Printable View
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_ki.../98070009.html
Any thoughts?
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.
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 don't get it either, getting beat up, humiliated, AND abused without charge, you are putting us Dutchies out of business
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
If they are more deserving than the others they should do something to show it.
"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.
Because the same government was used to oppress them
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.
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
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.
So do blacks, hispanics, and poor people. Why are they more deserving of social spending?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
In 29 states an employee can be fired for being gay with no legal recourse.Quote:
Which States violate Federal Civil Rights laws by denying people jobs on the basis of sexual preference?
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.
You may want to check your local library for this, or any of the many other books on the subject.Quote:
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.
What public benefit does the Rainbow Coalition or the NAACP serve?Quote:
Most of their groups and agencies are for the purpose of activism and social networking. How does that benefit the public at large?
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 about a Christian group that used federal funds to fight against gay marriage.
:shrug:
That is not necessarily true. Some gay people have mannerisms that are hard to conceal.Quote:
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.
Are you saying that because gay people are more capable of hiding their differences, they deserve less protection/support from the government?
What world are you living in? I'm living in the one where gay people are routinely mocked, ostracized, assaulted, and even killed for an inherent trait that they have no control over.Quote:
Even as a group they are excepted in all but their own eyes.
Quote:
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?
Can you elaborate on the special status gays are seeking? I hear a lot about it, but never anything specific.Quote:
There it would seem they more wish to be first among equals, so to speak, and seek special status.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Do you not see that that - in itself - hints at the social ostracism these people have experienced?Quote:
I once heard someone say that it had gone from the love never spoken to the love that just won’t shut up.
That isn't true at all. Many people have a deep-seated hatred of gay people due to religious and social conditioning.Quote:
People tend to have more of a problem with activism than with sexual proclivity or life style.
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.Quote:
But it seems a phenomenon of modern society that nearly everyone seeks 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 really took his performance seriously. :no:
Quote:
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.
Eh I guess you don't know what government oppression usually amounts to. So let me simply paraphrase your post instead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Fisherking's South African cousin would've written during The Struggle
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?
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.
Ah ok. Nothing really ever changes especially socialism. Took you one sentence from 'many' to 'all'Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
<3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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:
I suggest you read it again, maybe you will notice that "many" and "all" referred to two different amounts of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
At any rate, it was all sarcasm.
Sarcasm needs irony. Where is itQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
And I've known some light skinned blacks who could pass for white with a rich tan! Wait, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I'm having difficulty understanding what anecdotal experience has to do with anything.
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.Quote:
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.
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?
Interesting, and you got your psychology degree from which university?Quote:
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.
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'm sorry. I confuse easily. What exactly are you talking about then? You opened the thread with this:Quote:
I was not talking about Federal Funding either. That is usually Nonprofit Groups or Organizations.
And then you went on to accuse them of seeking special status and compared them to spoiled children.Quote:
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?
:dizzy2:Quote:
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?
It becomes a gay issue when teens kill themselves because of harassment due to their sexual orientation.
When an otherwise normal child from loving, supportive family hangs himself for no other reason than constant, vicious bullying over his sexual orientation it is a _______ gay issue.
October 17, 2010.Quote:
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.
This is too vague for my small mind to comprehend.Quote:
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.
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?
And black boys ought not be whistling at white girls in the South. It's all about situational awareness, right?Quote:
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.
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 some groups are at more risk and/or disadvantaged than others.Quote:
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.
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.
And gays do? Can you elaborate on that?Quote:
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.
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.
That was not an equivilent statement. Play fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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):
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Fisherking's Chinese government cousin might write
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?)Quote:
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.
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.Quote:
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).
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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?
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?
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.Quote:
I think I'm supported in my belief by the simple fact that a marriage can be anulled on the grounds of non-consumation.
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?
It's about reproductive sex, not nooky for the hell of it. It recognises what type of sex produces childrenQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
Annullment means the marriage was never valid, divorce means a married couple have broken their marriage contract. Two very different things.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
Huh, I suppose contraception must be responsible for our highly polarised sexual mores. That never occured to me before.
Uhm, what? In societies with "very relaxed attitudes", homosexual marriage exists. Scandinavia, dutchiestan, some liberal US states, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
A modern aberation from only the last 20 years against at least 5,000 years of human society.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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?
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.Quote:
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?
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?
So is the abolition of slavery and Germ theory. Just because its new does not mean its wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla