Gay history to become required subject in California schools

[Oleg Bach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt

Yes I know it's a Wikipedia link, but still. Garish, cruel, barbaric is a better description of the attitude towards homosexuality there. It doesn't sound at all like you describe. I suggest, you are talking us for a little hand-holding walk here yourself.

By the way, do not confuse Arab customs such as hand holding and even, kissing amongst men as xpressions of sexual desire. Lest we forget, when GB was President he too had to hold a few hands. And far as I know, he ain't no queer boy.

Despite that, what's right is right. Not- relativity!

Although I cannot speak for Oleg let me say that I believe there is a finite, fixed thing we can call 'right'. There is a right principle! Being right is something we might spend our lives aspiring toward, but frequently fail at. Forgiveness of that failure, in all of us, is a whole other matter but does not negate what is "right". So lets call it like it is.

That's wishful thinking on the part of the writer that assumes that men who hold hands say in Egypt have homosexual flings..This is not true - In our society a male friend might put his arm over the others sholder--it is the same thing - Or with European and eastern woman who walk arm in arm or hand in hand are NOT lesbians..they are friends that love each other _ In the stupid west we think everything is sex.

Also the original Christian greeting was a kiss on the cheek or the lips - It was not about sex. A good example is of a modern older corporate woman that I know - I talk to her - have attended a couple of parties with her...we walk our dogs together - It took a while to culture her - She assumed that ANY attention or affection from a man was a sexual thing..Her base way of thinking might be typical of some types...NOW she gets it _ I give her a kiss once in a while and she responds with a more appropriate kiss - First time I kissed her it was fine - second time she slipped me the tongue...I like her but she is not my type - infact I show her love - but will not sleep with her because it would cause emtional attatchement and problems - I don't want to use someone or hurt them.

Now so much for anicdotal tales. We in the west are about instant gratification - and what I really don't like about the way we look upon homo-sexuality is that it is about love - Fore the MOST part it is hedonistic and plain old usery of the other person - much like western hetrosexuals....they use and then dispose of.

[g_bambino]

It's genetic...

There is no definitive proof of that at all.

[msj]

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.

I never said it is/was a genetic defect.

Others have claimed the "defect" term hence my response.

As for my response to Bob and others throwing around the term "defect" - well, it depends on how they are using the term defect.

Some are definitely using it as a term implying being gay is morally wrong while others may not be (although subconsciously who knows).

In fact, we largely agree on this issue and you have merely restated my position using different (and perhaps better) terms.

[Oleg Bach]

I never said it is/was a genetic defect.

Others have claimed the "defect" term hence my response.

As for my response to Bob and others throwing around the term "defect" - well, it depends on how they are using the term defect.

Some are definitely using it as a term implying being gay is morally wrong while others may not be (although subconsciously who knows).

In fact, we largely agree on this issue and you have merely restated my position using different (and perhaps better) terms.

Defect might be to judgemental a word. Perhaps mutation would be more fitting. Some say that homosexuality is natural - I agree in so much as nature generates mutations and it is still a mystery why. Defect implys that the person using the term is some how a perfect creation and the homosexual is defective - Religiously speaking GOD created everything the good - the bad - the indifferent and so on.

Not all creatures are meant to breed...In scripture there is mention of these - some believe they come from the angelic realm and have a purpose - but that purpose is sometimes interfered with.

There is story regarding the ancient cities of Sodom and Gamora....There very beautiful angels decended from another dimensional realm...and a good man sheltered them in his household - When the nasty villagers had heard that three beautiful creatures in human from were sheltered in the home - they demanded that they be sent out - quote "Send them out because we want to know them" In other words have a knowledge of them - carnal knowledge...The Sodomites wanted to abuse these beings - I theorize that some gays are asexual beings and common modern sodomites like knowing them and abusing them...just a theory of mine that might hold some truth.

[msj]

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.

[Note - I bolded the above for Bonam's benefit related to a previous post.]

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

Yeah, like the Old/New Testaments and the crap that springs forth from the Koran ain't cruel or 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.

We are talking about consensual sex between adults (along with love, companionship etc).

A child is not able to form genuine consent therefore sex between a child and an adult is wrong (regardless of sexual orientation).

Yes, there are problems here such as what is a reasonable age of consent, for example.

I think Canada's current law gets it right most of the time.

[Oleg Bach]

[Note - I bolded the above for Bonam's benefit related to a previous post.]

Yeah, like the Old/New Testaments and the crap that springs forth from the Koran ain't cruel or abominable.

We are talking about consensual sex between adults (along with love, companionship etc).

A child is not able to form genuine consent therefore sex between a child and an adult is wrong (regardless of sexual orientation).

Yes, there are problems here such as what is a reasonable age of consent, for example.

I think Canada's current law gets it right most of the time.

Any one who even attempts to even think of lowering the age of concent by a single minitue is someone with deviate and destructive purpose.

[bloodyminded]

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.

I wouldn't consider sex between prisoners to be deviant sex (assuming we're talking consensual stuff here). I can understand why prisons will put a stop to it when it happens...but I wouldn't agree they should stop it out of some moral code.

(Further, even though it is against prison regulations, I can hardly blame incarcerated people for desperately seeking out physical intimacy.)

But no, it's no more morally "wrong" than any premarital sex is morally wrong (I don't think it is wrong, but that's the only argument against it that makes real sense to me.)

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.

Yes, these degenerates are quite infamous. They're wrong in every sense, including consent: even when a child consents, that is not legal consent. It remains sexual assault in every case.

The "liberal mind," whatever that is, is no more "willing to go" there than is "the conservative mind" if we're going to use such terms. No one supports pedophilia, for chrissake.

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.

Oh, I have my doubts that g_bambino would agree with this characterization.

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

You're equating homosexuality with pederasty?

That ain't friendly, man.

Did you know that the majority of pedophiles are those who molest girls?

And that the majority of pedophiles who do molest boys are heterosexual when it comes to relations with adults?

I guess you must hate that slippery slope of heterosexuality.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

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

Fascinating.

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

It's all right there, under population control and homosexuality. You have to do the reading.

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.

I didn't say you said he was a right wing loon.

As most lefties do he keeps things under the radar, such as his study on gun control policy.

He isn't a dumb as Bill Maher, shouting out what he actually thinks. Obviously though, he believes people are too stupid to look after themselves.

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

Not that it applies.

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

You insist on not doing any looking. Keep your blinders on. Of course only stupid leftists, like the condescending Bill Maher, would admit it. You aren't a stupid leftist. But there are leftists further left than you - like Obama. To him Bill Maher is a total fool, you aren't so foolish. I must remind you if you don't wish to be a part of the stupid masses not to ever mention them as stupid ever again. Get smart and never reveal your true thoughts.

That is the opposite of what I think.

That's better.

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.

Good work - don't mentino the stupid masses.

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.

Right on!

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?

You will save them. Openly making the statement of contempt can be dealt with what is diffclt to deal with is the partonizing, I will make at all better for you poor miserable wretches.

Bill Maher can be quite smug, and always condescending.

He is stupid, right? you can't say things like he does and get away with it for long- even if it is true.

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

Of course you don't and a "well done" is deserved.

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

yep.

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.

Are you just talking about your mom and dad?

So you retract earlier statements about the stupid masses.

Perhaps you're projecting.

Perhaps. That would make me so far left I don't even know it.

But really we aren't looking at just politics. So left and right really are irrelevant. It's our whole concept of society and individuals. Our perceptions of others and how we can have a better concept of self in comparison to the low life that comprises the masses.

[bloodyminded]

That's better.

Is it so impossible for you to imagine that those who might disagree with you politically could nonetheless be honest, and not hiding some sinister agenda?

A stunning revelation, I know.....

Your continual insinuations that I'm hiding my real thoughts is an outright insistence that you're completely uninterested in a civil debate.

Good work - don't mentino the stupid masses.

Ah! That I don't talk about "the stupid masses" is evidence that this is how I really think! Ingenious.

By this impeccable logic, it would appear I am also a fundamentalist Hindu, a cigar aficionado, and a professional cricket player.

You will save them. Openly making the statement of contempt can be dealt with what is diffclt to deal with is the partonizing, I will make at all better for you poor miserable wretches.

I can't quite decipher this sentence. I suppose if I were you, I would suspect it was intentionally written in code to deceive....

He is stupid, right? you can't say things like he does and get away with it for long- even if it is true.

I don't think Maher is stupid. At all. As I already said, I feel he is extremely condescending.

I'm not sure what's up with Maher, here. I think you might be overemphasizing his usefulness to whatever point you're trying to make.

Of course you don't and a "well done" is deserved.

A "well done" is deserved because I don't know what you mean by "proclivity to chaos"? Or because you suspect I do know, that chaos is part of my plan, and it's good for us wild lefties to keep denying the truth?

Are you just talking about your mom and dad?

Are you just trying to be an insufferable douchebag?

So you retract earlier statements about the stupid masses.

What earlier statements?

Cite them. It's a direct challenge.

But really we aren't looking at just politics. So left and right really are irrelevant. It's our whole concept of society and individuals. Our perceptions of others and how we can have a better concept of self in comparison to the low life that comprises the masses.

I can't help it if you have some overheated derision for "the masses." But I feel pretty confident that it's not my fault.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

I wouldn't consider sex between prisoners to be deviant sex (assuming we're talking consensual stuff here). I can understand why prisons will put a stop to it when it happens...but I wouldn't agree they should stop it out of some moral code.

(Further, even though it is against prison regulations, I can hardly blame incarcerated people for desperately seeking out physical intimacy.)

But no, it's no more morally "wrong" than any premarital sex is morally wrong (I don't think it is wrong, but that's the only argument against it that makes real sense to me.)

Yes, these degenerates are quite infamous. They're wrong in every sense, including consent: even when a child consents, that is not legal consent. It remains sexual assault in every case.

The "liberal mind," whatever that is, is no more "willing to go" there than is "the conservative mind" if we're going to use such terms. No one supports pedophilia, for chrissake.

Oh, I have my doubts that g_bambino would agree with this characterization.

I know you have some morals, you believe in certain things as right or wrong but I wanted to address the so called immoralists, those who detest the idea that other people can tell us what to do. With the example we see the dilemma of rejecting morality. Those ones who are now silent, I would like to hear their opinion on it.

I expect they will say, "It is wrong" and we can go forward from there.

You're equating homosexuality with pederasty?

That ain't friendly, man.

I guess you must hate that slippery slope of heterosexuality.

No I do not. The slippery slope is not heterosexuality, it is morality.

Remember what I said, I do not hate gays, I would not avoid talking to them or interacting with them in normal social situations. Normal, I say. Because, let me reinforce this, I do not think what gays do sexually is normal. But that is still their private business, as far as I'm concerned.

Your quote is significant at this point in my response-

bm -> "Is it so impossible for you to imagine that those who might disagree with you politically could nonetheless be honest, and not hiding some sinister agenda?"

Don't forget. If we are to be liberal about anything, it should be the ability to talk about anything!

I know we are different on this and I still have the right to my opinion. The only difference between you and me that I see at this point is, you draw your line of what's acceptable somewhere beyond where I do. That is all.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know you have some morals, you believe in certain things as right or wrong but I wanted to address the so called immoralists, those who detest the idea that other people can tell us what to do. With the example we see the dilemma of rejecting morality. Those ones who are now silent, I would like to hear their opinion on it.

I expect they will say, "It is wrong" and we can go forward from there....

There is another group....the amoralists who find the subject to be irrelevant, if only because human sexuality knows no such arbitrary boundaries. "Heterosexuals" who pretend otherwise are just fooling themselves.

[Oleg Bach]

There is another group....the amoralists who find the subject to be irrelevant, if only because human sexuality knows no such arbitrary boundaries. "Heterosexuals" who pretend otherwise are just fooling themselves.

You spent a little to much time at sea sailor. There are bounds if you are a civlized person who has an understanding of sexuality. What sex is and what it is for. RE creational hedonism is not neccesarily sex. This again is the redefinition of the word. SEX like marriage means two opposites . Male and female...one is born tucked in and the other tucked out. It's a plumbing issue. If a plumber had the definition of male and female ends of pumbing politically prohibited...There would be no plumbing. For a guy who seems very male orientated in his views, it is off beat of you to view the world in such a way..You once said and I remember it clearly - that "sex is not bianary" unquote.. Bianary code consists of zeros and ones...or a dot and a space...You can not achieve the concept of sex with two ones or two zeros..There would be no logic to it.

[Oleg Bach]

There is another group....the amoralists who find the subject to be irrelevant, if only because human sexuality knows no such arbitrary boundaries. "Heterosexuals" who pretend otherwise are just fooling themselves.

As for "fooling themselves" or yourself...I guess that is your buisness if you see it extremely needful to pretend you are something you are not or vise versa - unless you are doing 50 years in prison and have resigned yourself to the idea that homosexual activity is the only activity that is available...some straight me will reliquish their moral code in the hope of some sort of pleasure or comfort in those respects - others will not - because manhood in it's real sense is important to them. So how many straight males do you think fool themselves into believing they are gay out of expedience?

[Sir Bandelot]

There is another group....the amoralists who find the subject to be irrelevant, if only because human sexuality knows no such arbitrary boundaries. "Heterosexuals" who pretend otherwise are just fooling themselves.

Sounds to me like a philosophy for Bonobo monkeys. Then there is no law. Bonobos can do anything they want, even kill one other and nothing would stop them. Hardly an example to live by.

Besides, to me it's not always what is "true" that matters. It's whether a belief results in certain actions, and what gets you through the day.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds to me like a philosophy for Bonobo monkeys. Then there is no law. Bonobos can do anything they want, even kill one other and nothing would stop them. Hardly an example to live by.

Now you're just being judgmental...the point is that the standard you believe in doesn't exist. At least the Bonobos are honest about that.

Besides, to me it's not always what is "true" that matters. It's whether a belief results in certain actions, and what gets you through the day.

Murder is illegal....not sex with a toaster.

[bush_cheney2004]

unless you are doing 50 years in prison and have resigned yourself to the idea that homosexual activity is the only activity that is available...

What moral code? Sex in prison doesn't necessarily have to do with homosexuality at all. Don't confuse sexual activity with sexual orientation.

some straight me will reliquish their moral code in the hope of some sort of pleasure or comfort in those respects - others will not - because manhood in it's real sense is important to them. So how many straight males do you think fool themselves into believing they are gay out of expedience?

They don't have to fool themselves at all.

Just because some Boy Scouts enjoy a good circle jerk doesn't mean they're "gay".

[Sir Bandelot]

Now you're just being judgmental...the point is that the standard you believe in doesn't exist. At least the Bonobos are honest about that.

Like I've said, I believe what I want to believe. Nothing needs to exist.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like I've said, I believe what I want to believe. Nothing needs to exist.

...and that's OK. Stevie Wonder wrote a song for folks like you:

[Oleg Bach]

What moral code? Sex in prison doesn't necessarily have to do with homosexuality at all. Don't confuse sexual activity with sexual orientation.

They don't have to fool themselves at all.

Just because some Boy Scouts enjoy a good circle jerk doesn't mean they're "gay".

Thank you - I feel so relieved - I don't mean thank you that way...oh yes - BC is always good for a laugh - Just glad I'm not in his circle of friends.

So far you make the most sense - It's about honesty and being secure in your own skin. Most people get uncomfortable with the idea that being the kid behind the barn with the chicken is odd - You would be surprised how may skeletons are hanging in the closet of that coup. Guess that's my point in the defence of young people and the idea of some educational program regarding homo-sexuality. The facts that sexuality modulates and takes on it's final mature form in human beings is a fact of life....Just don't push some kid who is not fully developed down the gay trail...let nature take it's course and keep the engineers with some strange experimental mind out of the schools - go experiment on your own kids - seeing few gays have children - that puts a glitch in their human resourses regarding this subject.

[Oleg Bach]

...and that's OK. Stevie Wonder wrote a song for folks like you:

"You believe in things that you don't understand and you suffer" - Stevie Wonder. You have to have a full understanding of the human condition and sexuality in order to be objective and wise on the matter - a lot of gays have no full understanding - nor do a lot of straights...People do not give it much thought other than the superfical pondering on the matter. The French would say "to understand is to forgive" - that is wise.

[Oleg Bach]

Now you're just being judgmental...the point is that the standard you believe in doesn't exist. At least the Bonobos are honest about that.

Murder is illegal....not sex with a toaster.

I did five years for the violating a toaster..I was framed and got burned. First thing you have to do is put a little smiling face with lipstick on the side of the toaster - add a fire proof wig and you are off to some hot kinky sex.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The French would say "to understand is to forgive" - that is wise.

Hey...does that explain the butter scene from Last Tango in Paris?

[Oleg Bach]

Hey...does that explain the butter scene from Last Tango in Paris?

I have a prostrate the size of a potatoe? That scene? I could understand it but he should have been getting blown at the same time....so much for the fun BC - it is hot as hell and both of my AC units are about to die...Yah I have been around the block - but not that block..lived with a few very exceiting woman and had numerous affairs - all I can say is that I have done it all --------with a WOMAN...no need for men...That just about says it all - Being a sly and adventurous kid - led me to be an adventuring adult - always loved errotica...it was the core of my being and my driving force - wish I had not let it control my life ...but then again - I had a great and wonderful time.

[bush_cheney2004]

.Yah I have been around the block - but not that block..lived with a few very exceiting woman and had numerous affairs - all I can say is that I have done it all --------with a WOMAN...no need for men...That just about says it all...

It's all good....I learned about the "gay lifestyle" in a very unconventional way...by monitoring 800MHz cell phone frequencies almost 20 years ago. Nowadays the same thing happens on so called "chat lines" and text networks.

Let's just say that dinner and a movie wasn't/isn't required.

[bloodyminded]

It's all good....I learned about the "gay lifestyle" in a very unconventional way...by monitoring 800MHz cell phone frequencies almost 20 years ago. Nowadays the same thing happens on so called "chat lines" and text networks.

Yes, i think it's long been understood that a lot of role playing goes on that doesn't plainly indicate sexual orientation (or maybe it does, but only in that orientation is not a black-and-white business at all). A man might pretend to be a woman, not because he's fantasizing about having sex with the fantasy man, but because he can "make" the fantasy woman--himself--behave in a way he finds exciting.

And so on.

Edited July 22, 2011 by bloodyminded