Politics of homosexuality

[UberNeuman]

UberNeuman, may I respond to your question after I get some other answer? So as to not have any influence on the responses?

Do as you will, sir...

 

[routan]

no, your approach on the subject is nonsensical. sexual relationships between two consenting adults is clearly different than between man and lesser animals.

are you fucking stupid?

despite what your teachers may have taught you, not all questions are valid because they are questions. sometimes it's better to sit back and think things through before opening your piehole.

Taejin, if you think the question is stupid, dont respond. Thanks for visiting.

 

[Taejin]

Taejin, if you think the question is stupid, dont respond. Thanks for visiting.

no, i'll do what i want. thanks.. for visiting too?

 

[WildHorse]

...

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[senseamp]

There is homosexuality in animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
If you ever had bison burgers, you might have been getting a taste of some gay loins.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison.

 

[Lemon law]

Well silly me, here I thought this thread title would concern itself about the politics of the homosexual issues.

After all can, we solve the homosexual issues and have sexual peace it our times? After all we are supposedly the most technological and most morally advanced generation of all time? Yet sure as shit, we are as mentally retarded as any generation on earth, and as in deep in denial.

Ever since biblical times and before humans have tried everything, especially the death penalty to stamp out Gays and Lesbians, and every generation they come back in about the same 4% of the population. After all, this homosexuality stuff does not come from outer space or from any foreign subversive plots, its comes from our own children.

You betcha your boots, there is a politics of gay bashing, but do a single one of those idiot gay bashing politicians solve a damn thing? Because you too can be the parent of a homosexual child? Are you going to hate your own child or will you accept them for what they are? Or wait, you can be 96% lucky and it will only happen to someone else, Dick Cheney, and some friend of yours you can promptly dump.

No one in the world is advocating we endorse the gay and Lesbian lifestyle, but somehow I as a normal male married to a female finds it wicked and despicable when a politician goes way way way out of there way seeks elective office on a platform of blind hated of an unpopular minority group.

Such a gay bashing politician immediately fails my morality sniff test, and if they don't fail your morality sniff test there is something wrong with YOU.

 

[Kadarin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11528661

The army no longer has to observe the "dont ask, dont tell" policy.

With respect to this, I would like to ask a question... and please, I am just simply inquiring.

Homosexuality was considered deviant behavior, not too long ago. It is now an accepted sexual orientation. The explanation given for this sexual orientation is that homosexuality is biological.

We are aware that some people like to indulge in other forms of sexual behavior, such as engaging with the animal species. Do AT members think that at some point in the future, such "deviant" behavior would also be considered acceptable?

Hey, sounds like you're showing some of that famous Muslim tolerance there...

 

[Siddhartha]

Nevermind

 

[Craig234]

UberNeuman, none whatsoever. As I stated, I am simply asking a question. Perhaps you should advise those who are actually diverging from the subject to stay on track.

The basis for the question comes from relativistic morality. My approach on the subject is purely observational.

I don't think you're as neutral as you think you are. Just framing homosexuality as a question about 'relativistic morality' has views.

To answer your question, sexuality is complicated; I'd say it has at least three areas, of biology, mental, and 'pleasure' to it, with some overlap between them.

In other words, for example, you may have certain sexual things from biology - by default, perhaps you start to get sexually interested in some people when you hit puberty.

But your experiences have a big effect - look at fetishes, of how people can be obsessed over things that happened, so their sexuality can be greatly affected - or if molested.

Finally, there's the pleasure aspect, by which I mean just voluntary things you can do - this is where many anti-gay people wrong think homosexuality is. It is more about things like promiscuity - you might want to have sex with someone for the biology and mental issues, but whether you decide to actually do it has other factors - the law, social norms, all kinds of things.

So, for example, a man might be gay biologically; yet marry a woman because society has pressured him so much he hopes it 'cures' him.

Those are types of attributes about sexuality - then there are issues about sexual behavior from society's view.

This includes the issues of freedom (and privacy) of people - do we want a committee telling people what sexual positions are allowed, or more freedom? It also includes the issue of harm, and that is relevant to non-consensual sex - whether it's lacking, i.e., rape, or can't legally be given, e.g., children, intoxication, animals.

I'm splitting this out in part to show how your question has at least these two areas - one, why does the person want sex with the same gender or an animal, and a second, whether there is harm involved so that society says it's not ok regardless of the cause for why he wants it.

Our making progress in the area of why - better understanding homosexuality - isn't a line to ignoring the issue of harm - sex with animals, who can't consent.

We may understand better and better the reasons why people are straight, gay, beastialists, pedophiles - but say 'you can't do that because it's harm'.

This is where there's a longer term difference between gays and animals.

The bias that's existed historically that you mention about gays, is not based on any real harm to the person involved with the gay person - but on bigotry and prejudice.

It's been a lack of understanding, hate, insecurity, and more.

So, progress on understanding why someone is homosexual can expose the prejudice against gays as being based on things that are wrong, on being bigotry - and the harm question can't find the harm to defend the prejudice. The prejudice against sex with animals, on the other hand, has that view of harm, and so it doesn't 'follow' from ending prejudice against gays, whatever the cause.

Now, progress could create a more sympathetic, understanding view of those who have sexual orientations that involve harm and society will not permit to be acted out.

Sympathetic doesn't mean the acts are allowed - it's just a different, better understanding.

The ban on gays in the military is based on an old bigotry.

There are no guarantees what will happen with sex with animals - who knows how views might change. Cruelty against animals used to be acceptable that is not now. Some cultures might eat dogs or cats (or people) that others find unacceptable. Some people find dog or rooster fights as entertainment acceptable, while others do not.

But ending the irrational, ignorant bigotry against gays - still practiced it seems to me by in particular fundamentalists both Christian and especially Muslim - doesn't lead to that.

 

[Craig234]

Around 1980 the politically correct news was that people were homosexual because of a biological reason. In a sense, they were "victims" of biology. That PC idea was pushed vigorously from about 1980 up until around 2000 or thereabouts. Differernces shown in the brain, and all of that.

Still in 2010 you are considered quite backward if you don't "get the truth" that people are born homosexual, due to inherent genetics.

Then circa 2000 or so, the masses awakened to the existence of epigenetics, which has proved beyond any doubt that it's mainly the other way around. Any demonstrable genetic differences are due to switching on of genetic potentials RESULTING FROM behavior.

So the big revalation of epigenetics is, what you DO (think, eat, act out) definitely affects what you ARE biologically, because potentials lurking within genes switch on as a consequence of behavior. Even mere thought patterns apparently are sufficient.

So that's got some commonalities with the historically discredited idea of Lamarkian evolution, yet it is supported by current findings. Socially, now, this FACT is extreme heresy, because you are supposedly a more enlightened person if you buy the idea homosexuals are driven by biology.

But the biological differences that circa 1980 were claimed as the basis for the behavior, have now been discovered by epigenetic science to RESULT FROM THEIR ACTING OUT. This is the finding of the current science of epigenetics.

Not my biology!

You have it partly right, but you get it wrong and twist it to bigotry IMO.

First, the exact biological issues in homosexuality are not understood - but some issues are.

For an example of the complications, take the very simple test of identical twins.

If homosexuality is genetic, all identical twins will be both or neither gay. If it's not, all twins will be as randomly gay or not gay from each other as from anyone.

So, which is it? The answer is, a twin is FAR MORE LIKELY to match his twin at being gay or not gay than random chance (IIRC 60%?) - and far from 100%.

So, huh?

What you get right is saying biologists suspect something more complex like a genetic trait that *has a chance* to cause homosexuality.

That might mean:

No genetic trait + no mystery trigger = heterosexual
No genetic trait + mystery trigger = heterosexual
Genetic trait + no mystery trigger = heterosexual
Genetic trait + mystery trigger = homosexual

One thing that seems clear is that generally, homosexuality IS there very early - seemingly as early as tests can tell (around age 5 if not earlier) with indications it's earlier.

You get it wrong, though, implying something like 'a straight person for some reason decided to have a homosexual act, and it turns him gay.'

There are other things that aren't explained yet, like a correlation of which finger is longer to homosexuality, that have theories around hormones being involved in a trigger.

Your main point is wrong, that the 'biological' is 'PC and wrong'. It's right.

The old bigotry about homosexuality was that 'gays are just like other people except that just like those who rape steal and murder, they choose to do evil things.'

People didn't understand why people did those things - they were just evil, 'perverted'.

They did not understand that for gays, their sexual feelings are just as built in and natural as heterosexuals' feelings are from a very young age - the issue is 'biological'.

The actual history you did not mention is that a 'PC' line was calling it 'lifestyle choice' - society had a lot of existing views that had tolerance for that issue, in terms of 'some people prefer to be more promiscuous, some less, some to date old or another race or have multiple partners' - all variations that had become 'accepted' and so it easily fit to say 'hey, let gays make their choice too'. But that's what was misleading and shown wrong by showing how it is more biology than 'choice' as an orientation.

Of course, sex acts are choices - the issue there, though, is inconsistent rules for gays than for heterosexuals, based on the bigotry that gays are 'wrong', 'evil', 'perverted'.

 

[WildHorse]

{}

 

[Taejin]

hurrr derp derp what a retarded thread

threads like these get the bigots to come out of their closets. although some flaming queens like routan are very open about their bigotry. seems like part and parcel with being a muslim from a country like pakistan though.

and Wild Horse, epigenetics = biological... lol

 

[MJinZ]

Around 1980 the politically correct news was that people were homosexual because of a biological reason. In a sense, they were "victims" of biology. That PC idea was pushed vigorously from about 1980 up until around 2000 or thereabouts. Differernces shown in the brain, and all of that.

Still in 2010 you are considered quite backward if you don't "get the truth" that people are born homosexual, due to inherent genetics.

Then circa 2000 or so, the masses awakened to the existence of epigenetics, which has proved beyond any doubt that it's mainly the other way around. Any demonstrable genetic differences are due to switching on of genetic potentials RESULTING FROM behavior.

So the big revalation of epigenetics is, what you DO (think, eat, act out) definitely affects what you ARE biologically, because potentials lurking within genes switch on as a consequence of behavior. Even mere thought patterns apparently are sufficient.

So that's got some commonalities with the historically discredited idea of Lamarkian evolution, yet it is supported by current findings. Socially, now, this FACT is extreme heresy, because you are supposedly a more enlightened person if you buy the idea homosexuals are driven by biology.

But the biological differences that circa 1980 were claimed as the basis for the behavior, have now been discovered by epigenetic science to RESULT FROM THEIR ACTING OUT. This is the finding of the current science of epigenetics.

Not my biology!

LOLOLOL... please GTFO Fucktard. I did my senior thesis on Epigenetics.

What you said is complete bullshit. Epigenetics is environment affecting gene expression. For the most part... YOU ARE NOT YOUR ENVIRONMENT. Factors like your stress level and other aspects that affect gene expression is demonstrable in mice and rats, but external factors cause these stresses, the mice don't willingless stress themselves out.

The current viewpoint is largely a Genetic and Environmental component. Which means you must either be Genetically defective or different, (the latter of which, you must also be subject to epigenetic factors).

The idea is simple. If you are genetically tall but lack nutrition, you only grow to 5' something when you could have been over 6'. If you genetically short, you can't grow beyond 5' something anyway.

 

[routan]

no, i'll do what i want. thanks.. for visiting too?

Taejin, ok then?

 

[routan]

I don't think you're as neutral as you think you are. Just framing homosexuality as a question about 'relativistic morality' has views.

To answer your question, sexuality is complicated; I'd say it has at least three areas, of biology, mental, and 'pleasure' to it, with some overlap between them.

In other words, for example, you may have certain sexual things from biology - by default, perhaps you start to get sexually interested in some people when you hit puberty.

But your experiences have a big effect - look at fetishes, of how people can be obsessed over things that happened, so their sexuality can be greatly affected - or if molested.

Finally, there's the pleasure aspect, by which I mean just voluntary things you can do - this is where many anti-gay people wrong think homosexuality is. It is more about things like promiscuity - you might want to have sex with someone for the biology and mental issues, but whether you decide to actually do it has other factors - the law, social norms, all kinds of things.

So, for example, a man might be gay biologically; yet marry a woman because society has pressured him so much he hopes it 'cures' him.

Those are types of attributes about sexuality - then there are issues about sexual behavior from society's view.

This includes the issues of freedom (and privacy) of people - do we want a committee telling people what sexual positions are allowed, or more freedom? It also includes the issue of harm, and that is relevant to non-consensual sex - whether it's lacking, i.e., rape, or can't legally be given, e.g., children, intoxication, animals.

I'm splitting this out in part to show how your question has at least these two areas - one, why does the person want sex with the same gender or an animal, and a second, whether there is harm involved so that society says it's not ok regardless of the cause for why he wants it.

Our making progress in the area of why - better understanding homosexuality - isn't a line to ignoring the issue of harm - sex with animals, who can't consent.

We may understand better and better the reasons why people are straight, gay, beastialists, pedophiles - but say 'you can't do that because it's harm'.

This is where there's a longer term difference between gays and animals.

The bias that's existed historically that you mention about gays, is not based on any real harm to the person involved with the gay person - but on bigotry and prejudice.

It's been a lack of understanding, hate, insecurity, and more.

So, progress on understanding why someone is homosexual can expose the prejudice against gays as being based on things that are wrong, on being bigotry - and the harm question can't find the harm to defend the prejudice. The prejudice against sex with animals, on the other hand, has that view of harm, and so it doesn't 'follow' from ending prejudice against gays, whatever the cause.

Now, progress could create a more sympathetic, understanding view of those who have sexual orientations that involve harm and society will not permit to be acted out.

Sympathetic doesn't mean the acts are allowed - it's just a different, better understanding.

The ban on gays in the military is based on an old bigotry.

There are no guarantees what will happen with sex with animals - who knows how views might change. Cruelty against animals used to be acceptable that is not now. Some cultures might eat dogs or cats (or people) that others find unacceptable. Some people find dog or rooster fights as entertainment acceptable, while others do not.

But ending the irrational, ignorant bigotry against gays - still practiced it seems to me by in particular fundamentalists both Christian and especially Muslim - doesn't lead to that.

Craig234, you are correct, I am not neutral in this subject, nor did I claim to be. I have my own opinions about every subject. But as for the question I raised, it is only from an observational perspective, and I may learn something new.

I read all of your post. I understand all of your post except the part about harm being involved. Can you elaborate? As I understand it from your post, cruelty against animals is not a punishable offense? Is the argument, "animals dont consent" a valid one, as humans kill them by the millions for consumption without asking for their consent? It would be more pertinent to look at the behavior of humans rather than the perspective of the animals.

And what is the "long term difference"?

I do take note of your "especially" Muslim note. It is ironic that you mention ignorant, irrational bigotry, but practice the same on Muslims. I did not ask for a religious pov.

Thank you for indulging in a normal discussion though.

 

[HomerJS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11528661

The army no longer has to observe the "dont ask, dont tell" policy.

With respect to this, I would like to ask a question... and please, I am just simply inquiring.

Homosexuality was considered deviant behavior, not too long ago. It is now an accepted sexual orientation. The explanation given for this sexual orientation is that homosexuality is biological.

We are aware that some people like to indulge in other forms of sexual behavior, such as engaging with the animal species. Do AT members think that at some point in the future, such "deviant" behavior would also be considered acceptable?

I used this earlier but needs repeating...

Are you saying we should allow the military to fire highly qualified personnel who are experts in Arabic culture something we really need because one of the Lieutenants wants to go down on her girlfriend?

 

[routan]

I used this earlier but needs repeating...

Are you saying we should allow the military to fire highly qualified personnel who are experts in Arabic culture something we really need because one of the Lieutenants wants to go down on her girlfriend?

HomerJS, not at all. Someone's sexual orientation should have no bearing on his/her employment. That is his/her private life.

My question is based on evolving morals. As homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, would the same happen with engaging in sexual activities with different species? Someone else mentioned necrophilia? What is the opinion of AT P&N in general.

 

[soulcougher73]

Nope. And it never will because its not adult human on adult human sexual contact.

 

[yllus]

Consenting adult + consenting adult = Do whatever you want

Consenting adult + animal = Animal does not have ability to consent, no go

Consenting adult + something dead = Dead stuff can't consent, but it's not like we can stop people from doing what they want in their own homes anyways

 

[werepossum]

The inevitable consequence of accepting homosexuality as normal - sex with ducks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

I don't give a flying fart why someone wants to do some dude's hairy ass, as long as it's not MY hairy ass. (On the other hand, I totally get lesbians - not that I particularly care about them either, lessen I get t' watch.) I have read though that only 10 percent of male homosexuals are born that way, the others just got sucked in. <Rim shot!> (Hmm, maybe not a good thread to use a joke with a rim shot . . .) When it comes to others' behavior, it's a damn short list.
1. Does it directly harm me or other people not directly involved?
2. Does it reasonably promise to directly harm me or other people not directly involved?
3. Can I make money on it?
4. Is there anything good in the refrigerator?

Homosexuality is so far pretty neutral on all four, at least to me.

 

[MJinZ]

The inevitable consequence of accepting homosexuality as normal - sex with ducks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

I don't give a flying fart why someone wants to do some dude's hairy ass, as long as it's not MY hairy ass. (On the other hand, I totally get lesbians - not that I particularly care about them either, lessen I get t' watch.) I have read though that only 10 percent of male homosexuals are born that way, the others just got sucked in. <Rim shot!> (Hmm, maybe not a good thread to use a joke with a rim shot . . .) When it comes to others' behavior, it's a damn short list.
1. Does it directly harm me or other people not directly involved?
2. Does it reasonably promise to directly harm me or other people not directly involved?
3. Can I make money on it?
4. Is there anything good in the refrigerator?

Homosexuality is so far pretty neutral on all four, at least to me.

1) It directly harms you if someone goes into your butt too fast and too big. Therefore, we must protect ourselves by banning homosexuals from existing.

2) It absolutely does, as you know, all gay men walk around with their penises erect and ready to really tear into those virgin male holes

3) Yes you can, there is money to be made in Gay porn and also, if you get a gay person to fall for you, you can really gold dig them for fabulous stuff like clothes and cars

4) Yes, there is. I recommend the greek yogurt and the Ben & Jerries.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

What I really think is, a small, very VERY small fraction of peeps acting out as homosexuals are situations where that soul was one sex for a sequence of many lifetimes in series, and then suddenly is reincarnated in the oppsoite sex. Their soul memories are so deeply impressioned that they simply can't help themselves from feeling confused, and acting out as the opposite (historical for them) sex. So nthey ARE TRUE homosexuals.

Holy fuck.

 

[routan]

Consenting adult + consenting adult = Do whatever you want

Consenting adult + animal = Animal does not have ability to consent, no go

Consenting adult + something dead = Dead stuff can't consent, but it's not like we can stop people from doing what they want in their own homes anyways

yllus, I already addressed the "consent" issue a few posts ago. We eat animals. They dont consent.

Hence, their perspective is irrelevant. The perspective of human behavior is relevant.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well, you posted a thoughtful, well-considered reply. Kudos to you because that's rare on this forum. I'm a fan!

What I really think, really inside myself, would be unacceptable to you, utterly. I already appreciate that before I even re-explain it, as I previously did on here years ago and got cat called to death for it.

What I really think is, a small, very VERY small fraction of peeps acting out as homosexuals are situations where that soul was one sex for a sequence of many lifetimes in series, and then suddenly is reincarnated in the oppsoite sex. Their soul memories are so deeply impressioned that they simply can't help themselves from feeling confused, and acting out as the opposite (historical for them) sex. So nthey ARE TRUE homosexuals.

Another percentage is where a person groks an unexpected overwhelming feeling of compulsive attraction to another soul they have been deeply deeply deeply bonded to in perhaps many previous lifetimes, now unexpectedly encountered as a person of the same sex. The compulsive feeling of their bond, deepened over many lifetimes together, now is UNCONSCIOUSLY recognized on a deep soul level, as a compulsive attraction, sometimes homosexual.

And the major percentage is comprised of a mix of over-sensitive introverts who are afraid to express sexuality with their opposites, or like, for example (you can extrapolate to similar situations from this) a guy I met while I was hitchhiking who told me that during his virgin sex experience the girl laughed at him and totally intentionally humiliated him, to the extent that he was forever after afraid (over-sensitive) to approach chicks again so he went gay, etc. (Guido the shiv and Louie "piano wire" guiardidio should go find that wise and beautiful woman).

Plus, I have business often in SFO and a relative in Palm Springs,m plus I surf in Santa Cruz, and firsthand encounter there lots & :LOTS of aggressive gays (lessies in Santa Cruz, lesbian capitol of earth) go go out of their way to try to make a big public splash about their homosexuality. Get outta my face or get hurt asshole I don't suffer you AT ALL. Not one iota.

SO the Jews got their country, the Moslems are verged on winning a Palestinian state, so now it's past time for you gays WHO WANT TO INTENTIONALLY BE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT IT go away to some other place. When I meet someone, I don't go out of my way to bring to their attention that I love girls. I love females. Best thing God put here. W/O them guys already would've destroyed Gaia Earth. Thank GOD for chicks!!! And bikinis! And blowjobs and sex and the fem point of view counterbalancing my own, thus producing an outcomer in accord with wisdom.

Why do gays have to go out of their way to make a bitg public spash? Go to hell with you who hold that attitude, else hazard me in person, I'm way W A Y beyond fed up with your whiny shit and I don't suffer youse.

Yeah Yeah Yeah yer a fuckin "victim" poor you poor baby. coddle coddle

To almost all of you whiny introvert emo high schoolers, GROW UP. Meet life! Life isn't scarry, it's nice!
To a very very VERY few of you, may you go off somewhere to gay-land in peace, and find accord with some harmonious soul. Please don't aggressively TRY to make a big public splash in front of children, etc. about your choice. Please don't TRY to intentionally destroy the public institution of marriage between men & women, as is nobviously your objective. Please respect the fact you TRUE queers are an OVERWHELMING minority, perhaps less than 1% of the pop, so go live quitetly and cease trying to "achieve" initiatives that would greviously injure the majority of society.More you do that less I respect you, coul hardly go much lower already now.

Just. Wow. All around.

You have issues son.