Gay history to become required subject in California schools

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm not sure what that proves, g_bambino. Adolescent males are grossly irresponsible. Your article shows that as they grow up they return to a sense of decency, and cease having gay sex with one another. It implies being gay is a choice and that they can shut it off, stop being gay once they mature and especially if woman is 'available' to them.

But I have no doubt that there are men who would never consider having gay sex, even if no women is available. But perhaps, give a long enough time (like being in a prison for example) that could change due to loneliness and stress. Tell me that isn't a defect.

[Sir Bandelot]

we do not acknowledge your SHAM POLITICAL SYSTEM...

Don't blame me, it's not my system either. But we do not acknowledge, dreaming about committing violence toward others.

[Pliny]

Considering the state that the world is in, I believe this to be true. But it is surely not the fault of homosexuals.

The human being is sadly psychotic, selfish and unwise. And all the things in life that distract us from devoping to our true potential add to the problem. That's why discipline and guidance, and yes some kind of code of morality are so important. A young mind needs rules and boundaries, else we fall to chaos from our unchecked animal instincts.

A young mind needs rules and boundaries he must enforce himself they cannot be enforced by someone else.

There are only a few rules that are necessary to be common to all to maintain order in a society. Most of them involve treating others how one himself would prefer to be treated. We need to stay above the state of animal not succumb to the animal instinct of self preservation only. It may happen under catastrophic conditions that we myopically see only our self preservation but if the values are forgotten under those circumstances especially we are no better than animals because that is the time those standards are tested.

There always will be criminality but it can be minimized only with maintaining one's self-respect, which isn't a characteristic of animals. The left would have us think that not setting any values would then give us no reason to lose self-respect. This would be great but self-respect is not something that just "is". We gain it by accomplishment and adhering to and maintaining the values we set for ourselves. We can always improve upon them as well if we wish to rise to even higher standards of self respect and accomplishment. There is no accomplishment in having a law dictate our behavior. In such a case all that is necessary to lose self-respect is to lose respect for the law and it's authority, something that is increasingly fashionable, it seems. We must set the values for ourselves and maintain them ourselves. Our failure to do so will be evident in our self-disappointment. Only criminals, who already have lost self-respect show no disappointment in themselves by their actions and instead attempt to justify them to others.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

No. First of all, I have posted exactly--to the letter--zero remarks about overpopulation, on any thread and in any context.

Was that a no to the first question or the second question? I don't think I said you had made any remarks about over-population. I am just saying homosexuality would naturally contribute to a decrease in population.

Second, your "modest proposal," mocking the notion of population concerns by supporting homosexuality (which you don't really seem to much like, presumably for the religious reasons which you will quickly deny), also tries to take into account that the homosexual population is too small to make a difference....setting up your straw man to knock it down, I suppose.

It may be a small contribution to the problem of population but as I said every little bit helps. And who knows maybe, just maybe the percentage of those in homosexual relations will increase if homosexuals are given gay rights.

Perhaps you believe you're cleverly mocking my own views, rather than speaking in mysterious code. I"m happy to disabuse you of this delusion.

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But would a person with the prime objective of decreasing population see it that way? Sort of like an environmentalist who will destroy a segment of society to to save the endangered silver minnow for example. It works for the best in the end. There will perhaps be less people, there is less development, a species is saved from extinction- nature is being restored and the environment is saved. Are there people that think that way?

I'm beginning to think you aren't as lefty as you claim to be. Certainly not left of Barack Obama!

To me, any issues about homosexuality is completely irrelevant to notions of population control, good or bad. "White race" notwithstanding.

Ok. So you don't happen to think that. I believe there are people that do and some may happen to be highly positioned in the establishment order.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Pliny

[BC_chick]

I like it, Bonam. A lot of other minority groups have their history, it's about time gays do too.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure what that proves, g_bambino. Adolescent males are grossly irresponsible. Your article shows that as they grow up they return to a sense of decency, and cease having gay sex with one another. It implies being gay is a choice and that they can shut it off, stop being gay once they mature and especially if woman is 'available' to them.

But I have no doubt that there are men who would never consider having gay sex, even if no women is available. But perhaps, give a long enough time (like being in a prison for example) that could change due to loneliness and stress. Tell me that isn't a defect.

That isn't a defect.

[bloodyminded]

Was that a no to the first question or the second question? I don't think I said you had made any remarks about over-population. I am just saying homosexuality would naturally contribute to a decrease in population.

Even if you were serious, and not mocking some phantom debating point that no one makes...as you said, the percentage is small enough that effects would be negligible. You say "every little bit helps," but it would be such a tiny bit of "help" that no one would waste any time and effort on such measures.

Obviously, you don't see it that way. But would a person with the prime objective of decreasing population see it that way?

Nope. Have you heard anyone who supports population decreases make the suggestion?

Sort of like an environmentalist who will destroy a segment of society to to save the endangered silver minnow for example. It works for the best in the end. There will perhaps be less people, there is less development, a species is saved from extinction- nature is being restored and the environment is saved. Are there people that think that way?

Any caricature can be drawn up, after which one hypothetically forces hypothetical people into the strawman hypothetical.

I'm beginning to think you aren't as lefty as you claim to be. Certainly not left of Barack Obama!

Obama was a lefty in his younger days, it appears. Now that he's President, I'd guess that half the American population is to his left. Percentages eslewhere in the West might well be more than half.

For example, as per our subject, according to polls, roughly half of Americans support same sex marriage; Obama does not. (In Canada, support is over 70%, according to a MacLean's poll.) I don't see any stated or active policies of Obasma that place him peculiarly on the left of the spectrum.

Ok. So you don't happen to think that. I believe there are people that do and some may happen to be highly positioned in the establishment order.

People who think the acceptance of homosexuality is related to, and useful for, population control?

That's a pretty heavy conspiracy theory.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[g_bambino]

That isn't a defect.

Precisely.

[Sir Bandelot]

Precisely.

In the example I gave, it comes out as a response to their hopelessness (from being in jail), and their isolation from women. Those who have prison sex are mentally unwell.

How many would not engage in that activity, given a heterosexual alternative?

Explain to me how that is not defective.

[g_bambino]

Those who have prison sex are mentally unwell.

Some, maybe.

How many would not engage in that activity, given a heterosexual alternative?

What does it matter? The fact that they can, and do, shows homosexuality isn't a defect of nature. Everyone is capable of it and each person can choose to exercise it or not, depending on circumstances, culture, curiosity, alchohol consumption, whatever.

I wonder, do you think the entire Bonobo species is a defect?

[c/e]

Edited July 21, 2011 by g_bambino

[Bob]

What's wrong with describing homosexual orientation at the genetic level as being a defect? From a biological perspective, our jobs are to pass along our genes through procreation, and a homosexual orientation doesn't aid in those efforts. It's understandable why there is political sensitivity towards describing homosexuality as a defect, although there are many psychological defects out there. It seems to me that homosexuality could be accurately labelled as a mental disorder, but perhaps that seems more harsh.

[g_bambino]

What's wrong with describing homosexual orientation at the genetic level as being a defect?

You assume it has to do with genes.

[bloodyminded]

What's wrong with describing homosexual orientation at the genetic level as being a defect? From a biological perspective, our jobs are to pass along our genes through procreation, and a homosexual orientation doesn't aid in those efforts. It's understandable why there is political sensitivity towards describing homosexuality as a defect, although there are many psychological defects out there. It seems to me that homosexuality could be accurately labelled as a mental disorder, but perhaps that seems more harsh.

It's more and less than harsh; it's false. Homosexuality goes well beyond the mental state (as somehow, apparently, distinct from everything else occurring in the human body) as heterosexuality does.

And if homosexuality is a "defect," based on on the biological imperative to pass on genes, then every woman past the age of menopause who has sexual feelings and urges is also "defective."

[g_bambino]

And if homosexuality is a "defect," based on on the biological imperative to pass on genes, then every woman past the age of menopause who has sexual feelings and urges is also "defective."

Every man is also a defect then, given the total lack of contribution to the gene pool that wet dreams are.

[Pliny]

Even if you were serious, and not mocking some phantom debating point that no one makes...as you said, the percentage is small enough that effects would be negligible. You say "every little bit helps," but it would be such a tiny bit of "help" that no one would waste any time and effort on such measures.

How about starting with educating California children about gay history?

Nope. Have you heard anyone who supports population decreases make the suggestion?

Any caricature can be drawn up, after which one hypothetically forces hypothetical people into the strawman hypothetical.

For a real honest approach you simply have to google "population control and homosexuality" or something similar. You will have to do some digging if you wish to find the influential connections though.

Obama was a lefty in his younger days, it appears. Now that he's President, I'd guess that half the American population is to his left. Percentages eslewhere in the West might well be more than half.

For example, as per our subject, according to polls, roughly half of Americans support same sex marriage; Obama does not. (In Canada, support is over 70%, according to a MacLean's poll.) I don't see any stated or active policies of Obasma that place him peculiarly on the left of the spectrum.

He is a Christian too - must be a right-wing loon.

People who think the acceptance of homosexuality is related to, and useful for, population control?

That's a pretty heavy conspiracy theory.

It doesn't take much but a google these days to find how deep the conspiracy goes.

You know I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Population control is one of the selling features of homosexuality.

Huffington Post - Imagine that

"How do homosexuals secure the species, Mr. Denson. I mean as sexual beings?"

"We preserve the species. We are conservation realized. We provide nature's ... restraint ... on procreative extravagance. We keep human production from becoming ... overproduction ... pollution ... destruction unbridled. We keep the human race from becoming ... an obscene cosmic joke."

In paraphrasing the famous words of John Stewart, there is one thing that you leftists do not seem to get. The further left you are the more you look upon the masses as stupid and degenerate never once thinking of themselves as a part of those stupid degenerate masses. But there is always someone further left that will view them as included but perhaps useful.

Homosexuality is used by the left as is racism and other social divides in the manner I shall describe.

Firstly, there is the idea that the masses are generally stupid. We see several individuals here on this forum often making that statement. This is their stated view of people in general. Homosexuals and Blacks must be included in the "masses" - If not all, most. They of course would never admit to being homophobic or racist and use those terms to batter others which may or may not hold validity - most often it doesn't. Playing the race card and labeling people homophobic becomes a part of a shield, a veil that hides their contempt for the general population. It serves a double purpose. One, they claim not holding any prejudices and being tolerant by pointing to others and their biases and intolerances while it shores up their opinion of the masses as being stupid, and two they patronizingly claim being the friend of the oppressed.

Bill Maher is a good example of a leftist that doesn't understand he is a part of the very masses and stupid people he chugs his vitriol at on his show. There are, after all, people that are further left wing than he is. Taking on the colours of the leftist by showing disdain for the masses helps to further the far left proclivity for chaos.

Let's just say it is a trait among the left to consider themselves the rational lot of man. They are the thinking people. They don't beleive in fairy tales about heaven and hell, they believe that those that "have" are criminally holding onto their wealth at the expense of those who are needy, there are many people who are disadvantaged and need their help to keep them safe and make a level playing field, these people are a majority and consist of the uneducated, the poor, the derelict, the physically and mentally challenged. The left, in seeing this, are of course above it all and can see what needs to be done for the less advantaged. They don't have to admit to despising the masses and won't if called upon to do so. Their love and tolerance knows no bounds but the rest of the people are either idiots for not seeing life in the same light as they do or are part of some, either intellectually or materially "lesser" and disadvantaged minority they can "help" and protect. Their real opinion of them is only revealed when talking among themselves or by a slip of the tongue or, as in Bill Maher's case, where he openly spreads hatred doesn't realize he is looked upon by his "betters" (those further to the left) as a part of the stupid masses he so despises. Why is Bill Maher stupid? He openly discusses what his betters know they would never publicly admit to.

The far left is divisive, playing rich against poor, hetero against homo, black against white, socialist against conservative, taking in every instance the cause of and representing themselves as the voice of the disadvantaged. Being patronizing do-gooders on the surface while harbouring a disgust or contempt for the people they try and "help" not with their own money, or at least not to the point of inconvenience, but with other people's money.

Yep. Unfortunately, there isn't much hope for a change in their attitude because that great a shift towards life and living is not something that should be promoted to the less able and stupid masses or they may become a part of the problem of being able to look after themselves. Doing things, building homes and businesses and depleting resources and polluting - rotten, nasty people.

[Pliny]

And if homosexuality is a "defect," based on on the biological imperative to pass on genes, then every woman past the age of menopause who has sexual feelings and urges is also "defective."

I guess you believe it isn't genetic then?

Or maybe that it is genetic but just not a "defect". It's a genetic trait like eye colour or menopause, right? But the gene undeniably exists.

Does it exist, g_bambino?

[The_Squid]

I guess you believe it isn't genetic then?

Or maybe that it is genetic but just not a "defect". It's a genetic trait like eye colour or menopause, right? But the gene undeniably exists.

Does it exist, g_bambino?

Let's define what we are discussing.

genetic defect - a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically

It's genetic, but it is a defect like red hair is a defect.

No reputable medical journal or text would define homosexuality as a "genetic defect".

[Pliny]

Let's define what we are discussing.

genetic defect - a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically

It's genetic, but it is a defect like red hair is a defect.

No reputable medical journal or text would define homosexuality as a "genetic defect".

So there is indeed a homosexual gene?

[The_Squid]

So there is indeed a homosexual gene?

I've never actually looked for one... but the answer might be "yes".

[msj]

What's wrong with describing homosexual orientation at the genetic level as being a defect? From a biological perspective, our jobs are to pass along our genes through procreation, and a homosexual orientation doesn't aid in those efforts. It's understandable why there is political sensitivity towards describing homosexuality as a defect, although there are many psychological defects out there. It seems to me that homosexuality could be accurately labelled as a mental disorder, but perhaps that seems more harsh.

What's wrong with calling it a "defect" is the moral undertone.

As Nietzsche once wrote: there is no moral phenomena at all; only moral interpretations of phenomena.

So, people come along, call something a "defect" and it implies there is something morally wrong about that characteristic.

If people are only talking in terms of it being a "defect" from an evolutionary pro-creation point of view then fair enough.

Although I don't think we have a full enough understanding of evolution to be able to tell if it is a "defect" or not, I can appreciate this POV even if I disagree with it.

What I like about Nietzshe's quote above is that basically it says that shit happens which has no moral underpinnings at all.

Then humans interpret the shit that happens and put all kinds of moral values on it.

Then words are used to demonstrate the "moral righteousness" of those who don't do that shit while other words are applied to the "morally weak" who do do that shit.

Let's not bother discussing culture, laws, actions, and other ways the allegedly "defective" are oppressed and repressed beyond mere words.

The defect here is thinking that humans are any good at placing moral values on anything.

well, at least when it comes to using religion as a moral basis we ain't very good.

[Bonam]

What's wrong with calling it a "defect" is the moral undertone.

As Nietzsche once wrote: there is no moral phenomena at all; only moral interpretations of phenomena.

So, people come along, call something a "defect" and it implies there is something morally wrong about that characteristic.

Er, where do you get that, exactly? Putting aside the issue of whether being gay is a genetic defect for a moment, having a genetic defect has nothing to do with one's morality. If someone has an extra finger, does that mean there is something morally wrong with them? Genetic defects and moral defects are not one and the same. One can be affected by a genetic condition without having anything wrong with one's morality.

[bloodyminded]

How about starting with educating California children about gay history?

And you believe this is part of the "population control" agenda.

Fascinating.

For a real honest approach you simply have to google "population control and homosexuality" or something similar. You will have to do some digging if you wish to find the influential connections though.

Since you already have the information, why not be civil and helpful and link me to it?

He is a Christian too - must be a right-wing loon.

I didn't say he was a right-wing loon (nor that adherence to the Chritian faith suggests such a thing). I said he was not governing, acting, nor talking as a far-lefty since becoming president.

It doesn't take much but a google these days to find how deep the conspiracy goes.

Yes, like 9/11 truthers and Jews controlling the Earth. All easy to find, plenty of interesting sources.

You know I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Population control is one of the selling features of homosexuality.

No it isn't. It's completely irrelevant.

In paraphrasing the famous words of John Stewart, there is one thing that you leftists do not seem to get. The further left you are the more you look upon the masses as stupid and degenerate never once thinking of themselves as a part of those stupid degenerate masses.

That is the opposite of what I think.

If my thinking is flawed, it's that I'm too unforgivingly harsh and critical about the tiny little cadres of wealth and big-time political power.

Homosexuality is used by the left as is racism and other social divides in the manner I shall describe.

Firstly, there is the idea that the masses are generally stupid. We see several individuals here on this forum often making that statement. This is their stated view of people in general. Homosexuals and Blacks must be included in the "masses" - If not all, most. They of course would never admit to being homophobic or racist and use those terms to batter others which may or may not hold validity - most often it doesn't. Playing the race card and labeling people homophobic becomes a part of a shield, a veil that hides their contempt for the general population. It serves a double purpose. One, they claim not holding any prejudices and being tolerant by pointing to others and their biases and intolerances while it shores up their opinion of the masses as being stupid, and two they patronizingly claim being the friend of the oppressed.

The race card and its sexual/genderfied contemporary usage is indeed an irritant, and is used inaccurately probably more often than accurately. So I agree.

The stated view of the stupidity of the masses is more common than you indicate, and it comes from every direction, certainly not peculiarly the Left. What general area on the spectrum do you suppsoe we hear the near-daily complaints about dirty, stupid immigrants and the degnerates known otherwise as "homosexuals"? Who complains about the mass liberal indoctrination of the masses of numbnuts stupid people?

Bill Maher is a good example of a leftist that doesn't understand he is a part of the very masses and stupid people he chugs his vitriol at on his show. There are, after all, people that are further left wing than he is. Taking on the colours of the leftist by showing disdain for the masses helps to further the far left proclivity for chaos.

Bill Maher can be quite smug, and always condescending.

I have no idea what "proclivity for chaos" to which you're referring.

Let's just say it is a trait among the left to consider themselves the rational lot of man. They are the thinking people. They don't beleive in fairy tales about heaven and hell, they believe that those that "have" are criminally holding onto their wealth at the expense of those who are needy, there are many people who are disadvantaged and need their help to keep them safe and make a level playing field, these people are a majority and consist of the uneducated, the poor, the derelict, the physically and mentally challenged. The left, in seeing this, are of course above it all and can see what needs to be done for the less advantaged. They don't have to admit to despising the masses and won't if called upon to do so. Their love and tolerance knows no bounds but the rest of the people are either idiots for not seeing life in the same light as they do or are part of some, either intellectually or materially "lesser" and disadvantaged minority they can "help" and protect. Their real opinion of them is only revealed when talking among themselves or by a slip of the tongue or, as in Bill Maher's case, where he openly spreads hatred doesn't realize he is looked upon by his "betters" (those further to the left) as a part of the stupid masses he so despises. Why is Bill Maher stupid? He openly discusses what his betters know they would never publicly admit to

The far left is divisive, playing rich against poor, hetero against homo, black against white, socialist against conservative, taking in every instance the cause of and representing themselves as the voice of the disadvantaged. Being patronizing do-gooders on the surface while harbouring a disgust or contempt for the people they try and "help" not with their own money, or at least not to the point of inconvenience, but with other people's money.

And yet "it's not really about left and right, which is a false dichotomy," eh, Pliny?

At any rate, this is all vitriolic caricature, a fantasy world of selective reproach and sheer partisan disgust which bears no resemblance to the contented, warm, people-filled world which I happily inhabit.

Yep. Unfortunately, there isn't much hope for a change in their attitude because that great a shift towards life and living is not something that should be promoted to the less able and stupid masses or they may become a part of the problem of being able to look after themselves. Doing things, building homes and businesses and depleting resources and polluting - rotten, nasty people.

Perhaps you're projecting.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Er, where do you get that, exactly? Putting aside the issue of whether being gay is a genetic defect for a moment, having a genetic defect has nothing to do with one's morality. If someone has an extra finger, does that mean there is something morally wrong with them? Genetic defects and moral defects are not one and the same. One can be affected by a genetic condition without having anything wrong with one's morality.

But "defect" has obvious connotations of being "less than ideal," or "not right." It isn't, ever, a value-free word. It never means, for example, simply "statistically unusual" or "of a statistical minority."

No one ever calls a genius IQ a "defect."

Yet homosexuality is a "defect."

But they don't mean anything by it!

Uh-huh.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

But "defect" has obvious connotations of being "less than ideal," or "not right." It isn't, ever, a value-free word. It never means, for example, simply "statistically unusual" or "of a statistical minority."

No one ever calls a genius IQ a "defect."

Yet homosexuality is a "defect."

But they don't mean anything by it!

Uh-huh.

Maybe defect is the wrong word...

How 'bout biological abberation??

[Sir Bandelot]

When I used the term 'defect' I did not specifically mean a physical defect such as genetic, or like a disease. It might even be genetic, I don't think anyone's ever proven why it is. But moral defect, perhaps that is closer to what I meant. Defect in this case means something is wrong, in other words I think it is wrong, but I don't blame people who have that impulse. Seems like some are born with the tendency to be gay. If genetic then they are defective much like Down's syndrome children are defective. Others, maybe not born that way give in to it in a form of sexual deviancy, as with the example of prisoners sex. Anyway I'm no expert but these are just my opinions.

Some of you will jump on the concept of morality. Forget about Nietzsche, his philosophy is cruel and abominable.

I know the liberals here will gnash their teeth at the word "moral". So let me explore how far the liberal mind is willing to go, in abandoning its morals. There are other types of sexual deviants, there is a group called the "Man-Boy love association." They advocate that sexual love should be acceptable between a man and a boy, as long as the child is willing to consent, there is no harm done.

Now, by g_bambino's reckoning, this should be acceptable as it was very common practice in Greek and Roman times, and he seems to further advocate it thus in his example about gay sex with youth in the middle east. How young are the youths, g_b?

Acceptable, or not? If not, why not. Where do you draw the line. Or is there a line for you people at all.