Gay Rights, why is it even an issue?

[ToadBrother]

But we know how skin colour occurs. We don't know what defines sexual orientation. There's a struggle to find a biological reason for what we prefer sexually, but it's one that has so far revealed pretty much nothing; even the famed "gay penguin" turned out to be not so exclusively gay after all. So, with the governing forces of sexuality still unknown, it remains a bit hard to decide whether sexual labels warrant their own rights. The problem becomes even further exasperated by the fact that almost nobody but the most ardent gay activists or religious cracks wants to really delve into the question, perhaps fearing answers that might have different consequences for different viewpoints. I think "gay rights" remains an issue because it relates to human sexuality, which is, for our culture, still very much an issue in itself.

_[+]

I doubt very much when slavery first became an issue that anyone was particularly aware of what caused skin color; beyond perhaps some idea that God just wanted that way.

There's enough research out there that demonstrates some clear genetic and developmental underpinnings to sexuality that I think, from that perspective, one can make the argument that this isn't an issue of choice. Besides, what kind of justification is it "We're sorry, we don't fully understand why you have a sexual affinity for members of your own sex, so we're not going to consider assuring equality before the law until such time as we do"?

At any rate, it is a free country, so if gays want to band together to try to address what they see as injustices, then that's their right. If they can convince a sufficient segment of society, or indeed, as we are a nation of constitutionally-bounded laws, they can convince Parliament and/or the courts, then how is that any different than any other group who has been discriminated against?

[Pliny]

The Civil Rights movement in the United States was largely energized by one Rosa Parks, who in violation of law and of social mores in Alabam in 1955, refused to obey a particular segregatory regulation as pertained where "colored" persons were supposed to sit on a bus.

Where there is injustice, and the powers that be cannot or will not correct it, then sometimes people have to defy even the will of a majority and take what is by nature their right.

If civil rights activists and lobbiests hadn't done their part to make Parks bold move have real political traction, I doubt very much that there would be this guy named Barack Obama sitting in the White House right now.

You said it yourself Rosa Parks was in violation of "law" - a racist law. My question is why should a law be made either way? If no law had backed up the prevailing social mores then the Social mores would have evolved out of it. I'm sure Blacks would prefer to be considered equal with whites, and most whites understand that blacks are equal. Laws either way are divisive. Whether they are racist themselves or favour minorities over a different group they will always be divisive.

Zinc feels being gay is normal and there is nothing that needs to be done about it. In his view, the general public is brainwashed that being gay and being left handed is abnormal. I don't remember the Left Handed rights act going through parliament. But left handed people are no longer shunned. I guess we realized it didn't matter and all laws about being left handed were cancelled not more laws made. Maybe left handed people should lobby for affirmative action.

If being gay were no big deal as he claims then he wouldn't be lobbying for the law to recognize "gay rights". He would be going about his business. But he wants favour. He wants special status.

For me, I don't think many people will change their opinions of gays except once they start experiencing their antics, which may be currently working against them, then many more laws will be made to ensure proper social behavior - as deemed by the State, of course.

[ToadBrother]

You said it yourself Rosa Parks was in violation of "law" - a racist law. My question is why should a law be made either way? If no law had backed up the prevailing social mores then the Social mores would have evolved out of it. I'm sure Blacks would prefer to be considered equal with whites, and most whites understand that blacks are equal. Laws either way are divisive. Whether they are racist themselves or favour minorities over a different group they will always be divisive.

Zinc feels being gay is normal and there is nothing that needs to be done about it. In his view, the general public is brainwashed that being gay and being left handed is abnormal. I don't remember the Left Handed rights act going through parliament. But left handed people are no longer shunned. I guess we realized it didn't matter and all laws about being left handed were cancelled not more laws made. Maybe left handed people should lobby for affirmative action.

If being gay were no big deal as he claims then he wouldn't be lobbying for the law to recognize "gay rights". He would be going about his business. But he wants favour. He wants special status.

For me, I don't think many people will change their opinions of gays except once they start experiencing their antics, which may be currently working against them, then many more laws will be made to ensure proper social behavior - as deemed by the State, of course.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. If laws were neutral, then yes, there wouldn't particularly be a problem, but marriage laws, like the old Jim Crow laws, were not neutral. They made specific rules based upon race or sexual preference.

At the end of the day, we do not live under a constitutional arrangement where social mores equate directly into law, and that's hardly a bad thing. Since the Enlightenment those of a liberal democratic bent have always believed that while the majority must rule, the minority must be protected from the whims of the majority.

Demanding equal rights is not demanding special status, unless the opposing side views equality as a special status. The whole jist of the underpinning "separate but equal" that was the core argument of the Jim Crow laws was that blacks and whites were equal, but just shouldn't be lumped together. On the face of it, it seemed like it promoted some sort of equitable arrangement, but in reality, it simply allowed the status quo to be maintained.

Like I said, it's a free country, and homosexual activists have all but won the fight. There are, of course, bitter people out there (and you seem to be one of them) who feel somehow that these people had no right even making an issue of it. But that's just sour grapes, much as those who were against women's rights and racial equality seemed bitter and made bizarre post hoc arguments about how it was all these special interests.

You could replace your little diatribe with the words "civil rights activists" and pretty much have mirrored disgruntled Southern racists as they watched their precious Jim Crow laws evaporate as the Federal Government began (a century too late) enforcing civil rights that supposedly had been guaranteed to them by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 15th Amendment. There were lots of folks who argued against explicit Federal actions precisely because they felt "It will all right itself if folks just don't make an issue of it." They too considered people like Parks and civil rights activists to be rabble rousers and interlopers, and made arguments about how you can't rush things, otherwise there will be a backlash. And there was, the KKK made quite a resurgence as the full force of the civil rights movement finally forced the US Federal government to move to assure basic constitutional rights to black people.

[Pliny]

No you had it wrong by assuming people had to convinced left-handedness was evil but not homosexuality...when actually they're both in the category of "having to be convinced of being abnormal"

True. People were convinced left handed people and gays were "abnormal".

Authority saying it was so, made it so.

Authority has now stopped saying they are abnormal but "gay" isn't doing as well as "left-handed".

Left-handed isn't even an issue anymore. Gay still is. Why is that?

So past the point where Authority stops oppression there is no similarity between the two "abnormalities".

Left handed people went about there business freely and the issue is dead.

Gays want laws made for them and keep the issue alive.

What exactly does this have to do with homosexuality? Just because people are more accepting of homosexual unions, that doesn't mean it's creating more homosexuals, just a lot less repressed homosexuals...that is a good thing, isn't it?

You can't know that because the reason for homosexuality, the sexual preference for the same sex, is not known. If it is found to be something to do with perceptics and the mind without any physiological marker, and there is currently no known physiological marker, then perhaps it will create more homosexuals.

For you, you are just content with how things are.

If everyone had equivalent rights then there wouldn't need to be an appeal for anything. Gay rights are equal rights, not special rights.

As soon as you put the gay in front of rights, then they are special rights.

What you're saying is equivalent to banning African-Americans from voting, waiting for them to complain, and then saying they're making a big deal out of it.

That's making a law I would never advocate doing. so it is not in any way similar.

Perhaps you fall under the category of a bigot because you're uneducated in certain areas and have preconceived views about people you've admittedly never met

A lot of my preconceived views were better than the ones I have now. I was pretty naive.

I think quite a few people got a different view when AIDS was making the rounds and getting educated about that was part of finding out about the gay community.

No, sorry, I'm not going to pretend that 'homosexuals' can be fixed (which usually implies something is broken to begin with).

None need to be "fixed". You don't have to worry about getting yourselves pregnant. (A little pun there).

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here, not to be rude but it sounds like a bunch of pseudoscientific gibberish. Confusion may arise in or around puberty but it certainly settles in as an adult, no one "changes" their sexual orientation, they just repress it. If I had a choice I'd become a heterosexual, why face the stigma at all? But I understand I can't be, I've tried to see what's physically attractive about women but I can't 'change' myself, it just is. And you keep saying "ah, well, we haven't figured out where homosexuality comes from" - did you also happen to notice that we don't know what sexuality comes from either?

Sexuality seems to make sense from the point of view of procreation and the continuance of the species.

You know Pliny, I read your entire post and said to myself that perhaps this person is trying to debate from some sort of compassionate view.

But then I read your last sentence and it all becomes obvious. To laugh at me calling you a bigot is in itself hypocritical. For instance, you don't know a single gay person but in your previous paragraph talked about how you find more and more people confused about their identity...

I certainly think there is confusion and you do see it, but the confusion you see is from within. If you met me for 3 minutes you'd never believe I was gay, perhaps it'd be a start to desensitize you to people that are different. Instead of trying out to see ways to fix others, you can start with the man in the mirror

Well, I don't envy you. Yes, you could just repress your feelings if you wanted to live a non-confrontational life. I haven't got any confusions. I am arguing strictly from a political point of view that laws are not the way to achieve any sense of self worth or self respect. They just won't deliver and may wind up being more detrimental than helpful to whomever they relate. They are fleeting, whimsical, divisive and all the rest.

[Pliny]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

I see that.

If laws were neutral, then yes, there wouldn't particularly be a problem, but marriage laws, like the old Jim Crow laws, were not neutral. They made specific rules based upon race or sexual preference.

Laws should not favour one group over another. There should not be specific laws based upon race or sexual preference.

At the end of the day, we do not live under a constitutional arrangement where social mores equate directly into law, and that's hardly a bad thing.

It isn't a bad thing. That's what I would suggest would be good. Laws should apply to everyone equally. If they can't or don't they shouldn't be laws. That's basically what I am saying.

Since the Enlightenment those of a liberal democratic bent have always believed that while the majority must rule, the minority must be protected from the whims of the majority.

No. Those of a liberal democratic bent have believed that individuals must be protected and each have a voice in their governance. Minorities have always had to follow the laws that were set by the majority. If government kept to it's mandate of ensuring the sanctity of person and property there would be no concern about majorities and minorities. Socially, there would be constant adjustments to accommodate all and there may be conflict, disagreement and healthy debate and discussion but no man would or should, fear for the sanctity of his person or property no matter if he is in any minority or a member of the majority.

Demanding equal rights is not demanding special status, unless the opposing side views equality as a special status. The whole jist of the underpinning "separate but equal" that was the core argument of the Jim Crow laws was that blacks and whites were equal, but just shouldn't be lumped together. On the face of it, it seemed like it promoted some sort of equitable arrangement, but in reality, it simply allowed the status quo to be maintained.

I am not saying do not demand equal rights. We should already have equal rights. We may, as I said above, have conflict and confrontation but if the law is being justly administered none of us should fear for the sanctity of person or property and that is all we should ask of government.

Like I said, it's a free country, and homosexual activists have all but won the fight. There are, of course, bitter people out there (and you seem to be one of them) who feel somehow that these people had no right even making an issue of it. But that's just sour grapes, much as those who were against women's rights and racial equality seemed bitter and made bizarre post hoc arguments about how it was all these special interests.

Why am I bitter? It was a law that women were chattel once. It solidified the concept they were and that's what laws do. Wouldn't it be enough to just repeal the oppressive laws? But as you know laws are whimsical and subject to change and the larger the government the more whimsical the laws. there is danger in that.

There is a place in society for all that contribute to it. Gays need only find a way to contribute to it. They are doing fine in certain areas in society and somewhat confrontational in others.

You could replace your little diatribe with the words "civil rights activists" and pretty much have mirrored disgruntled Southern racists as they watched their precious Jim Crow laws evaporate as the Federal Government began (a century too late) enforcing civil rights that supposedly had been guaranteed to them by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 15th Amendment. There were lots of folks who argued against explicit Federal actions precisely because they felt "It will all right itself if folks just don't make an issue of it." They too considered people like Parks and civil rights activists to be rabble rousers and interlopers, and made arguments about how you can't rush things, otherwise there will be a backlash. And there was, the KKK made quite a resurgence as the full force of the civil rights movement finally forced the US Federal government to move to assure basic constitutional rights to black people.

If they hadn't made Jim Crow laws in the first place there would be no need to make laws to replace them. If there were no laws about slavery there would be no need for Emancipation Proclamations. The KKK should have no right to infringe upon the sanctity of any person or his property, other than that, they can do as they please. So can Blacks, women, gays, Jews and anyone you care to mention.

[ToadBrother]

If they hadn't made Jim Crow laws in the first place there would be no need to make laws to replace them. If there were no laws about slavery there would be no need for Emancipation Proclamations. The KKK should have no right to infringe upon the sanctity of any person or his property, other than that, they can do as they please. So can Blacks, women, gays, Jews and anyone you care to mention.

But they did make Jim Crow laws, and they did make laws that rendered women chattel, and they did make laws that not only deprived homosexuals of an equal status to heterosexuals, but in fact outlawed their behavior entirely, and they did make laws forcing Catholics to Anglican masses, and they made all sorts of laws that were unjust, that picked certain groups out to have more rights or less rights than others in the society. The altering or termination of all such laws took an enormous amount of effort, because society, or at least important factions of society, were opposed to the changes.

So it matters not one damned bit what you would like those laws to have said, or whether or you feel those laws should have existed or not, because they said what they said, and they existed. It's unfortunate that people had to be threatened, imprisoned and yes, sometimes even killed, to see the persecuted given equal status. But that's what happened, and it means that homosexuals, like women, blacks, and other persecuted groups, have had to fight damned hard to overthrow those laws. And just because the whole thing seems to make you uncomfortable, you feel that that fight is somehow wrongheaded.

[g_bambino]

There's enough research out there that demonstrates some clear genetic and developmental underpinnings to sexuality that I think, from that perspective, one can make the argument that this isn't an issue of choice. Besides, what kind of justification is it "We're sorry, we don't fully understand why you have a sexual affinity for members of your own sex, so we're not going to consider assuring equality before the law until such time as we do"?

At any rate, it is a free country, so if gays want to band together to try to address what they see as injustices, then that's their right. If they can convince a sufficient segment of society, or indeed, as we are a nation of constitutionally-bounded laws, they can convince Parliament and/or the courts, then how is that any different than any other group who has been discriminated against?

Actually, no, there isn't any research that verifies genetics have much, if anything at all, to do with sexuality. Of course, nobody can be neatly slotted under sexual labels, and sexuality is actually quite variable between and malleable within individuals. Yet, all studies I've looked at presumed from the outset that there were only two, neat categories to study: hetero- or homosexual. Hardly proper science.

Anyway, I didn't say people had no right to fight for a cause. I merely stated that "gay rights" may only be but a part of a wider issue of sexuality in our post-Christian society. I imagine that it's just a step in a longer transfiguration into a culture where "gay rights" will no longer be an issue because, well, "gay" just doesn't exist anymore. And, no, neither does "straight". It's where the ancient Greeks and then Romans were before Judeo-Christian religion became dominant, and I think it may well be where we end up again now that Christian power is waning.

[ToadBrother]

Actually, no, there isn't any research that verifies genetics have much, if anything at all, to do with sexuality.

That's a pretty stunning statement, considering typing in "homosexuality genetics" in PubMed brings up over 800 articles.

Of course, nobody can be neatly slotted under sexual labels, and sexuality is actually quite variable between and malleable within individuals. Yet, all studies I've looked at presumed from the outset that there were only two, neat categories to study: hetero- or homosexual. Hardly proper science.

Perhaps you could provide the list of articles you've read. I don't know of any research done in the last fifty years on human sexuality that presumes that the situation is binary, but I'd be delighted to review any that claim this. Since nothing in genetics is absolute (possessing a gene does not necessarily mean that any particular physiological effect will occur, it's a matter of statistical likelihood, save for a rather small number of genetic disorders).

[Smallc]

I don't know if there's biological proof or not, but the fact that many animal species practice homosexuality says something...at least to me it does.

[g_bambino]

That's a pretty stunning statement, considering typing in "homosexuality genetics" in PubMed brings up over 800 articles. Perhaps you could provide the list of articles you've read. I don't know of any research done in the last fifty years on human sexuality that presumes that the situation is binary, but I'd be delighted to review any that claim this.

Surely you don't actually expect me to list them all; no more than you'd expect me to ask you to do the same! I don't keep them on file, so it would take an unappealing amount of time to re-trace them and compile a list. Will it suffice to recite what I recall memory? There was more than one that focused on twins, one on birth order, some looked at maternal hormones, one at the brain size of cadavers, and one at the direction of hair growth on the head (seriously). I've maybe looked at a dozen in all; not one deviated from the hetero-/homo- polarity (I'd remember if any did, because it would have surprised me), most actually testing the frequency of gay orientation, betraying a bias by pre-emptively treating that label as the anomaly. Further, because the words "homosexuality" and "genetics" pop up together in the same document doesn't at all mean that there are 800 studies proving sexual orientation to be genetic.

Most main psychological associations now seem to say that sexual orientation is likely a mix between environmental factors and genetics. But, given the near infinite combinations that are possible in that theory, with each person on the planet ending up with different levels of desire for different genders at different times, how could anyone then categorize themselves into only one of two simple groups, if not by choice (or, at least, being made by society to believe one of the two were the only possibilities)?

_{[+ & c/e]}

Edited September 15, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I don't know if there's biological proof or not, but the fact that many animal species practice homosexuality says something...at least to me it does.

I think it proves that sexuality is biological. But, I doubt it says much about sexual identity.

[Smallc]

I'm really not sure. Until science finds the answers, i don't think I will be sure.

[ToadBrother]

Surely you don't actually expect me to list them all; no more than you'd expect me to ask you to do the same! I don't keep them on file, so it would take an unappealing amount of time to re-trace them and compile a list. Will it suffice to recite what I recall memory? There was more than one that focused on twins, one on birth order, some looked at maternal hormones, one at the brain size of cadavers, and one at the direction of hair growth on the head (seriously). I've maybe looked at a dozen in all; not one deviated from the hetero-/homo- polarity (I'd remember if any did, because it would have surprised me), most actually testing the frequency of gay orientation, betraying a bias by pre-emptively treating that label as the anomaly. Further, because the words "homosexuality" and "genetics" pop up together in the same document doesn't at all mean that there are 800 studies proving sexual orientation to be genetic.

The issue here is that you're saying there is no link, when in fact there appears to be a link. What's more, you made a specific claim that these studies seem to view homosexuality as on or off, which I contest, because I doubt very much any researcher since Kinsey's time has ever thought of sexuality in binary terms.

And this "prove" thing. There's an old saying; proof is mathematics and liquor. Science doesn't prove things, it finds the best explanation based on the evidence. There is some evidence that homosexuality has a genetic component. There also seems to be a developmental component.

Most main psychological associations now seem to say that sexual orientation is likely a mix between environmental factors and genetics.

Yes, and the same can apply to many other genetic traits. Some things have environmental triggers. You act as if this is somehow some major blow to linking homosexuality to genetics, but it isn't, any more than just because twins run in a family, having one family member who doesn't have twins is a blow to a link between genetics and twins.

But, given the near infinite combinations that are possible in that theory, with each person on the planet ending up with different levels of desire for different genders at different times, how could anyone then categorize themselves into only one of two simple groups, if not by choice (or, at least, being made by society to believe one of the two were the only possibilities)?

_{[+ & c/e]}

This is a strawman. Since no researchers that I am aware of have simplified things in this way, you're not actually attacking the science here at all. Like I said, I don't think anyone since Kinsey has thought of people being simply homosexual or heterosexual, and clearly there is a spectrum. But the fact remains that there is a segment of the population, somewhere around 10%, that is, for the large part, homosexual.

[g_bambino]

The issue here is that you're saying there is no link, when in fact there appears to be a link. What's more, you made a specific claim that these studies seem to view homosexuality as on or off, which I contest, because I doubt very much any researcher since Kinsey's time has ever thought of sexuality in binary terms.

I never said there was no link; I said there's been no definitive proof of a link. As with the science, please don't misconstrue what I said before attacking it. I can also tell you that my memory is not failing me; I recall what I've read. I didn't say once, however, that the dozen or so studies I've looked at or read about constitute the entire field of research on the matter.

This is a strawman. Since no researchers that I am aware of have simplified things in this way, you're not actually attacking the science here at all.

Of course I'm not attacking the science in that final comment of mine; it's only you who says I was. To reiterate my point: if the scientific and psychological communities' current broad consensus that sexual preference is guided by a combination of environment and genetics is correct, then the reality amongst the human populace is a near infinite number of resulting permutations; each of the world's 6 billion humans having both unique genetics and unique life experiences. If such is the case, then it seems nothing less than illogical for individuals who are all capable of engaging both genders to varying degrees at different points in their lives to classify themselves under but one of only two sexual labels our popular culture recognizes. In other words, if science is now coming to accept the impermanence and malleability of human sexuality - and I don't doubt, and certainly hope, that it is - the wider society is still obstinately stuck in the polar mentality. Should society catch up with science, I wonder what will happen to "gay rights" when it's realised "gay" is not as defined or permanent as previously thought.

_[+]

Edited September 15, 2009 by g_bambino

[Pliny]

But they did make Jim Crow laws, and they did make laws that rendered women chattel, and they did make laws that not only deprived homosexuals of an equal status to heterosexuals, but in fact outlawed their behavior entirely, and they did make laws forcing Catholics to Anglican masses, and they made all sorts of laws that were unjust, that picked certain groups out to have more rights or less rights than others in the society. The altering or termination of all such laws took an enormous amount of effort, because society, or at least important factions of society, were opposed to the changes.

So it matters not one damned bit what you would like those laws to have said, or whether or you feel those laws should have existed or not, because they said what they said, and they existed. It's unfortunate that people had to be threatened, imprisoned and yes, sometimes even killed, to see the persecuted given equal status. But that's what happened, and it means that homosexuals, like women, blacks, and other persecuted groups, have had to fight damned hard to overthrow those laws. And just because the whole thing seems to make you uncomfortable, you feel that that fight is somehow wrongheaded.

Just think if they hadn't had to overthrow those laws how much of an easier time they would have had gaining their "equality". I contend that if the laws hadn't been written that people could not have been threatened, nor imprisoned and yes, sometimes even killed to see the persecuted given equal status for there would have been no law broken.

Society should be left to evolve on it's own and not be engineered by government's writing laws. Would women still be considered chattel today? Would Blacks still be held in bondage in the south today? We'll never know but I think people know what's fair and equal and if it isn't they will correct it. The question that needs answering would be is it tougher to change or gain "equality" by appealing to society's reason or is it tougher to appeal to and change both legislation and society's reason?

There would not have been a women's suffrage movement if women had not legally been classified as second class citizens. They would have a place in society and understand it. If that should change, as it definitely has, then their place as contributing members of society would also change and everyone would understand why it had to change. Laws being totally unnecessary to the process.

Don't get stuck on the "equality" aspect of things. A law does not and cannot make intelligence, genders, bodies, talents, languages, skills, cultures, individuals, races, etc., equal. Equal means "the same as" and no individual or group or culture or race is "the same as" another individual or group or culture or race. Can there be equality of justice, yes. They need only be equal in the eyes of the law and therefore the law should not be used for favour or privilege as it is done with

acts like affirmative action, which favours race and gender or current income tax laws which favour the poor over the rich. You may perceive these laws to be "leveling the playing field" or bringing about "equality" but they are divisive and disharmonious. It creates "classes" of people in a society which is the opposite of the "equality" it attempts to bring about. If there are "gay rights"

there will be a separate gay community that will create friction in society. If there is the right to the sanctity of person and property, there may well be a gay community but they will, if they wish to be in harmony with society, respect and help create that society. Right now they are not contributing to society they are begrudgingly participating simply out of economic necessity and busily creating a gay society as the law has granted them the right to do. Multicultural laws and laws with the intent of leveling the playing field are creating societies within societies not building and strengthening an integral, whole society.

Homosexuality was outlawed for a long time and was considered until 1971 or thereabouts as a mental illness. I'm not sure but I think sodomy was illegal until even more recently. There may still be laws on the books regarding it. I've mentioned why I feel such laws came into existence and it wasn't entirely out of prudence or disdain. It was more out of society's necessity to procreate, everyone was expected to do their part to reproduce. The prudence and disdain for homosexuality probably followed the laws. It was deemed that homosexuality did not contribute to the general welfare of society and was an aberration, thus came the laws. Were those laws necessary? It was sure hard to change them later and it will take a long time to eliminate the damage that they created in forming and sustaining the societal view that homosexual people be oppressed.

What ever your argument with my point of view, don't for a minute think that I believe any minority should be oppressed. I may have a poor opinion of a minority but am I not allowed an opinion? Only laws can enable a certain point of view to oppress a differing point of view. Until there is law there is simply a differing point of view, a disagreement which may be heated, may be contentious, may even become violent - and that is where and when the law is necessary. It is not the law's purpose to decide who is right and who is wrong in their beliefs, opinions, lifestyles, sexual orientation, likes, dislikes, etc. It is there to keep the peace and protect the sanctity of person and property of whatever colour or stripe.

[Pliny]

Should society catch up with science, I wonder what will happen to "gay rights" when it's realised "gay" is not as defined or permanent as previously thought.

_[+]

" 'Gay' not as defined or permanent as previously thought."

Sacrilege! Devilspeak! There should be a law!

[zinc]

True. People were convinced left handed people and gays were "abnormal".

Authority saying it was so, made it so.

Authority has now stopped saying they are abnormal but "gay" isn't doing as well as "left-handed".

Left-handed isn't even an issue anymore. Gay still is. Why is that?

So past the point where Authority stops oppression there is no similarity between the two "abnormalities".

Left handed people went about there business freely and the issue is dead.

Gays want laws made for them and keep the issue alive.

I'm sorry, perhaps you're not into the latest scientific discussions of the past 100 years but there isn't a single legitimate scientific organization that considers homosexuality abnormal, and literally every psychological association agrees....are they not authorities?

You can't know that because the reason for homosexuality, the sexual preference for the same sex, is not known. If it is found to be something to do with perceptics and the mind without any physiological marker, and there is currently no known physiological marker, then perhaps it will create more homosexuals.

For you, you are just content with how things are.

You again fail to notice the fact that sexuality rests not as a gene, at least as much as science currently understands...

As soon as you put the gay in front of rights, then they are special rights.

So were 'black rights' special rights too?

Sexuality seems to make sense from the point of view of procreation and the continuance of the species.

Does that thereby make infertile couples inevitably asexual beings?

That's a pretty stunning statement, considering typing in "homosexuality genetics" in PubMed brings up over 800 articles.

Actually he has a point, if you reread what he wrote he said:

"Actually, no, there isn't any research that verifies genetics have much, if anything at all, to do with sexuality."

...it's not that research hasn't been done, you are most definitely correct in stating that it has. It's just the research has not yet connected sexuality (let alone homosexuality) to a gene, period! Which then, of course, the question could be asked; does sexuality actually lie on a gene and if so, where? We obviously don't know all the 20k genes and what they do, most of them are undoubtedly junk, but to decipher one that links to sexuality may or may never exist.

I personally don't think it exists anymore than the preference for football over basketball exists in the average heterosexual male...that by no means makes it a choice, a common misconception amongst laymen

[August1991]

But that's what happened, and it means that homosexuals, like women, blacks, and other persecuted groups, have had to fight damned hard to overthrow those laws.

Toadbrother, how do you define "persecuted group"? And why do you give examples like homosexuals, women and blacks?

It seems to me that your definition is self-serving.

[Pliny]

I'm sorry, perhaps you're not into the latest scientific discussions of the past 100 years but there isn't a single legitimate scientific organization that considers homosexuality abnormal, and literally every psychological association agrees....are they not authorities?

In their own sphere they are authorities. I am talking about government legislative authority. The law. The authorities you are talking about can say what they like and can even change their mind, which they continually do, without having to answer to the public. Laws are not a matter of simply changing your mind. In a democracy they are an encapsulation of public opinion and in a dictatorship or socialist state they are the opinion of the directorate.

100 years is an overestimate but I understand the passion of your position.

Keyword = "legitimate". Who grants legitimacy? Governments acknowledge licensing boards and licensing boards acknowledge their members.

You again fail to notice the fact that sexuality rests not as a gene, at least as much as science currently understands...

I don't believe it rests as a gene either. I am leaning toward it being a condition of the mind. You seem to think it is just a matter of what an individual prefers, like being left-handed or right-handed or preferring basketball over football - I would say they are conditions of the mind as well. That being true I would also conclude they are maleable.

So were 'black rights' special rights too?

If they were laws - yes. Rights are not entitlements that are granted by government. The black person has the same "right" as any other person to equal treatment under the law. Why should there be Black rights? Is it because there were laws that proclaimed what Black rights were in the first place perhaps? All that "black rights" are, are changes in the law, should we give them some more rights now or should we limit some of them? Blacks asking a government to grant them rights by law is asking the government to rule over them and establishes government as the source of their rights. Governments are temporary and whimsical in the engineering of society.

Having them grant rights is a mistake. Governments and their citizens need to recognize that rights are not privileges or entitlements provided by government. They are conditions protected by government and that is all. If they are provided by someone else they are not rights but are conditions of privilege and entitlement. I think the protection of the sanctity of person and property, as long as blacks, gays, women, children, men, all races are included in the definition of "person", covers just about any right anyone needs from government.

Does that thereby make infertile couples inevitably asexual beings?

It makes them infertile couples. Today that might be considered a blessing by some - especially by authorities. There is an instinctual drive to procreate and a certain sadness, even experienced by homosexuals, felt by those not being able to procreate. We sympathize with those who wish to but can't.

In the end all I espouse is that govnernment follow the advice of Pierre Turdeau in matters of sexuality. Government needs to "Stay out of the bedrooms of the nation". That includes granting special "rights". Government opened the door many decades ago by granting privilege and favour

to "families" to promote the birth rate. This was the start of the slide to voters of special interests vying for those privileges and special rights. The gay community wants "rights" (read privileges) and under the circumstances (our socialist state) why shouldn't they have them. I don't think anyone should have "rights" over anyone else. Looking after and accommodating everyone in a co-operative and harmonious manner is the responsibility of the society (the collection of individuals), not it's government. Asking government to oversee the responsibilities of society is a mistake. Asking them to entrench "rights" in law is a mistake. Co-operation and harmony are products of a balance of reason and force. When reason is lost judgment and justice provide the force necessary to determine and return to reason - when it fails to provide fairness in the delivery of justice it is the start of the march toward an incremental use of force over reason. Force, I might add, is encapsulated in laws.

Does anyone see oddities in their society that seem to defy explanation and feel maybe the government oughta do something about it? Like why do criminals languish in luxury and seemingly have more rights than the honest citizen? If you look you will undoubtedly find the government has introduced a distortion in the law or delivery of justice already - most likely in the name of "equal rights".

[zinc]

Keyword = "legitimate". Who grants legitimacy? Governments acknowledge licensing boards and licensing boards acknowledge their members.

The great thing about legitimacy is it isn't something that an authority simply establishes upon another entity, it's something that's earned. When I say legitimacy I don't mean to say "popular" but rather organizations that operate on the idea that their findings should and would be tested, attacked, and experimentalized to give the most accurate findings.

I don't believe it rests as a gene either. I am leaning toward it being a condition of the mind. You seem to think it is just a matter of what an individual prefers, like being left-handed or right-handed or preferring basketball over football - I would say they are conditions of the mind as well. That being true I would also conclude they are maleable.

I don't say prefer, I say just is. If you think that a heterosexual can become a homosexual (and vice versa) then by all means believe so, just understand that there's no scientific backing to claim such.

If they were laws - yes. Rights are not entitlements that are granted by government. The black person has the same "right" as any other person to equal treatment under the law. Why should there be Black rights? Is it because there were laws that proclaimed what Black rights were in the first place perhaps? All that "black rights" are, are changes in the law, should we give them some more rights now or should we limit some of them? Blacks asking a government to grant them rights by law is asking the government to rule over them and establishes government as the source of their rights. Governments are temporary and whimsical in the engineering of society.

Having them grant rights is a mistake. Governments and their citizens need to recognize that rights are not privileges or entitlements provided by government. They are conditions protected by government and that is all. If they are provided by someone else they are not rights but are conditions of privilege and entitlement. I think the protection of the sanctity of person and property, as long as blacks, gays, women, children, men, all races are included in the definition of "person", covers just about any right anyone needs from government.

I think the terms are really a little confusing because I see where people could read the terms at face value and assume black/women/gay rights are special rights. Just think of it like this, all those terms are another term for 'equal rights' - nothing more and nothing less. Nothing we are fighting for in the gay community will grant us greater rights than the average person.

It makes them infertile couples. Today that might be considered a blessing by some - especially by authorities. There is an instinctual drive to procreate and a certain sadness, even experienced by homosexuals, felt by those not being able to procreate. We sympathize with those who wish to but can't.

In the end all I espouse is that govnernment follow the advice of Pierre Turdeau in matters of sexuality. Government needs to "Stay out of the bedrooms of the nation". That includes granting special "rights". Government opened the door many decades ago by granting privilege and favour

to "families" to promote the birth rate. This was the start of the slide to voters of special interests vying for those privileges and special rights. The gay community wants "rights" (read privileges) and under the circumstances (our socialist state) why shouldn't they have them. I don't think anyone should have "rights" over anyone else. Looking after and accommodating everyone in a co-operative and harmonious manner is the responsibility of the society (the collection of individuals), not it's government. Asking government to oversee the responsibilities of society is a mistake. Asking them to entrench "rights" in law is a mistake. Co-operation and harmony are products of a balance of reason and force. When reason is lost judgment and justice provide the force necessary to determine and return to reason - when it fails to provide fairness in the delivery of justice it is the start of the march toward an incremental use of force over reason. Force, I might add, is encapsulated in laws.

Does anyone see oddities in their society that seem to defy explanation and feel maybe the government oughta do something about it? Like why do criminals languish in luxury and seemingly have more rights than the honest citizen? If you look you will undoubtedly find the government has introduced a distortion in the law or delivery of justice already - most likely in the name of "equal rights".

Perhaps I should've asked this a long time ago, but what are some "special rights" that gays are fighting for, could you give me some examples?

[Oleg Bach]

I mentioned to my aging gay friend this morning as we smoked on the street starting our day...that he may have a problem - that he might not be gay...He said "I have been thinking about that lately...seems that tons of young men who are not older - figured out they were recruited - gay or natural gay is rare in nature - It's conditioning -----as for the gay rights thing and the gay lobby - those that push it are those that are "gay by choice" I say don't give these hetro-phag power mongers any more power in the form of "rights" That's enough...There is no gay issue - there is only a political one and to use the gay thing to further the career of some is a shame and a sham.

[g_bambino]

If you think that a heterosexual can become a homosexual (and vice versa) then by all means believe so, just understand that there's no scientific backing to claim such.

Perhaps what researchers mean is that shifts in identity can't be forced, which seems logical enough. However, as I noted before, there is empirical evidence of it being common to accept, even praise as brave, a decision to change from a heterosexual to homosexual identity, yet, the opposite shift is scoffed at as impossible. It thus seems that, in general society, scientific conclusions on the permanance of sexual categorization apply only to those who define themselves as gay, while every self-identifying straight person is apparantly a potential convert to the gay "side". (Dan Savage once alluded to this when he said that he felt sorry for self-envisaged straight people - men especially - as they nowadays have to constantly assert their "straightness" against the socially accepted notion that they could, just possibly, be closeted gays, while gay people, once there, remain safe in their position forever more.) Bi people - well, they're are all thought of as being half way there, anyway... Unless they're women... For whom it's a normal sign of sexual confidence... Man, people are fucked up!

_[c/e]

Edited September 18, 2009 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

Pleasure seeking and hormonal drive can manifest in many manners - sometimes the mode of relief that is at hand is the way they are going to go - For instance I knew a family of Newfies..they had a bunch of male children - "Uncle Eddie" would come over and babysit the boys who were reaching puberty - he would molest them...two brothers took on the gay "life style" later in live _ I guess it felt good to these novice lads..That's why I hate the idea of sexual interference by out school system who propogate the gay thing to boys who have not yet experienced a female...some gays are born and some are made....and all of them act like they have no choice --- Under the intense weight of propogation of gayness in todays society ....maybe the choice is being taken away from males -- I hear talk show hosts that are anti-children - anti-god...anti-family...THEN I find out that the son of a bitch is gay...and he keeps his gayness a secret..wtf?

[zinc]

as for the gay rights thing and the gay lobby - those that push it are those that are "gay by choice"

hahahahahah

you're a comedian and don't even realize it

Perhaps what researchers mean is that shifts in identity can't be forced, which seems logical enough. However, as I noted before, there is empirical evidence of it being common to accept, even praise as brave, a decision to change from a heterosexual to homosexual identity, yet, the opposite shift is scoffed at as impossible.

I'd really love to see this empirical evidence, could you please post the sources, scientific community has apparently not caught on to this.

It thus seems that, in general society, scientific conclusions on the permanance of sexual categorization apply only to those who define themselves as gay, while every self-identifying straight person is apparantly a potential convert to the gay "side".

Again, this is science I've never heard, please post your sources...I'm very interested in reading them.

(Dan Savage once alluded to this when he said that he felt sorry for self-envisaged straight people - men especially - as they nowadays have to constantly assert their "straightness" against the socially accepted notion that they could, just possibly, be closeted gays, while gay people, once there, remain safe in their position forever more.) Bi people - well, they're are all thought of as being half way there, anyway... Unless they're women... For whom it's a normal sign of sexual confidence... Man, people are fucked up!

_[c/e]

I'm not a fan of Dan Savage by any means but he's right in this case, most of those who have to assert their heterosexuality have (time and time again) been revealed as closeted homosexuals, and I'd say we've only 'caught' 1% of them.

Pleasure seeking and hormonal drive can manifest in many manners - sometimes the mode of relief that is at hand is the way they are going to go - For instance I knew a family of Newfies..they had a bunch of male children - "Uncle Eddie" would come over and babysit the boys who were reaching puberty - he would molest them...two brothers took on the gay "life style" later in live _ I guess it felt good to these novice lads..That's why I hate the idea of sexual interference by out school system who propogate the gay thing to boys who have not yet experienced a female...some gays are born and some are made....and all of them act like they have no choice --- Under the intense weight of propogation of gayness in todays society ....maybe the choice is being taken away from males -- I hear talk show hosts that are anti-children - anti-god...anti-family...THEN I find out that the son of a bitch is gay...and he keeps his gayness a secret..wtf?

lmfao

Anyone who hasn't caught on to this troll is just as big of an idiot as he is

[g_bambino]

I'd really love to see this empirical evidence, could you please post the sources, scientific community has apparently not caught on to this.

For a few reasons, I'm unsure that you read properly what I wrote. I spoke of general society's current warping of scientific theory and religious hangovers together to create double standards and hypocritical views that then have consequences. Instead of addressing that, you ask for evidence of a claim I never made and opine on people's sexuality in a way that betrays an ignorance of everything I've said in my previous three or four posts.