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.

Nope nope nope



The 'suffering years of abuse' and 'psychological torture', as well as the 'increase in chance of suicide' is because trans people currently inhabit a society which does not understand them, often refuses to acknowledge their gender identity whilst stubbornly misgendering them, and often acts in a hostile manner towards them. This is the kind of attitude that I was talking about changing; it is an intolerance which has no place in modern society.

As to the 'genital mutilation' as you put it, by which I'll asume you mean transgender surgeries rather than FGM (a whole different issue entirely) - nobody takes such descisions lightly, and nobody wants to create a climate where they are. But stigmatising surgeries which alleviate the gender dysphoria of people suffering from it (massively improving their quality of life) is not a good thing.

Some people are trans whether society wants them to be or not. Its just a fact. I'm talking about creating an attitude in society where that fact is not stigmatised, so that trans people do not suffer verbal and physical abuse from a select group of individuals in the society they occupy.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.

I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:

"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.

Relapse wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.

I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:

"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.

That's very little real difference unless you think that homosexuality is a seperable part of a person i.e. freely chosen.

As I have said before. It being a choice shouldnt matter. You make a choice to be in your religion, should you be punished for it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
As I have said before. It being a choice shouldnt matter. You make a choice to be in your religion, should you be punished for it.

I have plenty of people that disagree with my religion, just as I disagree with other people's politics or religion, and no one punishes anyone over it.

Ok, then why say people should marry because of your religion?

I might not be understanding your question. Are you talking about the proclamation that was given back in 1995? Back when it was given, people were pretty much saying, yes, and the sky is blue. Nowadays it becomes clear why it was given:

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

Relapse wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.

I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:

"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.

What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.

Its just an argument I hear alot from religious folks.
"Well its just a choice and it being a choice doesnt mean you have a right to marriage"
Then I just say that if it is a choice, so is religion, and by that logic we can ban Mormons, Christians, Pagans or just anyone.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.

I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:

"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.

What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.

I have seen a lot of evidence on both sides whether the sexuality is choice or biological.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its just an argument I hear alot from religious folks.
"Well its just a choice and it being a choice doesnt mean you have a right to marriage"
Then I just say that if it is a choice, so is religion, and by that logic we can ban Mormons, Christians, Pagans or just anyone.

I'm not saying ban anything. A person's choice is a person's choice if it doesn't illegally interfere with others.

Relapse wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.

I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:

"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.

What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.

I have seen a lot of evidence on both sides whether the sexuality is choice or biological.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its just an argument I hear alot from religious folks.
"Well its just a choice and it being a choice doesnt mean you have a right to marriage"
Then I just say that if it is a choice, so is religion, and by that logic we can ban Mormons, Christians, Pagans or just anyone.

I'm not saying ban anything. A person's choice is a person's choice if it doesn't illegally interfere with others.

Then what on earth does disagreeing with homosexuality mean if people are allowed to make that 'choice' (not going in to whether it is a choice or not). That is a genuine question. Do you just not like the idea of gay people?

I agree with Hotsauceman that it should not matter whether or not it is a choice, btw.

And I answered his question. You just don't like the answer.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Relapse wrote:


The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.

What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.

To jump with Mr. Treesong here... Why does anyone disagree with anything? It's because they dislike it. You might here a vegan or vegetarian say, "You should eat this delicious and nutritious veggie burger, because I disagree with your choice of eating a 100% Prime Grade A beef hamburger" They are arguing or disagreeing with choice of burger based on their own dislike of meat products.

On the flip side of that, why on earth would I EVER say, "Don't eat that bacon cheeseburger because X" when I love bacon?

This applies to pretty much every argument I can think of: Ford vs. Chevy, Apple vs. PC, Playstation vs. XBox, Red Sox/Yankees, gay/straight, everything... if you are arguing against something it's because somewhere whether you admit or realize, somewhere you have a strong dislike of that something.

Relapse wrote:
And I answered his question. You just don't like the answer.

Did you choose you sexuality? I know I didn't mine.

It is possible that people who disagree with homosexuality have made in-depth studies of the various possible effects on society of homosexuality and come to the rational conclusion that homosexuality is a negative influence on society and therefore it is to be deprecated.

I don't believe that myself but I am advancing it as a theoretical argument.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
On the flip side of that, why on earth would I EVER say, "Don't eat that bacon cheeseburger because X" when I love bacon?

"Don't eat that bacon cheeseburger because that means there's less for me!"?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Relapse wrote:
And I answered his question. You just don't like the answer.

Did you choose you sexuality? I know I didn't mine.

I'm a strong believer that whether Homosexuality is a choice, or a natural inkling, it doesn't matter. It's nobody's business but the consenting adults that are involved. I'm Hetero by nature and by choice. In some horrible, and intensely disturbing universe, if someone threatened my loved ones with torture and death unless I had sex with a man... I think I'd be able to make it happen. So I could choose to engage in a homosexual act, but I can't think of any realistic situation in which I would.

In the mirror, if someone told me I couldn't love my wife because [again, Bizzaro world] only Homosexuality was socially acceptable, I'd have to say that it's in my nature to be attracted to the gender that I am, and I choose to follow that nature. Thankfully I can ignore the assorted pressures that afflict Homosexual people in our universe, because I'm a straight, white, 30-something man. I don't think I can legitimately claim that I'm being discriminated against by anybody.


In my youth, Homosexual slurs were the go-to put down, and I participated in it. I'm ashamed of my past actions, and I have a strong feeling that I hurt people that were my friends without knowing it. Today, I try to be accepting of other people, though old habits die hard and I sometimes slip into poor choices of words.

More than anything, I realized that I have no way of knowing how my two boys will "turn out". I ask myself what they would think if I used Homosexual slurs around them while they grow up, and they "turn out" to be Homosexual? I'm probably not using the right terms, but the concept is sound. I can't stand the idea that my boys would think I thought less of them for being who they were born to be / choosing to be the people they want to be. It wouldn't matter, I'd love them just the same.


So congratulations to Ireland. It's not something I think needs to be voted upon, but I'm glad that the vote carries human rights as they should be.

MrDwhitey wrote:Didn't you get threatened with a ban and have a post deleted for fairly anti-homosexual views and how they were presented? I vaguely remember this being a thing.

I don't remember what it was I said, but yes. I don't hate or dislike homosexuals at all though, sometimes I just say stupid things or my words get interpreted wrongly.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.

Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.

I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:

"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

I disagree with that definition.
For me, homophobia is more than just disliking homosexuals. A homophobe doesn't just dislike, he really hates homosexuals.
The 'phobe' part in these words comes from the Greek word φόβος, which means fear. In English language, a phobia usually means an irrational fear, not just a dislike.
If I dislike bananas, does that mean I have a phobia for bananas?

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Lie. I'll quote for you:

Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".

You're born either a man or a woman. Period.

Biologically, yes.

Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.

I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant.

The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.

Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, but in Western (and all other) culture they are always linked to each other. Society expects a person to fit in the gender that corresponds with his/her biological sex. Not following this pattern is possible but leads to a lot of problems and possibly being rejected from society. Therefore I think it is better to indoctrinate children with the "correct" gender identity, as this is for their own good and will allow them to function better in society than if you raised them without clear genders.

It is not an adequate excuse that 'society would reject' a person who does not follow gender norms; this is a problem with society, not the individual. We should not just 'indoctrinate' children with the 'correct' (how I loathe that usage) gender because it is easier; we should work on changing society.

Society is made up of people. By saying society is wrong you are essentially saying: The vast majority of the people are wrong because they do not adhere to my opinion. What makes you so sure that you are in the right, and human society is wrong? According to a democratic point of view, society can not be wrong.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Society is made up of people. By saying society is wrong you are essentially saying: The vast majority of the people are wrong because they do not adhere to my opinion. What makes you so sure that you are in the right, and human society is wrong? According to a democratic point of view, society can not be wrong.

Sometimes the vast majority of people are wrong; if it didn't happen society would never progress at all.

Children who are trans face a childhood where everything that happens around them feels wrong because they are constantly misgendered. I think that this is right because it is what is reported to me by individuals who identify as transgendered, and because I have read widely in the area during the last five years of my degree.

I struggle to see how the continuing stigmatisation of trans individuals could possibly be helpful for society in general, but particularly for the individuals themselves. These children would have been happier throughout their lives (i.e. less at risk of depression and related conditions, including suicide) if their identity had been accepted when they first came to it, rather than after years of struggle. They would be less at risk of bullying and social rejection if somebody had told their bullies that the trans individual's identity was valid, and not an object for stigmatization. It does not need to be, and it is slowly becoming an identity that society is more accepting of.

Besides, in my democracy we protect the rights of trans individuals; your flag tells me you are from the netherlands; are you so different over there?

Words change meanings and expand/adapt beyond those of their constituent roots. The root definition of the 'phobia' of homophobia does not lead to the requirement that you need to fear gay people in order to be accurately described as being a homophobic person.

I've seen the argument before and it's a nonsense. That some people attempt to redefine the word in an overly literal fashion, that is not anything like that in actual usage, in order to down play suggestions that they may qualify as being homophobic, instead of actually offering some evidence to the contrary, is rather telling.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Society is made up of people. By saying society is wrong you are essentially saying: The vast majority of the people are wrong because they do not adhere to my opinion. What makes you so sure that you are in the right, and human society is wrong? According to a democratic point of view, society can not be wrong.

Sometimes the vast majority of people are wrong; if it didn't happen society would never progress at all.

Children who are trans face a childhood where everything that happens around them feels wrong because they are constantly misgendered. I think that this is right because it is what is reported to me by individuals who identify as transgendered, and because I have read widely in the area during the last five years of my degree.

I struggle to see how the continuing stigmatisation of trans individuals could possibly be helpful for society in general, but particularly for the individuals themselves. These children would have been happier throughout their lives (i.e. less at risk of depression and related conditions, including suicide) if their identity had been accepted when they first came to it, rather than after years of struggle. They would be less at risk of bullying and social rejection if somebody had told their bullies that the trans individual's identity was valid, and not an object for stigmatization. It does not need to be, and it is slowly becoming an identity that society is more accepting of.

Fair enough. You make a good point. Still, I am afraid society is not going to change in this regard anytime soon.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

Besides, in my democracy we protect the rights of trans individuals; your flag tells me you are from the netherlands; are you so different over there?

There is a sea of difference between the UK and the Netherlands, but in this regard we are the same, yes.
But while I may live in the Netherlands now, I grew up mostly in Crimea, and culture there is very different from the West.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Words change meanings and expand/adapt beyond those of their constituent roots. The root definition of the 'phobia' of homophobia does not lead to the requirement that you need to fear gay people in order to be accurately described as being a homophobic person.

I've seen the argument before and it's a nonsense. That some people attempt to redefine the word in an overly literal fashion, that is not anything like that in actual usage, in order to down play suggestions that they may qualify as being homophobic, instead of actually offering some evidence to the contrary, is rather telling.

Words are often interpreted differently by different people. Imo, you need to have more than just a simple dislike to be a homophobe. If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is possible that people who disagree with homosexuality have made in-depth studies of the various possible effects on society of homosexuality and come to the rational conclusion that homosexuality is a negative influence on society and therefore it is to be deprecated.

It's theoretically possible. It isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.

But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.

What if you are just staunchly anti marriage and your dislike of gay marriage stems from that?

 Peregrine wrote:


But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.

You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.

It doesn't make you more right any of the time.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.

You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.

It doesn't make you more right any of the time.

How is he wrong exactly?

Edit: I just realised that sounds kind of combative. I'm legitimately curious about it.

Because there is also irrational fear? That's about all I can think.

 cincydooley wrote:
You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.

It doesn't make you more right any of the time.

Then please, provide a rational argument against gay marriage that hasn't already been destroyed over and over again.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.

You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.

It doesn't make you more right any of the time.

It's not repetition that makes his assertion right, it's simple fact.

Relapse wrote:
I have seen a lot of evidence on both sides whether the sexuality is choice or biological.

You have seen bad evidence provided by liars and idiots.

To break it down simply, there are people who are either straight or gay. They could not 'choose' to be attracted to anything but their basic biological preference. Straight attraction accounts for somewhere around 96 or 97% of the population, and about 2% as gay. The other 1 to 2% are bi-sexual, and this is where the junk scientists sexual science do their work. They point out that bi-sexuals can actually shift their preference, and well, duh. These are people who are born with attraction to both sexes, or a pendulum that switches between attraction to one & the other, or one of a bunch of other tendencies, so of course you'll get some ability to switch between the two if you put enough therapy in - though it's remarkable how little this affects even bi-sexual people.

The con, of course, is in taking that small amount of change of preference achieved in bi-sexual people, and claiming that such change could be applied to all gay people. Which is just wrong - no therapy has ever been able to make a purely gay person change preference, all it has ever achieved is depression & suicide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.

It doesn't make you more right any of the time.

More to the point, he can keep saying it until someone, somewhere, comes up with an argument against gay marriage that doesn't ultimately boil down to 'I hate gay people'. It ain't gonna happen, people opposed to gay marriage have been trying to think of a decent reason for ages now, and everything they've come up with has been silly and kind of sad.

It depresses me that we still live in an age where some people think sexual orientation is a choice. It's so backward and ignorant.