modern interpretation of this is that of “romantic love” and emphasising the individual partners over their respective families. And I think this is where we should drop the whole requirement of children, sex or whatever -- since these requirements stem from the idea of union of families rather than from the union of two people that marriage has now evolved to.

I don't believe this, in reality marriage alliances were only successful if they produced issue which was a mixing of two bloodlines. To suggest that marriage has "evolved into" the union of two people is clearly false, it has always been the union of two people, and their litteral union through their shared children, that brought the families into kinship.

And at the point where marriage is about the married people, I think there's no reason to deny gays the right to seek having their relationships enshrined the same way any heterosexual one is.


At any rate marriage certainly isn't just about sex not even limited heterosexual sex. If it were, if that were truly what marriage is about --protecting from the consequences of heterosexual sex/regularising sex-- then why does society broadly support heterosexual people living together in a relationship which includes sex? Why is sex accepted to be part of a relationship where marriage is not required at the same time?

Moral and social degeneracy? The invention of the condom? The two are of course undeniably linked. Traditional morals have declined as people increasingly feel that sex is "safe" and as a result teen pregnancies and STD rates have risen.


A marriage can be annulled on grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex, or indeed with anything other than a partner simply not wishing to be bound by the marriage anymore: this is called divorce, and I would say supports my point that marriage is little more than enshrining the union of two people -- who can disband it on a mere whim if they so choose. People even marry, divorce, remarry and divorce again. In Japan people apparently have started marrying manga characters and cushions.

Annullment means the marriage was never valid, divorce means a married couple have broken their marriage contract. Two very different things.


I think the idea that marriage is about the sex (or that the sex even is somewhat interlinked with marriage) no longer applies. At least not here in the “Western” world. So why not allow gays to enjoy the blessings of marriage, too?

Except you shot yourself in the foot earlier.... heterosexuals now have non-reproductive relationships in a way that was previously only possible through homosexual relationships. So really there isn't an inbalance, when a couple want to start a family they should marry, if they are not in that sort of committed relationship then maybe they should wait until they are.

Huh, I suppose contraception must be responsible for our highly polarised sexual mores. That never occured to me before.

[HoreTore]

This is why even in societies with very relaxed attitudes to sexuality only heterosxeual marriage exists.

Uhm, what? In societies with "very relaxed attitudes", homosexual marriage exists. Scandinavia, dutchiestan, some liberal US states, etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm, what? In societies with "very relaxed attitudes", homosexual marriage exists. Scandinavia, dutchiestan, some liberal US states, etc.

A modern aberation from only the last 20 years against at least 5,000 years of human society.

[Fisherking]

Hi PJ, sorry I have been busy but you deserve a reply.
You seem to be on a crusade. Crusaders often get a bit over excited and see injustice in everything.

Be they religious or social crusaders there comes a time to step back and take an objective view of things.
Passion for a topic can be good so long as you don’t let it cloud your judgment.

Anyway:

You don’t want to take anecdotal evidence? What other kind is there on this topic?

There is no “gay gene” that study was a fraud and most studies on the topic are deeply flawed. So we sensibly take peoples word for it, that they are gay.

It is possible that there are many reasons for their preferences ranging from hormonal to just plane choice.

There is no evidence that it is abnormal or an abomination. It occurs naturally in animals as well as humans. Even more befuddling is that sexual attraction can change. Someone gay may wake up one day and be straight or someone straight may wake up gay. Or more generally you may just find you feel a strong attraction to people you otherwise can’t explain. It just happens!

Homosexuals are normal human beings. They are as capable of being well adjusted in society as anyone. On what grounds should they demand exception?



Suppose a gay man wants to take his partner out to dinner for Valentine's Day. Should they just order in to avoid shocking people?

Why would this be shocking? Or are you saying that gay men need to go in drag and grope one another in public? That is just shock value, and inappropriate for anyone in a public setting, what ever their sexual orientation.

You are confusing appropriate behavior with hiding something or being confrontational.
If someone’s behavior does not fit the situation or setting, often others get upset.
Walking into a sport bar during a victory calibration and yelling your team sucks is likely to lead to difficulties, where as walking in and quietly ordering a drink is not.

Making yourself stand out can be a signal to predators and trouble makers that you are making your self available.

My credentials? :mellow: You don’t want to have this contest Youngman. Free advice is in the frontroom.

Also concentrating on Federal Funding is too limiting, confusing, and only a part of the story. Most discretionary funding is passed down to the community level, it is all taxpayer money, from what ever source. Discussing NGOs and charities is much different which is about all you find above this.

My argument is that in this case the money is better spent on food banks, aid for the poor of all groups, and so on is better than funding another gay outreach group, particularly in the Seattle area.

So, if Memphis lets say, had a huge gay community with a broad range of infrastructure and groups, should Frayser also build a corresponding infrastructure or spend its money on projects that benefit a larger segment of the population, particularly the poor?

As to teen suicide the strongest indicators for that likelihood is membership in another sub culture. In fact everything you say about gays, with the exception of marriage, also applies to them.

They are Goths.

Do we need outreach and networking groups to support them too. And maybe new clauses in the civil rights laws?

I am rather undecided. What about you?

[Strike For The South]

A modern aberation from only the last 20 years against at least 5,000 years of human society.

So is the abolition of slavery and Germ theory. Just because its new does not mean its wrong

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So is the abolition of slavery and Germ theory. Just because its new does not mean its wrong

Ah, now with slavery you might be on to something, except that the "slavery" you mean is that peculiar colonial kind that was, frankly, weirdly sadistic. In any case, there are still lots of slaves and indentured servants, even where it is illegal. That's been true for at least a thousand years, hell Wulfstan of York tried to ban slavery in England in the time of King Cnut.

[Fisherking]

A modern aberation from only the last 20 years against at least 5,000 years of human society.


I think at various point in the past you will find it was expectable.

Some cultures more than others, of course.

In some cases societies expected everyone to marry and have children. As long as they did that any extramarital activities were okay with them. The Norse in particular took this view.

[Strike For The South]

Ah, now with slavery you might be on to something, except that the "slavery" you mean is that peculiar colonial kind that was, frankly, weirdly sadistic. In any case, there are still lots of slaves and indentured servants, even where it is illegal. That's been true for at least a thousand years, hell Wulfstan of York tried to ban slavery in England in the time of King Cnut.

Wulfstan of York is a bleeding heart

So what is the cutoff? 1000 years?

[PanzerJaeger]

Hi PJ, sorry I have been busy but you deserve a reply.
You seem to be on a crusade. Crusaders often get a bit over excited and see injustice in everything.

Be they religious or social crusaders there comes a time to step back and take an objective view of things.
Passion for a topic can be good so long as you don’t let it cloud your judgment.

A crusade? This is turning out to be more of a sociology lesson. I have a very close gay friend and I have seen firsthand the struggles he has gone through (if only 'spoiled child' was the worst he'd been called), largely based on ignorance, bigotry, and misinformation.

I cannot change people's minds, but I can correct factual misinformation such as erroneous claims that:

-gay people demographically come from and belong to an affluent background
-gay people are predominantly white
-gay people decide to place themselves into a minority group
-gay people are seeking special (victim?) status in society
-gay people suffer no social inequities
-gay people are not subject to harassment and violence based on their orientation




You don’t want to take anecdotal evidence? What other kind is there on this topic?

That of years of scientific research:


"Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture."




Homosexuals are normal human beings. They are as capable of being well adjusted in society as anyone. On what grounds should they demand exception?

Again, what are they demanding that would make them an exception?




Making yourself stand out can be a signal to predators and trouble makers that you are making your self available.

You again seem to be implying that gay people are in fact to blame for the harassment and violence perpetrated against them.

Could you tell me what Mr. Price (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/10/12/2009-10-12_gay_man_gets_brutal_beating.html) could have done to prevent his savage beating? How could he have stood out less?

And what about young Seth Walsh. What could he have done after being stupid enough to share with his friends that he was gay to avoid the vicious, brutal bullying that made up a large part the rest of his life?




My argument is that in this case the money is better spent on food banks, aid for the poor of all groups, and so on is better than funding another gay outreach group, particularly in the Seattle area.

That is quite the evolution from your original posts.


The article complained that the money was spent on racial and gender groups not including gays.

Battered wives, blacks, Amer-Indians, and Hispanics usually tend to be a bit needier than upper middle class predominantly white people, even if they decide to place themselves into a minority group.

It just seems a lot of self promotion and much designed for shock value to me. Gays can’t call themselves an oppressed underclass in economic terms but want money to promote a social agenda.

If they are more deserving than the others they should do something to show it.

I appreciate your newfound compassion for the poor. However, the author of the article you posted never suggested dipping into welfare funds to support gay causes. He said:


Even though gay people make up roughly 5 percent of the population, zero tax dollars that they pay go into diversity funding and community building to help gays. That money goes instead to diversity funding and community building for racial, gender, youth and senior folks.

So, in actuality, this has absolutely nothing to do with siphoning money away from poor people, but the allocation of 'diversity funds' - a wholly separate set of accounts.

Now, I'm not a big fan of any diversity funding, but if society is going to provide such monies, why shouldn't gay people be included? Just like blacks, women, and handicapped people, they have a non-chosen difference that has put them at a social disadvantage in the recent past.

In fact, unlike those other groups, they are still suffering from social inequities, and should thus arguably move to the top of the 'diversity list'.




As to teen suicide the strongest indicators for that likelihood is membership in another sub culture. In fact everything you say about gays, with the exception of marriage, also applies to them.

They are Goths.

Do we need outreach and networking groups to support them too. And maybe new clauses in the civil rights laws?

I am rather undecided. What about you?

Homosexuality is not a chosen subculture, it is a trait.

I would also like to see some stats on that claim, as it would seem odd that such a delination would be recorded by law enforcement.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think at various point in the past you will find it was expectable.

Some cultures more than others, of course.

In some cases societies expected everyone to marry and have children. As long as they did that any extramarital activities were okay with them. The Norse in particular took this view.

Yes that's true, in Pagan societies at least, but that only supports my point. Vikings didn't marry each other, they married women.

[Fisherking]

PJ,

I am glad you found it was from diversity funds! That makes a big difference, and I think we would agree on that topic.

However:
Your Quote Scientific Research: was more bunk. There are too many studies that start with an agenda and claim they found the answer they were looking for.
That was another study disproved shortly after it was released.

I gave you the current conclusions of the Psychological community.

Sexuality is fluid and part of a growth process. It is not fixed.

It is not a trait.
It is not a disorder.
It is not a disease.
It is not genetic.
It is not developed in the womb.
It is not a treatable ailment.
It is no wholly by choice.
It is not a curse of God.

The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as such: Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both genders. Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime—different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

It may be more dramatic, but it is little different than ones tastes in food or music. It can change over time.


As to Goths, studies at the University of Glasgow show a higher likelihood of suicide and or self harm.

It still remains unclear if it is the culture or just that those drawn to it may be more likely to harm themselves.

Still, it is a preference, and no more likely to be controllable than any other preference.

Likes and dislikes are actually very powerful motivations.

This is not flippancy, it is fact.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ,I am glad you found it was from diversity funds! That makes a big difference, and I think we would agree on that topic.

:bow:





However:
Your Quote Scientific Research: was more bunk. There are too many studies that start with an agenda and claim they found the answer they were looking for.
That was another study disproved shortly after it was released.

I gave you the current conclusions of the Psychological community.

Sexuality is fluid and part of a growth process. It is not fixed.

It is not a trait.
It is not a disorder.
It is not a disease.
It is not genetic.
It is not developed in the womb.
It is not a treatable ailment.
It is no wholly by choice.
It is not a curse of God.

The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as such: Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both genders. Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime—different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

It may be more dramatic, but it is little different than ones tastes in food or music. It can change over time.



Here (http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx) is the complete APA statement. I'll let the document speak for itself.


What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.


Also relevant to your position that they should not 'stand out'.


Why do some gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals tell people about their sexual orientation?

Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called "coming out" has been found to be strongly related to psychological adjustment; the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the better one's mental health and the higher one's self-esteem.


And just because:


Why is it important for society to be better educated about homosexuality?

Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.

[Strike For The South]

All gay people on television are white and upper class

Therefore All gay people must be white and upper class

SCIENCE

[Fisherking]

So, you seem to have learned what I told you was true.

Your major contention and sticking point seems to be in your next to last point.
I hope you don’t think that sharing ones feelings is the same as being situationally inappropriate.

We typically share feeling with those we trust and understand us. To do so in a setting where others may ridicule and abuse that trust is not normal behavior.

One is normal human caring and the other could be caused by a disorder or behaving as a spoiled child.

Clear?

[Fisherking]

All gay people on television are white and upper class

Therefore All gay people must be white and upper class

SCIENCE

No Strike there are actually demographics that show that a preponderance of the group fit the category. Sorry I don’t have a scanner.
It is of course a generalization and it crosses every racial and ethnic group to be sure.

[Strike For The South]

No Strike there are actually demographics that show that a preponderance of the group fit the category. Sorry I don’t have a scanner.
It is of course a generalization and it crosses every racial and ethnic group to be sure.

So you're telling me that being white & having money makes it eaiser for one to come out and admit there sexuality?

Does being on the down low mean anything to you?


Rejecting a gay culture they perceive as white and effeminate, many black men have settled on a new identity, with its own vocabulary and customs and its own name: Down Low. There have always been men – black and white – who have had secret sexual lives with men. But the creation of an organized, underground subculture largely made up of black men who otherwise live straight lives is a phenomenon of the last decade... Most date or marry women and engage sexually with men they meet only in anonymous settings like bathhouses and parks or through the Internet. Many of these men are young and from the inner city, where they live in a hypermasculine thug culture. Other DL men form romantic relationships with men and may even be peripheral participants in mainstream gay culture, all unknown to their colleagues and families. Most DL men identify themselves not as gay or bisexual but first and foremost as black. To them, as to many blacks, that equates to being inherently masculine.[9]
A poor black kid risks a hell of allot more than a rich white kid in cmoing out

All Panzer has done is post scientific links and all you have done is say "Not true"

SMH
That's why the demographics are skewed, not because they are pre disposed to being spoiled or vice versa

[Fisherking]

So you're telling me that being white & having money makes it eaiser for one to come out and admit there sexuality?

Does being on the down low mean anything to you?


A poor black kid risks a hell of allot more than a rich white kid in cmoing out

All Panzer has done is post scientific links and all you have done is say "Not true"

SMH
That's why the demographics are skewed, not because they are pre disposed to being spoiled or vice versa

It is a topic as fraught with controversy as about anything you will find.

There are so many factors that it makes it a quagmire. It would also be better if we had some international studies to go over. US research is notorious for reaching conclusions before the studies begin. It is a black hole little different than global warming.
There is controversy over the number also but 5% is the current PC answer. Environmental factors might be a reason for a large increase. And also for the demographics. Whether you are right or easier living may be a factor remains to be seen.
If you decide to switch to a psyc major be sure you’re strong at debate.

[PanzerJaeger]

So, you seem to have learned what I told you was true.

And what would that be?

In all honesty, nearly everything you've said about homosexuality in this thread has been demonstrably false and borderline bigoted. You've tempered your position from earlier posts, but they point to your true feelings on the subject.



Your major contention and sticking point seems to be in your next to last point.
I hope you don’t think that sharing ones feelings is the same as being situationally inappropriate.


You seem to be under the impression that the only gay people who face social issues are those who are 'situationally inappropriate'. This is incorrect.

[Fisherking]

I have said the very same things all the way through. They match what you posted from the APA.
You don’t see that, or you don’t want to see that?
It would seem that either you are reading something that isn’t there or you reached a conclusion before you began.
What I said was without compassion. What you said was all compassion and emotion.

I suggest you reread it when you are calm and reevaluate those statements.

It would seem that you resort to personal attack to discredit what was said.

[Strike For The South]

Fisherking, my good man, If you are going to simply disregard scientific studies as biased then I don't know what other angle we can debate this from.

You're claim that enviromental factors may be at play implies not so subtley that this is at least something that should be avoided

What I find odd though is you somehow equate homosexuality to be a product of eaiser living (which is proved false but those studies are wrong!)

Personally I think you are taking the medias portrayel of what gay is and supposing it on the entire community

I've known some tough queens in my life, including my lifting partner.

But there is no debating with someone who so dogmaticly refuses to look at the science

[PanzerJaeger]

I have said the very same things all the way through. They match what you posted from the APA.
You don’t see that, or you don’t want to see that?
It would seem that either you are reading something that isn’t there or you reached a conclusion before you began.
What I said was without compassion. What you said was all compassion and emotion.

I suggest you reread it when you are calm and reevaluate those statements.

You posted:


The article complained that the money was spent on racial and gender groups not including gays.

Battered wives, blacks, Amer-Indians, and Hispanics usually tend to be a bit needier than upper middle class predominantly white people, even if they decide to place themselves into a minority group.

It just seems a lot of self promotion and much designed for shock value to me. Gays can’t call themselves an oppressed underclass in economic terms but want money to promote a social agenda.

If they are more deserving than the others they should do something to show it.

This is factually incorrect on three counts.

-Gay people are not predominantly upper class
-Gay people are not predominantly white
-Gay people do not choose to be gay

It also makes the highly questionable leap of projecting the opinion expressed by one man in one blog about one small suburb south of Seattle onto the entire gay community, concluding that they want money to promote a social agenda. Despite repeated requests, you have not provided any substantiation that this is a greater trend.

Finally, it is a substantial departure from your later, more sanitized argument.


My argument is that in this case the money is better spent on food banks, aid for the poor of all groups, and so on is better than funding another gay outreach group, particularly in the Seattle area.

Which completely leaves out the racial dynamic you introduced in the first post and, by the way, frames the article in economic terms completely divorced from what was actually written.


It would seem that you resort to personal attack to discredit what was said.

Am I acting like a spoiled child?

I have no interest in personally attacking you. The only reason I have been engaging you (and not ignoring this thread for the dressed up troll that it is) is because I do not believe you are coming from a position of malice, at least not conscious malice, but instead ignorance and a bit of fear.

[HoreTore]

Homosexuality is a choice. That means that yours truly, a heterosexual male, is perfectly capsble of getting a boner from watching gay porn.

/sarcasm

I do, however, get a boner every time I hear a conservative/religous guy claim homosexuality to be a coice, because if it is, it must mean that the guy is actually capable of getting a boner from watching gay porn.

And he's probably give it a try. Which makes him a FLAMIN' HOMOSEXUAL!!!! Better fix his mental state before he goes camping with the choir boys.....




Edit: watching PJ defend gay rights like this also gets my reproductive organs working....

[Crazed Rabbit]

Something to note:

Washington state has civil unions and other rights for gay people, including the right not to be fired for sexual orientation (http://www.hum.wa.gov/Employment/WLADEmployment.html).

So this is not a state unfriendly to gay people.

What this seems like is some guy complaining that the government isn't doing enough for him because it doesn't subsidize his interests. Apparently the city should do 'diversity funding' and 'community building' for gay people.

I don't think the city should do that for any group, much less a <5% group were a complaint is he has to drive an hour to go on a date.

Considering the problems in the world and the city that's nothing. So good on him for starting the facebook group, but his cause doesn't deserve government funds.


one small suburb south of Seattle

Federal Way isn't a suburb. :no:

CR

[Fisherking]

Thanks for not thinking I am being deliberately bigoted PJ.
What I am doing is just taking a provocative position on the topic.

for Strike:
The cited studies:
I am not disregarding them. Just informing.

When they are proved wrong or discredited in review it doesn’t mean they are taken off the internet.

I am sorry if you thought that I was just disregarding science.

I didn’t accuse anyone of deliberately using wrong data. Should I?

Of course not! Even after being discredited you find them cited by people who know better.
So far as science can determine, homosexuals are perfectly normal and typical humans. Studies to prove otherwise seem to fall on their face.
If you wish to use tainted works we can prove the world is flat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the same with the pc figure of 5% of the population is gay or lesbian. The actual percentage of those who identify themselves as homosexual is 1.51%.
Naturally it does not cover those who may wish to hide it or who struggle with it, however, historical estimates have usually run at about 2 to 2.5%.

Why indeed is the figure exactly double?
--------------------------------------------------------------





The only point I differed on with the APA was a deliberate one. It is how ever misleading. A very tiny percentage have reported that it was choice. Should that be totally disregarded? Therefore I did list choice.
My main point was the need for the money to go to a less than needy group.
Poor people gay or otherwise should come a head of the type of organizations proposed in the article and the topic.

I was not expecting PJ’s passionate response but tried to deal with it in a somewhat deflected manner.

Where violence against gays is cited I have pointed out high risk behavior by the group which could lead to violence.
Where a supposed need to “stand out” or show ones orientations is brought up I simply bring out that it may not be appropriate in some setting.

A few years ago this is what some gay group were advocating. Shocking the public into recognition. It is not the best course unless you also wish to see a rise in incidents. In other words, trolling.

Does this mean only the “bigots” are to blame?

Homosexuality cuts across all groups at roughly the same frequency, therefore in the United States this means that some 75% are white.

Median Income:http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/36386/gays-lesbians-earn-far-more-than-media-us-household-income/

I think that speaks to the factuality of my position.

Don’t draw the conclusion that I hold gays & lesbians totally responsible for all violence against them.
Don’t think I do not support public education on this or other topics.

Homosexuals being normal have no more need than anyone else to be provocative.
When behavior is meant to incite a response, that behavior is as much to blame as the responder.
This is just my disagreement with the tactics and not the minority group.

As to SFTS’s comment on tough Queens; Categorizing and stereotyping is just wrong. Some of the most masculine men and feminine women I have known were homosexual in orientation.
I knew a former linebacker for a Pro Football team who was homosexual, but I wouldn’t want to call the man a Queen.

There is a great deal of misinformation on the topic and it seems to be coming from both sides to support their position.
This too seems to be normal human behavior, no?

And no PJ you are not acting like a spoiled child, you just get passionate about your topics.

edit: I am getting old and needed the mental exorcise, but now I think I need a nap.