Gay Pandering

[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? 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?

[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 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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 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.