Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 generalgrog wrote:
Anyway, not going to take the bait, just to point out that you are entitled to your opinion, but opinions don't = fact.

GG

I would be interested to see any facts or indeed any evidence what so ever to back up anything you have claimed.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Isn't that the benefit of being god? You ARE the hand wave, and really who can call BS on it, you're god.

Satan.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That doesn't make it right, though. Any law to interfere with people's sexual behaviour needs to be informed by social and medical ethics rather than prejudice.

This sentence just makes me think about the sodomy articles that were struck down from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that basically said no sex outside of the missionary position. So I feel there's some issues with that, namely, how do you legislate really the bedroom and more importantly how do you bloody enforce it? Cameras in every room and hotel room perhaps? "Hey! They look like they're having a good time! Send an officer over to break it up and write them a ticket"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That doesn't make it right, though. Any law to interfere with people's sexual behaviour needs to be informed by social and medical ethics rather than prejudice.

Of course it doesn't make it right.

I was addressing the knee-jerk tendency of some to equate anti-gay sentiment with racism.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In defense of Tennessee, its an awesome place. Rolling green, awesome food, mild seasons.

Mild seasons?? it was balls cold, windy and fairly snowy (for this region) last night... the day time high was around 25 F (which is quite high when compared to places like, say, Fargo ND)



And I may be off, but I thought that the Gay virus came from Canada, since you know, they ration healthcare and all, so it goes untreated, and some how makes its way down here

Er, mild compared to say Houston or Chicago. No hurricanes. A light bit of snow only.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


That's your opinion.

I find it incredibly immoral to lie to kids that may be having sexual identity issues by telling them that may have been "born gay". Hollywood and the cult of political correctness has done a great job of brain washing a generation. And if you think that the pedophiles and zoophiles don't make the same arguments that homosexuals do you haven't done enough reading.

GG

Just As immoral it is to make people feel unwelcomed and unloved for just they way they think.

Oh the delicious irony!

It is not, nor has it ever been, immoral to make people feel unwelcome and unloved because of the way they think. Otherwise no one could morally be disapproving to any other person's choice of belief.

I bow down to thee, O Mighty One, who has the power to absolutely define a subjective concept!

Thank you, I've been waiting for the recognition I deserve.

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Oh the delicious irony!

It is not, nor has it ever been, immoral to make people feel unwelcome and unloved because of the way they think. Otherwise no one could morally be disapproving to any other person's choice of belief.

"Love thy neighbour" springs to mind, as well as the associated "turn the other cheek" etc?

Also, him saying that isn't ironic.

It is, as he has in other threads mentioned his dislike and distaste for racists and Nazis. Expressing said distaste would in all likelihood make racists and nazis feel unwanted and unloved. Thus he is making a hypocritical statement, likely without realising it as such.

Unless you meant in a grammatical way? At which point I should say that if it isn't delicious irony it should be delicious hypocrisy.

Haha the US is such a backwards country!

 MetalOxide wrote:
Haha the US is such a backwards country!

at least we drive on the correct side of the road!

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
the US likes to blame gay people when their country is going bad
another reason I will never go to that country

You should, it's a wonderful country.

I think a lot of people get confused between the stuff that makes the media, and actual life in a place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
Didn't take long for the "racist bigot" card to get played.

There is nothing racist or bigoted in pointing out that God created Adam and Eve..not Adam and Steve. It's a religious viewpoint that has nothing at all to do with "white middle class redknecks".

GG

If you take that story as literal truth, then you accept that in creating Adam and Eve, God not only allowed but required their children to have incest to produce future generations. Meaning you end up pro-incest and anti-gay.

Alternatively, you can accept that the story of Adam and Eve has its power and truth in its metaphors, and is not actually a literal account of something that really happened. And as such, trying to read it as a literal event from which we can deduce logical conclusions about the morals of gay sex and incest is, to be perfectly honest, biblical illiteracy.

 sebster wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
the US likes to blame gay people when their country is going bad
another reason I will never go to that country

You should, it's a wonderful country.

I think a lot of people get confused between the stuff that makes the media, and actual life in a place.

Plus, it's not like being gay in Canada is completely hassle-free. Me and my friends used to be jerks...

 MetalOxide wrote:
Haha the US is such a backwards country!

Don't be a tit.

 generalgrog wrote:
That's your opinion.

I find it incredibly immoral to lie to kids that may be having sexual identity issues by telling them that may have been "born gay".

No, seriously, science is a real thing and we know things about the world because of it. And we know, for instance, about factors in utero that dramatically increase the likelihhod of a person being gay, such as the mother having given birth to multiple boys before this child (this and other causative factors are closely linked to a reduction in testosterone supplied to the child in the womb).

We study the world and we learn things. And when we learn things it is required of every thinking person to adapt that new information into their understanding of the world. Failing to do that is simply ignorance.

 Albatross wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Haha the US is such a backwards country!

Don't be a tit.

You brits and your weird dialect. Why would anyone in their right mind want a world with less tits in it?

 Monster Rain wrote:
While I'm not trying to white knight for GG here, there's an interesting trend if you look at minority voting patterns on certain issues.

This, to me, makes homophobia seem much less of a W.A.S.P. driven phenomenon.

Oh, absolutely. In fact one of the saddest facts of just about every minority rights movement is that each group, once they finally achieve full rights for themselves, are all too quick to shut the door on whatever minority groups are behind them.

I think it's probably related to the same drives that cause bullying victims to become bullies themselves.

 generalgrog wrote:
For me, this is a behavior choice issue not a civil right.

Could you choose to be gay? Like, if you didn't have a moral obligation against homosexuality, could you just choose to be with a man?

I ask, because that's the thing that's always puzzled me about the idea of people choosing to be gay... I just couldn't do it. There is nothing sexually exciting to me in another man. There is no choice for me, but for all these other people there exists this idea that people are choosing to have gay sex. To me it's obvious there's something different about gay people, because I just couldn't make that choice.

So I mean, could you make that choice, if there was no moral disagreement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Plus, it's not like being gay in Canada is completely hassle-free. Me and my friends used to be jerks...

Yeah, here in Australia we just had our little mini-contraversy when our own special redneck party up in Queensland just had a some of its candidates spouting anti-gay nonsense.

Homophobia is in most places. And I suspect as vocal as the anti-gay crowd in the US is, the US will likely get full and proper say marriage recognition before Australia will.

Ahhh, homophobia. As completely irrational as any other phobia. I love it when people are scared of other people who they aren't even in competition with when it comes to the opposite sex. Way to look a gift horse in the mouth, lol.

As a man, I think it's totally an "insecure guy" thing, because women don't seem to give two turds about other women who are lesbians or gay men in general.

I don't walk down the street wondering (or caring) whose gay or not, because that's just kinda weird. I only tend to worry about who I have sex with. (for the record, I somehow conned a woman into marrying me, despite being a huge stereotypical nerd ).

This bill seems like someone taking a whack at writing a modern-day "Blue Law". Like how in Michigan, it's illegal to kill a dog with a decompression chamber. Soon in Tennessee, it'll be illegal to say "gay".

Oh, how I chuckle.

 sebster wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
For me, this is a behavior choice issue not a civil right.

Could you choose to be gay? Like, if you didn't have a moral obligation against homosexuality, could you just choose to be with a man?

I ask, because that's the thing that's always puzzled me about the idea of people choosing to be gay... I just couldn't do it.

Sexual re-orientation is much much simpler and easier to accomplish (although not at all risk free) than most heterosexuals seems to think. It's also condemned by the vast majority of psychiatrist up here.

On the family farm, I have had several male farm animals who for whatever reason decided to only pay attention sexually to the other males. As most people would argue that animals have no sense of such "human" emotions, they would seem to by proxy then be in support of homosexuality being something those animals are born with and as such are innately driven towards, rather than doing it by any choice.

I argue as to why humans would be any different? If we are normally accepted as being "born heterosexual", why couldn't some be born homosexual?

To me, it just isn't that big a thing to worry about what the people down the street are doing, when I've got business of my own to sort out.

Though it's great fun to laugh at the people who wring their hands while doing such worrying.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Sexual re-orientation is much much simpler and easier to accomplish (although not at all risk free) than most heterosexuals seems to think. It's also condemned by the vast majority of psychiatrist up here.

That's completely wrong. There has been some, limited success in shifting people bisexual to being more straight aligned, but that's all. The long term success in making gay people straight has been basically zero.

 sebster wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Sexual re-orientation is much much simpler and easier to accomplish (although not at all risk free) than most heterosexuals seems to think. It's also condemned by the vast majority of psychiatrist up here.

That's completely wrong. There has been some, limited success in shifting people bisexual to being more straight aligned, but that's all. The long term success in making gay people straight has been basically zero.

I'll dedicate some time this week to make a search for the study on the subject, but, being honest, it may have been bad memory coupled with some bs. The study was reported by a university 'newspaper' run by the gender study dept at my U, decrying how about 85% of canadian psychiatrists were against sexual re-orientation in normal circumstances, but how about the same % were ready to use the same techniques in cases where a married person was to develop homosexual fantasies.

My score is low tonight.

 sebster wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
For me, this is a behavior choice issue not a civil right.

Could you choose to be gay? Like, if you didn't have a moral obligation against homosexuality, could you just choose to be with a man?

I ask, because that's the thing that's always puzzled me about the idea of people choosing to be gay... I just couldn't do it. There is nothing sexually exciting to me in another man. There is no choice for me, but for all these other people there exists this idea that people are choosing to have gay sex. To me it's obvious there's something different about gay people, because I just couldn't make that choice.

So I mean, could you make that choice, if there was no moral disagreement?

That could be put down to socialization. I mean, if you were told to eat human flesh, or told after the fact, I would assume you, and most people from a Western background, would feel nauseous and quite possibly vomit. Yet there isn't anything unnatural or even harmful to eating healthy human flesh. Many of the issues that can develop from it are inherent in most other carnivorous meats.

In addition to that, I know many people who peruse the chans and have found their sexual tastes differ immensely from what they started with. Something that comes up often on that subject is it would seem that people's aversion to traps lessens significantly over time and exposure to sexually explicit images of them. I suspect the same would occur if they were deluged with sexually explicit images of a homosexual nature. (That is if one disregards sexual desire towards traps as not quite being gay enough.)

On the biological note, there is some literature that would lean towards trans-sexuals being born that way, with a region of the brain which corresponds to the female brain and not the male one. It was attempted to recreate this in rats and the results supported the theory. Now if this is in fact the case, that it is a biological variation stemming from a chemical imbalance or brain structure abnormality then it is not outside the realm of possibility that it could be, and I use this term for lack of a better one, "corrected" for to bring the behaviour closer towards the mean.

Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

Why would someone being gay or straight be such a big deal?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

Why would someone being gay or straight be such a big deal?

It's not that. It's the idea of keeping such a controversial topic out of schools. If it is allowed, then naturally that will leave room for teachers pro-homosexuality to encourage it, which would lead to baskets upon baskets of issues and trouble for the schools as well as the teachers in question.

I think Racism, Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Political Party should be kept out of the mouths of those Authority figures affecting our youth.

Is that so bad?

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

Why would someone being gay or straight be such a big deal?

It's not that. It's the idea of keeping such a controversial topic out of schools. If it is allowed, then naturally that will leave room for teachers pro-homosexuality to encourage it, which would lead to baskets upon baskets of issues and trouble for the schools as well as the teachers in question.

I think Racism, Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Political Party should be kept out of the mouths of those Authority figures affecting our youth.

Is that so bad?

Which means that teachers who are pro-heterosexuality shouldn't be allowed to encourage that either.

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

Why would someone being gay or straight be such a big deal?

It's not that. It's the idea of keeping such a controversial topic out of schools. If it is allowed, then naturally that will leave room for teachers pro-homosexuality to encourage it, which would lead to baskets upon baskets of issues and trouble for the schools as well as the teachers in question.

I think Racism, Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Political Party should be kept out of the mouths of those Authority figures affecting our youth.

Is that so bad?

So the education system should not talk about homosexuality for the fear that it might offend ignorant people?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I'll dedicate some time this week to make a search for the study on the subject, but, being honest, it may have been bad memory coupled with some bs. The study was reported by a university 'newspaper' run by the gender study dept at my U, decrying how about 85% of canadian psychiatrists were against sexual re-orientation in normal circumstances, but how about the same % were ready to use the same techniques in cases where a married person was to develop homosexual fantasies.

My score is low tonight.

I'd be interested in reading that.

I do know that every so often on of the evangelical media groups will release a press release declaring that straight camps work, and looking into it you'll find the researcher actually said that bi-sexual persons can be made to be less bi-sexual, for the period of time studied by the survey, with no comment on, or a rejection of the idea that entirely straight people can be made gay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
That could be put down to socialization. I mean, if you were told to eat human flesh, or told after the fact, I would assume you, and most people from a Western background, would feel nauseous and quite possibly vomit. Yet there isn't anything unnatural or even harmful to eating healthy human flesh. Many of the issues that can develop from it are inherent in most other carnivorous meats.

I think there is health risk to cannabalism, a similar disease to the mad cow disease produced from cows eating cows. But I get the point of the analogy, people would get squeemish on learning they just ate dog or cat, or that the appetizer wasn't a prawn but a really fat wood louse.

But I don't think it really works to say that because some things are taboo, all things are similarly only unappealling because of a taboo. Lots of things are just not what an individual is into.

In addition to that, I know many people who peruse the chans and have found their sexual tastes differ immensely from what they started with. Something that comes up often on that subject is it would seem that people's aversion to traps lessens significantly over time and exposure to sexually explicit images of them. I suspect the same would occur if they were deluged with sexually explicit images of a homosexual nature. (That is if one disregards sexual desire towards traps as not quite being gay enough.)

Sorry, I'm not sure what a trap is.

I agree that watching porn over an extended period leads to people looking for more hardcore stuff (and similarly the people who are lucky enough to get massive amounts of sex, they look for more hardcore stuff over time).

On the biological note, there is some literature that would lean towards trans-sexuals being born that way, with a region of the brain which corresponds to the female brain and not the male one. It was attempted to recreate this in rats and the results supported the theory. Now if this is in fact the case, that it is a biological variation stemming from a chemical imbalance or brain structure abnormality then it is not outside the realm of possibility that it could be, and I use this term for lack of a better one, "corrected" for to bring the behaviour closer towards the mean.

Oh, absolutely. While the issue is complicated (Thailand's vastly greater lady boy population can't be down just to biology, there must have some kind of social acceptance factor in there), at this point the evidence pointing to biological causes for most sex and gender variations is very strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

You should read the thread. Because generalgrog is most certainly a Christian and a conservative.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

Threads in which forum members tell other forum members that they hold bigoted opinions against a minority are kind of sad threads, that's true. But they're sad only because they remind us that there are belief systems out there that will invent reasons to condemn and diminish people who aren't doing anything to hurt anyone.

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Clearly not, otherwise these kinds of stupid laws wouldn't still keep being proposed.

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

Ok, you're wrong.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

Kinda sad that people are allowed to put their baseless prejudice into law to oppress people who are doing no harm to others.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this is totally alright?

Call me wrong, but it seems like there isn't a single Christian, Conservative member in the thread.

Kinda saddening that, because of such a stance becoming the minority, an entire thread is allowed to carry on bashing those that hold that stance in earnest.

Why would someone being gay or straight be such a big deal?

It's not that. It's the idea of keeping such a controversial topic out of schools. If it is allowed, then naturally that will leave room for teachers pro-homosexuality to encourage it, which would lead to baskets upon baskets of issues and trouble for the schools as well as the teachers in question.

I think Racism, Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Political Party should be kept out of the mouths of those Authority figures affecting our youth.

Is that so bad?

Which means that teachers who are pro-heterosexuality shouldn't be allowed to encourage that either.

Well, ignoring the ridiculously shameless badgering I've already received by voicing my own opinion, I can at least address your innocuous post.

I agree. As you may note, I said "I think etc, etc, Sexual Orientation, and etc. should be kept out of the mouths of authority figures affecting our youth."

I didn't say "Teachers shouldn't talk about gays."

I said "Teachers shouldn't talk about sexual orientation."

Leave that to the parents.

 CaptainGrey wrote:
It's not that. It's the idea of keeping such a controversial topic out of schools. If it is allowed, then naturally that will leave room for teachers pro-homosexuality to encourage it, which would lead to baskets upon baskets of issues and trouble for the schools as well as the teachers in question.

Right, in the same way as teaching school children about heterosexual relationships they all immediately break into an orgy of sexual activity.

With a more accepting culture you might find people are more willing to be open their sexuality, or more willing to explore it, but you are not going to suddenly find all the kids subscribed to the gay times because they have discussed homosexual relationships in class.

I

think Racism, Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Political Party should be kept out of the mouths of those Authority figures affecting our youth.

School is a place where young people learn about the world around them, where thay are able to form, develop and discuss ideas in a supposedly safe environment before going out into the wider world. Those kinds of subjects should be fine in the appropriate classes. What isn't fine is a teacher preaching one particular viewpoint to the exclusion of others; for example telling them party x is better than y. Teachers are there to supply information in a structured way and to help children develop the analytical tools of the mind to process this information.