Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 2 of 7«<12345>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
8/1/2012 22:40:23   
Rillian
Member

As far as acceptance towards the LGBT community goes, it really doesn't matter to me what they do. It doesn't concern me, they generally don't cause harm to anyone else, and they're people, so they're free to do whatever they like.

Regarding gay marriage however, I must say I have a conservative stance on that. It has been my belief for a very long time that marriage was reserved for a union between a man and a woman, very possibly for the general idea of procreation, and not between two people of the same gender.
It really is the terminology here that bothers me because it just doesn't make any sense IMO. I'm perfectly fine with gay people getting together, but I've always felt that gay marriage should be called "gay marriage", and not "marriage".
Yes, I'm making a stance that the modern population wouldn't agree with, and that's perfectly fine with me. But as I said, my problem lies with its terminology. It's equivalent to calling Qin Shi Huang the first King of China. Which in this case, the proper terminology should be "emperor".
Also, it is also commonly mentioned that "people are free to love whoever they want". Why the ever present stigma behind incest then?

Now as far as the claim that "being gay is not a choice".. I can't pass any judgement on that. I'm not gay, so I can't understand how a homosexual person thinks or feels. Geneticists and biologists have yet to come up with concrete evidence to prove the existence of a gay gene. Surveys have also shown that numerous homosexuals have actually chosen their sexual preference for a variety of reasons such as social pressure. Disregarding surveys, I have also come across homosexuals/bisexuals who have chosen their way of life simply because of the hedonistic nature behind it.

So all in all, because I can't understand homosexuals, I shall not pass any judgement whatsoever on their way of lifestyle. They are people, and everyone is free to do whatever they like.
AQ  Post #: 26
8/2/2012 0:32:07   
Dracoa
Member
 

Here's what I don't get, if marriage is a union between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation, what about people who can't get pregnant/get someone pregnant? Are they not allowed to get married? If we were to follow that line of thinking, would we determine a persons fertility before they are allowed to get married?

And Rillian, you can comment on "being gay is not a choice", because you know if you choose to be straight or not. I don't choose to be straight, I just am, I'm sure the same can be said of you and every other straight person in the world.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 27
8/2/2012 1:19:27   
Rillian
Member

Why am I not surprised yet another has misread what I wrote? I've posted this so many other places and many have given the exact same reply... I said "very possibly for the general idea of procreation". Look at how I phrased my words mate. You rephrased it to a "if and only if" argument.

Regarding your 2nd point, no offense really, but it makes no sense to me. I know I'm straight, I didn't choose to be straight. Indeed. So me knowing that I'm straight equates to homosexual people being born homosexual? How does that work? Your example is also known as a converse fallacy Please read my entire paragraph in its entirety. I really don't like reiterating myself...

EDIT: I recognize you're against my stance. You aren't the first. Sure, like many others, you'd love to attempt to change my view. There are so many liberals out there. And I'm pretty liberal in certain areas as well. But my primary problem lies with the terminology, and that's a rather grey area.

< Message edited by Rillian -- 8/2/2012 1:23:33 >
AQ  Post #: 28
8/2/2012 1:38:25   
Yammka
Member

quote:

Why the ever present stigma behind incest then?

I can answer that. Have you ever heard of the Hapsburgs? :P. That's why. :D. Incest is stigmatized because actual harmful effects come from it. Genetic inbreeding does terrible things. Homo-sexuality does NOT cause any noticeable genetic mutations because there's nothing to mutate. They can't procreate.
AQ  Post #: 29
8/2/2012 2:44:32   
Starflare
Member
 

@Rillian
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and just because it doesn't quite mirror mine, I shouldn't try to change your beliefs. And I won't. I will, however, comment on how well put your statement is. You put your strong beliefs into well-said words that didn't sound at all hateful.



_____________________________

Post #: 30
8/2/2012 2:47:50   
Kaelin
 Strange World


Tradition generally has been a poor reason for anything: it is has been the justification used to deny rights to people of various races, ethnicities, and religions, often relegating them to subhuman status. Nowadays, we'd generally consider these types of discriminations to be immoral, but the only way society could get to that point was by first fighting for those rights in defiance of tradition -- there had to be a first day where tradition was ultimately pushed aside on each issue. Depending on your part of the world, women *still* don't have basic rights of citizenship, and I don't think we're about to say that because of tradition that their inequality is the proper way of handling things.

Technically, there really is no such thing as "gay marriage." Gay designates a sexual attraction, whereas the couplings that get certain people worked up is same-sex marriage. The label of same-sex ends up making more sense in the context of someone who is bisexual: if a bisexual woman marries a man, no one calls that "bisexual marriage." It's just called marriage, or more precisely mixed-sex marriage, just as it is when a straight man and a straight woman get married. In that respect, all marriages are either mixed-sex or same-sex, and it is really for the sake of convenience that we just call all of them marriage.

The distinction drawn seems to want first-billing of "marriage" to go to mixed-sex couples, with same-sex couples having to take on some other less-desired title. This approach to titles is inherently unequal, akin to how race-segregated schools are inherently unequal. The only* just way to deal with the issue is to consider all marriage to be marriage, and anyone wanting to distinguish theirs can call it mixed-sex marriage or same-sex marriage, just as Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans can call themselves accordingly to distinguish themselves from other Christians. On a related note, just because a mixed-sex marriage is called marriage doesn't mean everyone will honor it anyway: not only does the Vatican of the Catholic Church not recognize same-sex couples, but it will also not recognize marriages performed outside its church.

If "they're free to do whatever they like," then as long as no private organizations (including churches) are required to perform same-sex marriage themselves, then real legal plain old "marriage" needs to be available to same-sex couples. There's no getting around it.

* An alternative would be just to abolish legal (law-based) marriage and only retain "unions," but that's an awful lot of trouble just to keep same-sex couples from getting plain legal marriage, isn't it?

*snip*

I recommend not reading too much into "surveys" or examples pointing at some examples where people say they are living a "choice." Choice is a loaded word, and it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Some people may be saying "choice" because they think "choice" is the same thing as "feeling" or "attraction" (which they *can't* control), or their "choice" is to not succumb to the pressure to live against and/or in shame of their sexual orientation. Even men (I'm making an educated guess that you're just talking about men at this point) who might say they "choose" men may just be reflecting their desire to be with men, or they may simply be open to everyone but will settle for the low-hanging fruit. Granted, you can certainly take issue with that opportunistic attitude, but that's not a criticism intrinsic or exclusive to same-sex attraction -- heterosexuality remains the predominant source of relationships of that nature, and if your complaint has to do with easy, empty, abusive, and/or manipulative relationships, it would be best to separate those complaints rather than stereotype the entire group.

[Snipped a couple parts, hope you won't mind. <3]

< Message edited by Kaelin -- 8/2/2012 12:00:58 >
AQ  Post #: 31
8/2/2012 5:19:10   
Rillian
Member

@Yammka:
The House of Habsburg I'm assuming? Yes, it's one of the many notable examples of intermarriage and inbreeding. But you see there's another problem. Homosexual people don't even have the ability to procreate in the first place, so disregarding procreation, why can't two people who're related to each other get married without procreating then? No inbreeding complications there.

@Kaelin:
The way I see it, tradition being associated with negativity is as religion is to evil. People hold on to traditional beliefs to this day, even the most liberal of people. I'm sure I don't need to give examples. Anyway, I'm not sure if you're simply making a stance, or are making a strawman counter argument to my previous post. I merely stated that the problem I have with gay marriage is the terminology. Is it traditional to associate various things to relevant terms, evident by my Qin Shi Huang comparison.

Perhaps you misunderstood me when I talked about gay marriage. When I talk about "gay", I'm really referring to "same-sex". It generally means the same thing, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. A bisexual woman is still a woman, so it's still a woman marrying a man. A point which I thought I made clear with the mention of "a union between a man and a woman". There's really no need to bring various Christian denominations and their views in. This isn't about religious viewpoints.

It seems you have misunderstood my post once again. By saying "free to do what they like", I simply meant free to love whomever or whatever they want, and being to do anything as they please. Sure, same-sex marriage isn't allowed everywhere, but when someone says a male pre-op transgender athlete is free to do whatever he wants, they certainly don't mean he can register himself for an Olympic sport in the male category. There are laws, obviously.

The definition of Gay is as follows:
quote:

gay

adjective /gā/ 
gayer, comparative; gayest, superlative

(of a person, esp. a man) Homosexual

They are the same thing.
You are certainly passionate about stating your point about love, emotions, relationships and such, and I admire that. But I disagree with you that this isn't a matter of science. Homosexuals cannot procreate. It has been generally understood throughout history that the primary purpose of all living things was to ensure the future existence of their species through procreation. The gay gene is something that HAS to be studied and understood, because like it or not, it deviates from the normal. I'm afraid feelings will not get rid of gay segregation and discrimination if there's no practical approach to understanding something that a straight person won't get.

Regarding your last point about surveys, it certainly makes sense to be doubtful of them. But let's look at your points from a neutral point of view. You are making justifications for people you don't know. Yes, PERHAPS the people I mentioned mistook their choice for feelings. But that's merely a possibility. They called it a choice, and that's how it should generally be viewed. Indeed, "Maybe" is a strong word. But we don't know for sure how they really think do we?
Also, I never stereotyped the entire group. I was merely giving examples of homosexuals who said they were not born gay, which was simply a point to add on to my understanding of homosexuals.

I'm a little busy, so I won't reply to all your points in detail. Pretty sure I managed to get my points across anyway.
AQ  Post #: 32
8/2/2012 10:21:51   
Fingerman
Member

@Rillian: Though I don't agree with you're standing... at all... I will respect your views .But, I must say my own stance. IMO, you are born with homosexuality. Its just something that's part of what you are. Actually, it's like the human race's antidote to overpopulation. Incest can result in birth defects, so there's a reason it's frowned upon. Gay marriage, however, is simply two people who love each other. Marriage isn't just the idea of procreating. Whether they get married or not, there wouldn't be a difference. It's not like there's a limit to how many people can mary, and also, not like there's a danger of underpopulating. What I'm saying is, though you may not support it, there are valid points for gay marriage. Not allowing it is more discrimination than anything.
DF  Post #: 33
8/2/2012 11:04:42   
The Extinguisher
Member

Incest is a biological block, something that is present in all mammals and birds, and a lot of more intelligent reptiles, because of genetic reasons. That's why there's such a strong cultural taboo. I will take a controversial opinion and say yes, a closely related couple without the ability to procreate should be allowed and encouraged to love each other. What two consenting adults want to do in the bedroom in up to them.

Okay, so some people said it was a choice (also, why is it a big deal if it is a choice?). But hey, I'll stand up right now and say it. It wasn't a choice for me. I'm bisexual, I like guys and girls. I didn't wake up one day and think, "you know what, I'd love to be oppressed and discriminated against, I think I'll be bisexual."



On tradition: It's a terrible thing. Always. Even if it seems good, tradition should always be discarded or at least examined.
Post #: 34
8/2/2012 12:01:06   
Eukara Vox
Legendary AdventureGuide!


Just a reminder

This is a universal rule and it seems to have been overlooked. "Do not post anything that may offend : Any sexually explicit language." The discussion of sex, the action of sex, and details of sex are not allowed under universal rules. I understand that this is part of the discussion. Some of you have done a good job not getting detailed, not referring to specifics, not taking details to a point of offending. But, as you all know, "give an inch, take a mile" is a frequent ideal in this forum. Be very careful how you choose your words. Remember the varied audience and the consideration AE takes with how the forums are managed to be acceptable to all members of family and friends, not matter age, creed, belief or social standing.



I just wanted to say that so far, I have been happy with how everyone is conducting themselves. Even the one person who had the guts to post against the grain has done so well, and those who stand opposite have also carried themselves well with the response. This is what I had hoped would happen. I have waited a long time, guys, to see this.

So, thank you.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 35
8/2/2012 12:54:06   
stealthwings
Helpful


First: I do not know anyone irl who I know is L/G/B/T, and I am not myself. This is not to say I do not know anyone like that, I simply neither care nor pay attention to anyone's romantic lives. I know very few people whom I know to be straight, though I believe that most people I know are probably straight since there are statistically more straight people.

I do however, definitely agree with same-sex marriage, more for the reasons against it than the reasons for it.

My stances on the various arguments against it:
As a religious issue: I strongly believe in the separation of church and state for my own reasons.
Because of tradition: Tradition should never be used as an argument. A harmless tradition is fine for anyone who wants to follow it, but it should not forced upon anyone who does not want to follow said tradition, and tradition alone is not a reason for anything. I disagree with the idea of tradition, but if someone wants to follow a tradition which doesn't affect anyone else and doesn't force others to follow their traditions, I don't care.
Because the point of "marriage" is procreation: Provided you attack sterile people, and anyone who does not want to procreate, this one is fine by me. Otherwise, don't single out one group of people who will not/cannot procreate and not the others. Also, I think that overpopulation is a very bad thing, and see no problem with people who will not procreate.
Because "it is a choice to be gay": Whether or not it is true I do not have an opinion on because I am not gay. However, for this to count as a valid argument then whomever it is used against must already agree that being gay is bad. I do not hold such an opinion, and thus do not think of it as a valid argument.
Because "marriage" should be defined as between a man and a woman: This argument is often used because of religion, at which point I turn to my first reason. Even if it is not, I am going to agree with a californian judge and say that defining it as such "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians"

One question for the supporters though:
@Everyone who supports same-sex marriage and argues that incest is only bad because of the risk of mutation
Incest has a valid scientific reason against it, but what about polygamy?
DF MQ  Post #: 36
8/2/2012 13:20:11   
Kaelin
 Strange World


My point of tradition isn't that it is bad, but rather that it is an invalid justification.

The notion that someone in the past would be regarded as an Emperor rather than as a King does not dictate how we must use words today. A senator in Ancient Rome is very different from a senator in the US Congress today, but we call both senators. Marriage functions in the same way, as it began as a property arrangement (with women as property) and has evolved (in some countries) to entail a consensual relationship that affirms both men and women as free people. Given how much marriage has changed and how much it varies between countries (some of which already call same-sex marriage "marriage"), it is a simple step for a country whose forms asks for "Wife" and "Husband" to instead say "Partner A" and "Partner B."

My Christian denomination examples weren't about religion -- they were merely to illustrate that we don't all have to recognize someone's marriage. If you don't think "gay marriage" is really "marriage," no one will force you to call it that.

The olympics example has a bona fide justification: there are tendencies concerning the birth sexes that in many sports would effectively exclude one birth sex from competition at the highest level. It is not the sort of thing I'm thrilled about, but there's a point to it, and the olympics gives each division an equally wordy title (as men compete in Men's, and women compete in Women's -- this is contrast to calling one group's marriage "gay marriage" but letting the other get by with just "marriage"). There is no substantial bona fide justification for a separate marriage name.

As for something that concerns definitions, sexual orientation (the attraction) is different from sexual relationships. I should have clarified my previous argument more to that effect, but basically "gay" in more accepting circles is reserved for sex-based attraction -- and labeling the sex-pairing of a relationship is basically pointless (if someone is acting on their attractions in a responsible way, that's good, and if they're acting on attractions irresponsibly or are seeking out sexual relationships without attraction, that's bad -- it doesn't need to be made more complicated than that!) As far as gay people are concerned, they have reproduced quite a bit! Historically, gay people often had other-sex spouses/partners and still had children with them; nowadays, in vitro fertilization allows one parent of a same-sex couple to pass on genetic material.

Hopes of finding "the gay gene" are misplaced, because there are probably many genes that play a role, and there can be random factors at work, too (identical twins are more likely to have the same sexual orientation, but it's basically a 50/50 proposition that a gay man's twin is also gay). Even if we find gene(s) responsible for determining sexual orientation, it doesn't offer much practical value except to people who want to "cure" gay, which is a nuclear ethical issue.

As to the idea of judging minority groups until their difference is scientifically proven to be okay, that's not science works. Statistical hypothesis testing works from the direction of assuming equality (that men and women are equal on a certain dimension, that the weight of people on a diet is the same before compared to after), and a study bears the burden of proof to show some claim of difference is true. Even when a study shows a difference (with a certain level of confidence), it must be replicated by peers in the field (to make sure there wasn't a false positive or a fabricated study). Usually no difference will emerge, although it is possible for the majority or the minority to score higher on some dimension. But even then, science is limited with respect to many dimensions, including sexual orientation, because it can't perform random assignment. A correlational study can only tease out tendencies, rather than prove a cause-and-effect relationship. If one aspires to come up with as good of a comparison as possible, though, we have to remove confounding variables: to optimize our measurements, we need to get rid of any factors possible that would skew results, and that means doing away with inequality and discrimination *before* conducting the studies (rather than afterward). In fact, I do care quite dearly about science, and I am quite eager to level the playing field so that we might actually be able to observe and learn about variation as it occurs naturally (not that we get to see causality, but we get the best data possible) -- without equal treatment, the effects of inequality will tip the scales against the minority and provide the false justification some people seek to discriminate and hold people down. Yet even when there are differences, each person remains their own, and each individual shall be dealt with according to their character or ability -- after all, there may come a day when you find yourself in an "inferior" minority or "inferior" majority, and you will want to be judged on your own merits.

< Message edited by Kaelin -- 8/2/2012 13:48:53 >
AQ  Post #: 37
8/2/2012 13:53:55   
Starstruck
Member

I have also been following this topic with keen interest, and I have seen the word "Leviticus" mentioned several times. This may be a little-known fact, but Leviticus 18:22, often translated as a heinous condemnation of homosexual activity, is directly analogous to the First Commandment, "thou shalt have no gods before me." I want to correct this issue before it continues further - homosexuality is never actually condemned in the bib

Leviticus 18:22 King James Translation: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Original text: V’et-zachar lo tishkav mishk’vei ishah to’evah hu. (transliterated)

The correct translation is as follows: "And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination." The translation can be worked through easily with translation aids and a little understanding of Hebrew grammar and word order. (there is no "is", word order is immaterial, etc.) In Hebrew culture, a woman's bed was sacred, and specific rules were set governing what could or could not be done in it. Thus the warning against two men sitting in a woman's sleeping place.

Another oft-cited passage is actually a warning against ritual pagan activities. I don't have time to go through them all now, but the information is out there. My source. I like how these people put it, though of course my views (as are the views of these people) are inherently biased.
DF MQ  Post #: 38
8/2/2012 20:11:15   
Densoro
Member

quote:

Regarding your 2nd point, no offense really, but it makes no sense to me. I know I'm straight, I didn't choose to be straight. Indeed. So me knowing that I'm straight equates to homosexual people being born homosexual? How does that work?

Because it shows that sexuality isn't a conscious choice. It is something that appears within us, and because of that, nobody should be denied their dream over it. Much of the language used to justify this denial is punitive, but why should we punish people for a biological compulsion that just happened to them? And if you don't take your stance to punish them, then how can you justify denying them the weddings they've been dreaming of since they were children?

quote:

The gay gene is something that HAS to be studied and understood, because like it or not, it deviates from the normal.

For the sake of scientific curiosity, sure, but why must people against homosexuality make it out to be a threat? If they can't procreate, then we don't need to worry about them passing it onto their children and leaving everybody disinterested in continuing their lineage. But if we focus on 'donor pregnancies' -- that is, things like in vitro fertilization and test tube babies -- then being gay isn't a problem because you can in fact continue the human race. Either way, there's no problem with it: the gay gene will either breed itself out of existence or make room for itself in the gene pool.

quote:

They called it a choice, and that's how it should generally be viewed.

A choice to come out and accept everything that will be dropped on their head because of it, sure. A choice to stop forcing themselves to be close to women they have no interest in ('beards' is a common term for this). You have to understand the sociology that comes into this: people who have been told all their lives that homosexuality is wrong will always be fighting to undo such feelings within themselves. They will skew their own results to vilify their latent homosexual urges and glorify the straight lifestyle they're fronting. It's a psychological defense mechanism to fight back a sort of existential 'buyer's remorse' for buying into conformity.

quote:

One question for the supporters though:
@Everyone who supports same-sex marriage and argues that incest is only bad because of the risk of mutation
Incest has a valid scientific reason against it, but what about polygamy?

If everybody involved can be respected and live a psychologically fulfilling life of real, true love, let them at it. My problem with polygamy is the idea that it has shades of women not only being property, but property you can stock up on for a rainy day, and encourages a submissive, self-deprecating mindset for the women involved since by all appearances, they are not special. But if it's possible to have such an open relationship with self-respecting adults who know what they want out of life, then I have no right to tell them otherwise.
AQ DF  Post #: 39
8/2/2012 21:04:19   
Cataclysm
The fanciest of moustaches


quote:

The gay gene is something that HAS to be studied and understood, because like it or not, it deviates from the normal.


I would've totally missed this if I hadn't seen Den mention it (I only read the first half of the sentence). It doesn't deviate from normal. Not only has it been a practice since ancient times, it's also seen in many animals. A quick Google search will verify this fact. It's not just lower animals, either. Many of the animals we consider highly intelligent have been observed to practice homosexuality. Primates, our closest genetic relatives, are well documented to. Only in 1999, over 1500 species had been noted to do so, with over 500 being well documented.

@stealthwings: I'm going to get a bit controversial here, but I'm completely fine with polygamy. If a man wants to have lots of wives, let him. If a woman wants to have lots of husbands, let her. As long as all involved parties are alright with it, I genuinely see no issue. It'd complicate things legally, of course, which would mean there'd have to be a lot of thought and work put into the laws about it (divorces would get crazy). But as long as everyone involved is alright with it, I think it'd be fine.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 40
8/3/2012 20:33:25   
sacchi
Constructively Friendly!


I've been trying to put together a nice post for this thread all week long, but really, I haven't been able, so I just decided to start typing stuff and see how it goes :P

I'm all for defending the rights of homosexuals. They should have the right to both marry and adopt (unless they cannot adopt for another reason obviously, but their sexual orientation shouldn't be the one thing to stop them). I see this discussion that is taking place as similar to the movement in favor of black people' rights, and I think that it is a no-brainer for homosexuals to marry or adopt.
It's a posture that I defend constantly, even if many people around me are constantly irritated by it. Without getting into specifics, I go to a very religious university where most people are Christians and so far I haven't met another atheist apart from me. So yes, I've had discussions with other students and even a teacher, and I've kept on defending my views in spite of all this.

I tend to not focus on whether homosexuality is part of nature or not. I do believe it is part of nature, but I've found that it's easier to defend people's rights by focusing on who they are. If I have to discuss this topic, it usually is with close-minded people who hold their views precious and won't change it. So I know I'll be wasting my time going through that route, and instead go with a different approach:

"It might or might not be part of nature, that's not the discussion. They're like this, and you can't change them, and that's a fact. So, having this situation, do you believe that cutting their rights is the way to go? Would you please tell me how their happiness affects negatively your life?"

Most arguments that are usually used against me have already been mentioned in this thread, so I'll only add two more. "A child needs both a paternal and maternal figure when being raised." It's pretty easy to counter this one, if we were to follow that logic then we'd have to take all the children who live with only one of their parents. The second argument I usually see is the topic of adoption. Many people I've met oppose the marriage of LGBT because they believe that that would be a step forward to them being able to adopt (which it is). So, while not entirely disagreeing with the marriage issue, they reject it so as to "protect" children from being adopted by homosexual couples.

I'll not go more into adoption for now, not sure if Eukara is alright with discussing it or if we should go step-by-step and keep this discussion focused on marriage.

The one thing I heavily criticize of homosexuals are the image they're giving the rest of society of themselves. Whenever something related to this issue occurs in my country, they organize an event and go dressed as if they were going to a party (I've been told that they do it to protect their identities from the media). I've seen pictures of various gay pride parades, and it is my firm opinion that if they just dressed in their casual clothes they'd achieve so much more.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 41
8/4/2012 13:03:11   
Memory of a Nightmare
Member

Wasn't gonna mention this yet, been thinking of writing a longer post, but since you brought up the image of homosexuals now, sacchi, I want to add that I'm not really opposing Stockholm Pride (as previously stated) or other Pride events in general. I fully support the speeches and the education, and the fact that LGBT issues are likely brought up in typical nuclear families, while otherwise perhaps never spoken of, at times like these is important.

It's the sexualized parade that is the problem because it indeed gives a completely wrong image of LGBT. The Stockholm Pride Parade took place today, and only today I think. I also think it's what attracts most people, many that didn't attend to the event earlier. It's wrong to generalize, most people in the parade are dressed casually, but there for example women walking around topless. I don't think this is illegal, but you simply don't do that in public. It's just one of the things that give this highly incorrect picture of LGBT people.

Isn't it wrong to have opinions, stating them or not, about something you don't have any experiences of? I'm sure that many people who is strictly against homo/bisexuality have never met anyone not heterosexual. Whether it's religion, their parents or something else, some people hate homosexuals despite not ever having met one. (Or rather, met one and actually knowing that person is not heterosexual) If they did they would perhaps see that they aren't that different.

And it's kinda the same for me. How could I ever say that I oppose Pride events when I have never attended one? This is something I will do in the future.

EDIT: And I forgot to mention one thing. I saw a a photo, assumably from this year's Stockholm Pride. There were two persons walking in the parade. One of them had a noose around the neck, and on their shirt it said Iran. The other person was holding the rope. This is the kind of statements I want to see during LGBT events.



< Message edited by Memory of a Nightmare -- 8/4/2012 14:49:34 >
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 42
8/4/2012 14:27:23   
Rillian
Member

@Teh Cataclysmic One:
Once again, I'm not surprised someone has decided to comment on "homosexuality deviates from the normal". I'm certainly not the first to write something like that. No one likes to be called abnormal, probably because of the negativity that lingers around the word. Trust me, I'm fully aware of historical evidence of homosexual behavior. It goes back 2400BCE iirc. But I'm saying homosexuality is abnormal in a sense that a rough estimate of 10% of the world's population is LGBT. Highest estimates to 15%, no higher. If the gay gene was normal, our population should be decreasing, not increasing.

@Kaelin:
The link you provided is rather outdated. Monozygotic twins CAN be different and there are mechanisms which may account for monozygotic twins being discordant for homosexuality. Also, regarding my olympics example, which part of it was bona fide?

@Densoro:
I was really quoting an a dicto simpliciter(an informal fallacy of presumption) made by dracoa. It wasn't a valid point in the first place, so it doesn't show anything really. The rest of your points appear to be argumentum ad ignorantiam. You will need to provide me with some proper evidence if you're going to stick with the gay gene theory. I'm afraid I'm not going to accept that homosexuals are born the way they are because of argumentum ad populum.


Dear all, I recognize that it's not popular sentiment that I don't recognize homosexuality as genetic. It seems that my view has been turned into a false dichotomy. I do not recognize homosexuality as genetic, but neither do I recognize it as a lifestyle choice. Just because I'm not with you, it doesn't mean I'm against you! I hold my stance simply because studies regarding the gay gene have been inconclusive. If it was, wouldn't it have been heard all over the news by now? Even studies regarding the Xq28 genetic band has been disputed..

Regarding gay marriage, my stance is as simple as the differentiation between veal and beef. Both meat come from cattle, but it is differentiated by the age of the cattle. Similarly, I hold the belief that marriage simply means a union between a man and a woman, not between two people of the same gender. I don't know how tradition came into place here. It has absolutely nothing to do with tradition. It really doesn't matter to me whether gays form a binding union and move in together. Why should I prevent them from doing so? I simply believe that a different terminology should be assigned to gay marriage.

< Message edited by Rillian -- 8/4/2012 14:29:57 >
AQ  Post #: 43
8/4/2012 14:36:37   
stealthwings
Helpful


@Rillian
I can see your point, a few questions though. What would you have same-sex marriage be called? Would you want it to be called same-sex marriage, or give it a totally different term which does not involve marriage?
Also, why do you oppose redefining marriage?
And finally, if redefining it would hasten the acceptance of the LGBT community, would you still oppose redefining a word?
DF MQ  Post #: 44
8/4/2012 16:41:20   
sacchi
Constructively Friendly!


I don't think it's a choice, and dracoa's argument of "You didn't choose to be heterosexual" makes complete sense to me, but I'm not sure if there's such a thing such a gay gene. I just have no information on the matter, so I can't really give a proper opinion, it just sounds a bit weird to me.

And yes, Memory of a Nightmare, that was pretty much what I meant. Sexualizing pride parades is a problem in my opinion, perhaps they get so excited about "showing the world who they truly are" that some people go a bit too far. I've never been to a gay parade nor intend to really, so I wouldn't know, but when I see pictures of them, the pictures that the media seems to show most are those of men and women in very revealing clothes...or lack of clothes.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 45
8/4/2012 20:12:56   
Densoro
Member

I'm noticing a trend in your rebuttals, Rillian. My point isn't that homosexuality has to be genetic, but that it doesn't matter what it is, because it still isn't something you choose for yourself. I tried to be asexual as a child because I grew up in Utah, where I was told repeatedly that sex is evil and wrong and that I would be sent to a scientifically-certifiable Hell if I ever participated in it, amen. Did it work? Nope. Puberty won out, and whether because of psychology or genetics or chemicals in the air or any of a myriad of possible external factors, I turned out reservedly straight. Later in high school, I tried to be bisexual, but men just aren't my cup of tea. If it's a decision that any individual could make, then my sexuality would be play-dough by now. But I'm your typical straight guy and that won't change.

If my sexuality is so hard-coded that I couldn't budge it even an inch, then the same can be said of others' sexuality. And when you hear all the stories gay people tell of trying to stuff their feelings in the closet, that rings completely true. Nobody chooses oppression, Rillian -- lust isn't strong enough to make them endure a lifetime of harassment and fear. So sure, find out what causes homosexuality -- the same way you find out what causes a love of peanut butter and jelly.
AQ DF  Post #: 46
8/4/2012 21:02:21   
Rillian
Member

@stealthwings:
I already mentioned it earlier actually. "Gay marriage" would be appropriate if "marriage" has to be present in the terminology. Also, how many significant terminologies have been redefined?

@sacchi:
dracoa's point should not make sense to you, because
quote:

"being gay is not a choice", because you know if you choose to be straight or not. I don't choose to be straight, I just am, I'm sure the same can be said of you and every other straight person in the world.
is not only a converse fallacy, but a false dichotomy.
His logic is breakdown as follows:
I know I'm straight, therefore I am born straight.
Gay people know they are gay, therefore they are born gay.

Do I really need to give examples as to why that logic is flawed?
AQ  Post #: 47
8/4/2012 21:04:06   
The Extinguisher
Member

They will never find the "gay gene" because genetics and the brain doesn't work that way.

TRIGGER WARNING: SCIENCE

Genetics is pretty complicated, so I can understand that some people don't get it. It doesn't help that what most people are taught is very watered down, and not very good at explaining what's happening. In addition, media has seemed to latch onto the idea that DNA is the only thing important in your body.

DNA does not make you tall, or blond or whatever. DNA does one thing and one thing only. It encodes the information so you can make proteins. Proteins are like legos for you're body. They are what make you tall or short, they are what's in your eyes and you're brain. A gene is a section of DNA that makes a certain protein for a certain place. We're taught simple ones, like the gene for ABO blood type, because that's easy to understand. DNA says "make this protein" and you do, and there's you're blood type.

But lets look at something a little more complicated, like height. There's no "tall" gene or "short" gene, because your height is actually based on the workings of multiple genes creating proteins in different parts of your body, but it's also based on parts of your body receiving chemical cues from other parts of your body. That means, if due to some outside interference, the hormone messages aren't received or sent properly, you wont be as tall (or taller, I guess). It's not a genetic reason, but you're not going to say they chose to be short.

Now we come to the most complicated thing of all. The brain. We know little about it, why it works the way it does, but we know the mechanisms. Your brain is full of neurons sending electrochemical signals to each other. And being the amazing computer that it is, it uses those signals to control your whole body. But the neurons themselves aren't super important. It's the connections between them that matter. Imagine a brain with only 3 neurons. There are eight possible ways those neurons can be connected, and each "brain" will act different, think different and be different. Eight different people. Now a real human brain has on average 20 billion neurons. And sure, it's not like each neuron can connect with each other one, but we're still talking about countless connections and a countless number of ways they can be connected. And those connections aren't determined by genetics (completely, at least, it's complicated and brainy). Just like in the case of height, outside forces will influence the way your brain connects, and hence influence you as a person. Because everything you are, all of your hopes and fears and kinks and favourite songs and memories are all just neurons communicating with each other in different ways.

So you wont find a gay gene. It doesn't exist. Who you find attractive isn't a single on/off switch. It's based on a number of genes controlling proteins for the brain, as well as the whole sum of your life up to this point (you will make new connections between your neurons for most of your life). It's not a choice anymore than Little Timmy's favourite colour was a choice.


EDIT:

quote:

is not only a converse fallacy, but a false dichotomy.
His logic is breakdown as follows:
I know I'm straight, therefore I am born straight.
Gay people know they are gay, therefore they are born gay.

Do I really need to give examples as to why that logic is flawed?


Except you're the one creating the dichotomy. It's not "gay or straight", but rather a continuum of sexual attraction, and is more accurately described as "I didn't choose to be attracted to certain people, so other people must not have as well"

< Message edited by The Extinguisher -- 8/4/2012 21:07:11 >
Post #: 48
8/4/2012 21:25:28   
Rillian
Member

@The Extinguisher:
Sigh... Please, I beg you, read up more about the xq28 genetic marker. Here's the earliest study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC349494/?tool=pmcentrez

Regarding the example, I said false dichotomy, not dichotomy. and neither did I create a false dichotomy. I distinctly recall my stance being that of neutrality. I did not stand by absolutes. I said I did not pass any judgement on "being gay is not a choice" on the justification that I am not homosexual. And your description is still a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, or a faulty generalization btw.
In case you don't know what a faulty generalization is, it can be described as following:
quote:

A mode of thinking that takes knowledge from one group's or person's experiences and incorrectly extends it to another.


I honestly don't know how I can make it any clearer. But if you still insist on the validity of the said statement, I will not correct you. You are entitled to your own point of view.
AQ  Post #: 49
8/4/2012 21:43:06   
The Extinguisher
Member

So there's a gene that is linked to increased rates of homosexuality in males, except maybe not, and that disproves my "it's not just one gene that controls it" description. You did nothing to actually address what I was saying, instead linking to a scientific article that actually only mentions results of experiments and doesn't actually offer a interpretation of what that means. It's highly technical to the point of needing to be deep in the study to comprehend significantly (I know I can't), and it seems suspect to say that you in that field of study and not understand that it's more complicated than one gene.

Again, that's not my point. Sure, whatever, the arguments form is wrong (which doesn't mean it's false), but there's no separation of points of view. Why would sexual attraction differ between groups of people. It's solely a matter of "I find this attractive", whether that me males, females, large noses, small feet, black skin or leather whips. Because the brain doesn't label, it just finds something attractive. And there's no point discussing it if you're going to ignore how human consciousness works.

But if fallacies are such a big deal for you, here's some empirical evidence. I am bisexual. I did not choose to be so. I know I don't speak for the entire community, but I'm pretty sure I disprove the theory.
Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 2 of 7«<12345>»
Jump to:



Advertisement




Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition