You don't have to be born gay for it to be natural and homosexuality doesn't need to be hard-wired in your DNA to be innate.
Printable View
You don't have to be born gay for it to be natural and homosexuality doesn't need to be hard-wired in your DNA to be innate.
Charlie, I agree with both points of yours, and reasonably both points are the same. It can be a natural disposition or more attractive. It could be the result of sexual abuse as a child. It could be the result of your first sexual experience being with a member of the same sex, or a terrible experience with a member of the opposite sex. it could be from warped parenting, or any number of other nurture reasons. I find it offensive when it is "born this way". It is wrong on many levels. That, ridiculous standpoint, forces those who feel that they may actually prefer a same sex relationship like they are somehow wrong. That since they didn't come out earlier that their feelings are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Well, with all due respect, I don't think you're really in a position to be finding that offensive. Especially when you are speculating that they might be gay due to sexual abuse or warped parenting, which I think the vast majority of people would perceive as being far more callous, insulting and offensive than people having the temerity to be gay and, in your words, "shove it in your face".
Did I write this? Shove it in your face? If I did it was a mistake, if not..I cannot find it anywhere on my posts related to homosexuality in Russia or elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Charlie, so I have no right to find something offensive? Hmm, not very liberal, then again. If it is not hardwired in DNA, or be born that way, can you please explain it? I gave reasons that have been given by well known (and some less well known) people for their choice. Regardless of their choice, they are entitled to be happy in their relationships as we all should be. Anyone who would try to deny this must look at themselves and see why they would wish to prevent someone else from being happy.
I don't believe what I wrote to be callous, just a search for an explanation. I believe that spouting "I was born this way" to be an almighty offence to humanity, but if it makes them happy, I am glad for them. I can always choose to change channels or walk away.
It's on the last page - granted you're not expressing it as your own opinion but it's hard not to interpret it that way.
I never said you had no right to find something offensive, I said you're not really in a position to be taking offence over somebody's views on why they as individuals are the way they are, particularly when you are expressing much more strident opinions yourself.
No, I can't explain biologically why people have different sexualities, nor have I suggested I can. I would say that it's not necessarily inconsistent to suggest that sexuality is inborn but that people are still able to make certain choices or be conditioned to feel certain ways during their life. I'm not sure who you're accusing of preventing people from being happy.
If you don't recognise the callousness of suggesting somebody could become gay because they were abused, then I suppose nothing I say could change your mind.
Charlie, I know it is pedantic, but I could not find "my words" anywhere. You may have interpreted someone else's words, or even mine, but I didn't write "shove it in your face".Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Is someone telling me that science is wrong mean that I cannot question it? If I take it to another level. A person tells me - "I was born better/worse than you." I'd be offended by that in both cases as I do (maybe naively) believe we are all born equal. Again, I do not believe sexual choice (apart from the obvious deviant elements) between two consenting adults to be wrong or immoral, nor do I believe that same sex couples should be prevented registry office weddings (or if their church allows weddings between same sex couples), to each their own. Again, if a person's right to be offended is removed because they have an opinion, then we have leapt 5 steps backwards.
Charlie, you say "biologically", does emotion or psychology not come into it? If not, then biology would rule against same sex pairings, at least in pure science, though I could be wrong. If you find one reason offered to be callous, then it is best to just close the windows and put our heads in the sand. It is interesting to know when/why people felt more attracted to the same sex, or wished to change their gender, just writing off such influences or incidents leave us less able to understand and help.
Here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
You didn't put it in quotation marks or anything so I can only assume you think it's a legitimate position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Well I didn't tell you couldn't question it. I said your taking offence at somebody else's understanding of their personal sexuality is questionable.Quote:
Is someone telling me that science is wrong mean that I cannot question it?
That's not analogous because they've made a comparison rather than make an extrapolation based on their own circumstances. If somebody is gay and every aspect of their life's experience tells them that their sexuality is innate and not learned, then I honestly can't fathom what would personally offend you about them saying it.Quote:
If I take it to another level. A person tells me - "I was born better/worse than you." I'd be offended by that in both cases as I do (maybe naively) believe we are all born equal.
Again, nobody mentioned taking away rights except you. Nobody's impeding anybody's ability or freedom to say homosexuality is a choice or an abomination or whatever.Quote:
Again, I do not believe sexual choice (apart from the obvious deviant elements) between two consenting adults to be wrong or immoral, nor do I believe that same sex couples should be prevented registry office weddings (or if their church allows weddings between same sex couples), to each their own. Again, if a person's right to be offended is removed because they have an opinion, then we have leapt 5 steps backwards.
I'm not sure I follow your reason with the first two sentences. In terms of being callous, you don't really seem to understand how awful that sounds. There's no direct analogy I can make because it's a pretty weird statement to make, but I can make a much tamer comparison... I understand your (former) partner was Russian. I imagine if one of her peers asked her "what are you doing with that pasty streak of ****, were you raped by a Paddy or something?" one or both of you would take some offence, if you weren't laughing at the utterly pathetic reasoning.Quote:
Charlie, you say "biologically", does emotion or psychology not come into it? If not, then biology would rule against same sex pairings, at least in pure science, though I could be wrong. If you find one reason offered to be callous, then it is best to just close the windows and put our heads in the sand. It is interesting to know when/why people felt more attracted to the same sex, or wished to change their gender, just writing off such influences or incidents leave us less able to understand and help.
Even your last sentence betrays your opinions. You think homosexuality is something that can be "helped." I find that completely abhorrent and, honestly, small-minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
There are a few interesting theories about why homosexuality is selected for. There is some evidence that the female relatives of gay people are more fertile than females with no gay relatives, so there could be some sort of genetic component that is passed on preferentially through the female line. There is also a theory that gay people in small family groups improve the chances of the children of their relatives surviving by taking care of them, and the genes get passed on that way.
You took what I wrote and changed it - putting it into quotations to try legitimise your pov, but thanks for at least drawing attention to it. And it is strange that I am not allowed to be offended yet others can be. Is that not wrong? Is that not imbalanced? A person who is offended by people drinking alcohol (a muslim for example) is entitled to feel as they are and express the same, their feeling is legitimate for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I mention "biologically" because you directly said it. I do not believe a persons sexual orientation or lifestyle choice is something that can be "helped", if you believe this is the case then you need to ask yoruself questions, though you are entitled to believe so, if you bring it up, though I don't go along with it. To each their own. The peers of my former partner were largely undereducated and evolved so something as intelligible as that would be hard to imagine. Though if they felt that, what can I do? You have chosen to pick just one reason, which is odd. It doesn't make sense why you would chose just one.
Now that is interesting! I am trying to recall a study of rats where they basically implode with decreasing births and a whole section of beautiful rats who move on from mating with opposite sex and even same sex, with the community dying out.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
I'm trying to remember the name of the writer who wrote about sexuality being flexible. It was from a comparative study and I am almost certain it had some angle on the LPGA. I could be wrong to say a Dr. Black. But one of the points she made was that some people are able to adapt to environments, that we have predispositions rather than predeterminations.
Was it Kinsey? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
I think the current opinion is that there is a genetic predisposition one way or the other, which is then reinforced or counteracted by people's upbringing. The relative effects of both of these aren't really known at the moment. In terms of choice though, it doesn't really matter if someone as born irrevocably gay, or turned out that way because of their upbringing, they still generally are what they are.
I saw the movie with Liam Neeson (opened the eyes I must say) and this is more along the lines of what I'd heard. There is a Doctor Black, a woman, who is openly lesbian and does couples counselling. I read an academic paper of hers (in a sports journal) and she was making the point about sexual choice etc. I agree that people are what they are. As a student of humans I always want to find out why and how etc, a predisposition makes sense, though I always fear this is seen as a weakness or aberration (again I relate back to gene therapy etc). I remember someone called Kinsey "greedy" as he wanted it all. Must watch that movie again!Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
No they can't, no they don't, and yes you do. As you will see below.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
As far as the Russians are concerned, their position is right, and is what they want their society to be. They don't consider the west right to be "tolerant" of diversity, they consider us weak for having to cater for every section of society, even those we don't like and have no time for.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Quote:
It's not my religion, and Ireland is not a "catholic nation". Ireland is a secular republic, and there is separation of church and state. Laws are not, and should not, be decided on the basis of religion.
I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite
As you can probably see, we're way off topic at this stage, and you've been drawn into what constitutes most debate on Putin's Russia in this part of the world. Anyway, back on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Crimea has had it's power, light, gas supplies, and transport links with Ukraine cut. Tourist numbers have collapsed since they had their referendum. When you make political decisions, there are consequences. Wanting to be Russian is the least of their problems right now.
Thank you Mypost! And I think it's interesting that most of the debate in Ireland, UK, USA etc is about a tiny part of a law which has brought about a lot of good - cracking down on alcohol advertising, banning alcohol advertising in sports, banning alcohol sales in sports stadia, cracking down on child porn - and keeping a civil debate on society. The one element hammered is the outward promotion of alternative lifestyles - which happens to include "mystic" phonelines/ins which were milking thousands of their cash nightly. It has allowed the government away with untold excesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
From personal experience I can count nearly 100 people who didn't travel to Crimea this Summer, and probably the same number of people who would regularly travel to visit relatives in Ukraine in the Autumn. It's an absolute mess and both it and the Donbass have an awful stink of Transdnistria. As in any conflict zone vested interests rise to the top. In Ukraine it has always been corrupt oligarchs calling the shots, in Crimea it is local agitators and some nasty characters. Donbass the same. Today the rouble dropped again and VVP gave further assurance that his ministers won't go on holidays. It's all a show, but in our Irish "democracy" nothing of the sort happened. I will always excuse St. Patrick's Day as it is useful.
In football news, there is an exodus of players from the country as clubs cannot afford their wages - including Tino Costa and Movsisyan. Even at the lower end of Ice Hockey foreign players are returning home. Those whose contracts are in euros or dollars are being told to find a new club, those who are paid in roubles are leaving as the exchange rate is terrible.
One small inside fact about Tino Costa, Spartak are receiving 1.5million euros in a loan fee, he is receiving 300,000 in back wages, the rest is being divvied out amongst players as wages were not paid since early November. Apparently owner Fedun had debts called in from foreign banks and is tapped out. If he goes, the club follows.
Not really, I am Irish after all, a citizen of the country, that does count for somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Church, imho, held our country back for years.
And the Russians are wrong. The Americans of the Deep South up to about 1970 didn't want their society to be unsegregated, they didn't consider the northern states right to treat blacks as equals, and they considered them weak for catering to them with all this "equal rights" nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The UK is predominantly non-religious or protestant, depending on how the question in surveys is framed. How would you feel about it if the non-catholic majority refused to "cater for" the catholic minority? Not allowed to hold public church services (because catholicism is a non-traditional lifestyle), catholic marriages don't get the same privileges in terms of visitation rights, inheritance and child custody as protestant ones? Do you see what I'm getting at here?
It's telling that you think the West doesn't like homosexuals and has no time for them by the way. Most people, especially those who are younger or better-educated, don't have the same problem with other people's sex lives as you do.
Governments always bow to pressure from powerful lobby groups and voter blocs. That doesn't make us a catholic country, we still have democracy, not some sort of grand Ayatollah dictating things from on high.Quote:
I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.
As I said, the "catholic country" argument is a weak one. Conservatives say "Most Irish people are catholic, so therefore gay marriage should be illegal". They ignore the fact that almost 70% of Irish people think that it should be legal, regardless of their faith. That's the difference between a catholic country and a secular country that happens to contain many catholics.
Haven't had the chance to post in a few days, so a lot to cover... :p
Even if one's sexuality was a matter of choice, it wouldn't justify prejudice and discrimination. Even if sexual lifestyle, on the other hand, might be a matter of choice, it doesn't justify such either. Personally, I think sexuality, like everything we, as living beings, think or do, is influenced by a combination of one's genetic make-up and their surrounding environment. Not that that necessarily makes sexual feelings a simple matter of choice that can simply be turned on or off at whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite
Is homosexuality an undue influence though? Why can't it be as perfectly safe, loving, human and natural a feeling as a heterosexual desire might be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Such practices are condemned aplenty. We just happen to be having a discussion specifically on Russia here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Homosexuality isn't a liberal Western phenomenon either. It has been prevalent in human societies (and in the animal kingdom) since not merely the dawn of ancient history but since biological organisms capable of sexual activity came into existence.
And for whatever reasons - their reasons, for reasons of biology, for reasons of personal taste, perfectly valid reasons, whatever... - some men and men and some women and women are also naturally attracted to one another. Every activity in which a human might naturally engage does not necessarily have to be an act striving towards the reproduction or continuation of our species. Although I'm sure there are evolutionary theories on why homosexual behaviours are so commonplace too. (Indeed, I see Peadar has mentioned some.) Even various species of animals have been observed engaging in homosexual acts. Bonobo apes, for example, are said to engage in homosexual behaviour to aid social cohesion. Are bonobo apes engaging in an unnatural behaviour when they do so?Quote:
In order to keep the human race going, men and women are naturally attracted to each other....
If they follow the natural path they're designed to, your life and theirs would be much easier.
What has given you the impression that humans were designed with some specific function or purpose in mind? We don't have an objective set of essential characteristics and traits. We exist and we are what we are, or become what we become, and that is and has to be inherently natural by definition. Classification as "human" or "natural" is a completely subjective and artificial endeavour. Does absolutely everything we do have to be in promotion of our continuation as a species in order for it to be considered natural or valid? Is riding a bicycle somehow unnatural because it doesn't directly keep our race going? Is playing sport unnatural for similar reasons? What about the wearing of clothes? Or what about sexual abstinence even? You talk about Catholic doctrine and its promotion of some natural order of things, but what about sexually abstinent Catholic priests? Are they failing in their "natural obligations"?
Of course the aforementioned activities are not unnatural. These things are all perfectly natural human activities or engagements. Why? Because humans do them. Just because we have the biological capability to reproduce, it doesn't necessitate that the sole thrust of every act in which we engage must be towards that purpose, nor does it even necessitate that every sexual act in which we might engage be working towards that purpose. Our nature frees us to do many things. Saying that we must follow some natural predetermination to reproduce would necessitate that we exist solely to have sexual intercourse with any and every member of the opposite sex whenever physically possible, for, otherwise, we'd be failing in our natural duty or purpose. I hope you can see how ridiculous your stance appears when properly illuminated under such light.
If you disagree and can acknowledge that the emphasis of not every act in which a human can naturally engage must be towards the continuation of our species, then why distinguish a homosexual act from any other human activity? I mean, not all heterosexual-identifying men are attracted to all women and not all heterosexual-identifying women are attracted to all men. Even within these artificial sub-categories of human sexuality, there are preferences. Are you saying such preferences are also unnatural and that to be properly natural we should be attracted to every member of the opposite sex?
Are you saying also that those in society who perceive or experience injustice should just put up with it out of convenience (even when the natural sexual desires of some might be telling them to do otherwise or when the living of a life of heterosexual pretence might be causing immense psychological turmoil and pain)? Would you accept the experience of injustice on the basis of your nature? How can you so blithely say their life would be much easier if only they just put up with it? How should they just put up with it and act completely against their nature and desires? You clearly have no comprehension of the psychology involved here, nor of the psychology of injustice. Broadly-speaking, when would any society ever progress if your unquestioning mindset was the dominant attitude? Racism would still be widespread; maybe even the slave trade. Pseudo-science once taught that the racial supremacy of certain so-called races over supposed others was the one true natural order of things. Thankfully, such nonsense has since been discredited. There would be little social advancement at all if we all lived within the limited parameters of your small-minded world, where the idea of doing new and novel things because we're capable of them would be alien.
So, when did you decide to be straight then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Are we? Says who? There's no evidence anywhere to suggest that we have been designed* as a species, let alone designed with some special function or purpose in mind. Science has also observed and documented homosexuality in nature. How can that be if it is unnatural?Quote:
And by science/nature, we are designed to procreate, at least supposed to.
*When I say "designed", I mean that there is nothing to suggest we have been designed by some intelligent or directing maker. Our biology may have the appearance of design to some, but that is simply as a result of the fact that we appear to possess a suitability towards our environment(s). That suitability is not as a result of a pre-determined design by some thinking designer though; rather, it is as a result of undirected gene mutation and natural selection, or the process of evolution, in other words. Evolution is an unthinking and undirected phenomenon not guided by intelligence or some over-riding purpose towards some pre-determined goal or end-point. It doesn't have an objective purpose or function. It just happens and we are its result. That doesn't mean that any particular human behaviour is objectively more right, natural or valid than another.
Maybe she is/they are what society defines as bisexual? You could say we're all potentially pansexual. Maybe the "choice" is in whether or not we want or choose to engage in such acts commonly defined as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Some of us may not engage in sexual acts at all. Just because this tennis player might have found herself to be more attracted to certain members of one sex over members of another at different points in her life doesn't invalidate her feelings or render them unnatural.Quote:
A well known tennis player was abused by a male coach at a very young age (11-15), at 16 she was approached at a tournament by an older female player/coach who (apologies) "turned" her. From 16 to retirement she was an avowed lesbian. Then on retirement promptly married, a man, and told me to my face "It was more convenient being lesbian when I was on the tour." I can name 4 players who did the same, including a double gold winner from the USA (90's).
You presumably identify as heterosexual, but that doesn't mean you find every other member of the opposite sex attractive, does it? You'll still discriminate (to use the term completely neutrally) between members of the opposite sex based on your personal preference, I would imagine. Is that something you can choose? Most probably not. Finding it more convenient (for whatever reason) to be with one member of the opposite sex over another at a particular point in time doesn't mean that your whole sexuality is a matter of whimsical choice. Why would it be any different for this tennis player?
How so? Lots of biological beings (humans and animals) engage or have engaged in homosexual acts and have clearly or self-declaredly felt perfectly natural when doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
I think Gore Vidal's thoughts on the matter ('Sexually Speaking' or 'Sex is Politics' especially) are definitely worth exploring. I think of them as being very progressive. Even some LGBT groups find it difficult to identify with or get to grips with Vidal's "haughty" opinions on sexuality (in spite of the fact he spent most of his sexual life engaging in what society would deem homosexual acts) because they transcend the concept or process of categorisation. Vidal eschewed the whole notion of sexual identity/identities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
"Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them.
...
The reason no one has yet been able to come up with a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known as gay, fag, queer, etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is divided into male and female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with their own sex, many don't; many respond to both. This plurality is the fact of our nature and not worth fretting about."
"Look, what I'm preaching is: don't be ghettoized, don't be categorized. Every state tries to categorize its citizens in order to assert control of them."
Is this your position too? The acceptance and protection of minorities and minority interests is all part and parcel of free and open democratic society. Diversity of ideas is strengthening and helps advance our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. That is progress and represents security in the self. Closed societies are grounded in insecurity and fear of difference because the very notion of diversity or contrasting modes of thought might be perceived as threatening to the conservation of the established order. Which is truly the weaker grounding here?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
And you may drop the "we", thanks. I'm not sure most people from Ireland would actually agree with you in positively disliking those you consider to be non-traditional.
Irish laws are of the people. They are not of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church may have some influence over some of the Irish population, but we remain a secular republic. Catholicism is not "our" religion. Many Irish people subscribe to other beliefs and faith systems too, or none even. Or are you in denial of the shared Irishness of these others too? Do you deny me my Irishness because I might be an agnostic atheist?Quote:
I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.
And just on the conflict in the north; it was not a theological conflict (and certainly not from the Irish nationalist/republican perspective oft-lazily dubbed "Catholic"). Religion came to be a social marker (for reasons other than contrasting theology), certainly, but no serious Irish republican (even if he or she also happened to be Catholic) ever got involved in the struggle out of some desire to crush Protestantism or to convert Protestants into believing in transubstantiation or the veneration of the Blessed Virgin.
Jesus Danny what a fantastic couple of posts
They're an abonobonation of god.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I am of the same opinion (as to the reason/cause/root etc). As ou described in the animal kingdom some species have it as de rigeur. The Greeks, Spartans, ancient Irish etc apparently all did the same, though it must always be taken carefully the relation of such historic tales as we view them through the Victorian prism, where public schooloys were routinely molested to make them better men (we had the same jokes about christian brothers - "making a man of you" when I was in school). Though rather than creating homosexuals, it just created generations of very damaged individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
On the point of being attracted to every member of the opposite sex - we need to separate male from female in this....for obvious reasons. Women, generally, think and choose. But this is me generalising.
Danny, the point I was making (about undue influence) was the broad range of measures that the government were using to rebuild society. Personally I believe their should be helplines, info centres etc for the LGBT community - however leaders of the community here, and visitors from Europe and the US (including Peter Tatchell) made a ridiculous comparison with alcohol and narcotic help centres/resources. THis was pounced on by bilious talking heads to slam them as degenerates.
There are info centres, there are gay marches, there are websites and helplines, so as with any law in any country, it will come down to how it is tested. The part of this law regarding alcohol has worked, though this is down to the industry playing it safe.
At the end of the story, it boils down to what the vast majority want, and the government are playing to it. When the so-called leaders of the revolution, including Nemtsov and Navalny, are talking about re-educating gays, you know there is a long way to go.
Probably when I found girls more attractive, and realised my pain threshold would not see me last long in prison. I can appreciate good looking men, but the equipment is off putting.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
True, in a sense, though I believe we are and certainly there are examples in nature of same sex sexual interaction, though does this mean that heterosexual relations are wrong or unnatural? Should we all go gay? Or should people be allowed to interact with other consenting adults as they see fit (no pun).Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Where were her feelings invalidated? If she chose to be in a lesbian relationship and then a hetero one, she has the right to choose. However it does raise questions as to the reasons/causes of sexual nature and moves more towards the choice (through nature and nurture) than "born this way". Regardless, it helped her career so why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
This doesn't quite make sense, sorry. If you are talking about bisexuality or choosing between genders, they are different matters. In addition attractiveness and interaction are different matters, regardless of sexual preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Wouldn't be a big fan of Gore Vidal, apart from his work being a bit over praised (especially Duluth), I fully turned off once he did his diatribe about Roman Polanski. Which doesn't take away from his general stances, just that he tried to be smarter than the average cat and made less sense. I do agree with him on becoming ghettoized, but this runs against the grain of the modern liberal (which he would have died again dealing with).
What is most interesting in matters of sexual preference is that the "enlightened" truly go ott to educate the dummies. Those who believe homosexuality is wrong or a sin, will pull up their evidence and quote scripture, those who believe those who believe homosexuality is wrong are wrong, will throw in everything they can and run them down as backwards or evil or facists. Anybody who dares to question will be seen as insulting or somehow uninformed.
It would be far better if people were allowed to live as they wish, to choose what they choose and not fear public disgrace or retribution for their choice, stance or belief system, or sexual choice - be it bi, hetero, lesbian, gay, transgender.
Only here could a discussion abut big bad bears descend into a lively discussion on homosexuality with never a trace of irony!:rainbow:
Well, now you've gotten to the "bottom" of the matter, we can get back on "top" of the discussion.
Some worrying signs for after the 12th. Everyone is on hoilday and nobody thinking much (openly) about what is going on. However, VVP's speech on New Years Eve did little to help. His "Crimea voted to return to our motherland" was a bit much, but his idiotic speech was as bland and pointless as, well, anything Coke can come up with. And oddly, the speech was written by a US ex-Coke executive.
You're not of the belief that homosexuality is an undue influence though, are you, or do you think it is fair to categorise it as one of these many other perceived undue influences? And, just for the avoidance of any smidgen of doubt, I assume, if I'm reading you correctly, that you advocate the idea of help centres in order to help homosexuals deal with possible social-political repression/discrimination and familial marginalisation rather than to "help cure" themselves of some "mental illness"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Forgive me if I borrow another Vidal quote: "At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice." :oQuote:
At the end of the story, it boils down to what the vast majority want, and the government are playing to it. When the so-called leaders of the revolution, including Nemtsov and Navalny, are talking about re-educating gays, you know there is a long way to go.
So, are you saying that human sexuality (our sexual desires; be they heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual...) is a matter of choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
But you didn't choose to find girls more attractive, did you? As you say, you just found them to be that way, presumably due to some non-conscious feeling over which you had/have no cognitive control. Your pain threshold isn't something over which you have cognitive control either. You speak of there having been a realisation. That you find male genitalia off-putting is similarly governed by the unconscious. You're speaking of responses that have nothing to do with the separate and distinct realm of decision-making. Sexual arousal has nothing to do with the part of the brain responsible for decision-making. Rather, it is governed by the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems; they are unconscious and non-cognitive.
We can choose to act upon desires or not, certainly, we can even try to suppress desires, but we can't choose whether or not to have desires. We wouldn't be human otherwise.
People should be allowed to interact with other consenting adults as they see fit. Engaging in solely heterosexual relations is also perfectly natural. It is perfectly natural because some humans do it. Humans are a part of the natural world, after all.Quote:
True, in a sense, though I believe we are and certainly there are examples in nature of same sex sexual interaction, though does this mean that heterosexual relations are wrong or unnatural? Should we all go gay? Or should people be allowed to interact with other consenting adults as they see fit (no pun).
Apologies, I shouldn't have implied you were suggesting her feelings were invalidated on the basis that you were arguing her sexuality was a choice. Rather, you were saying her sexuality could be, or was, a choice but that that is still perfectly valid (or right or natural)? Fair enough. However, I would argue she is a bisexual who is simply making a choice out of the options available, whatever might be most convenient or suitable for her at whatever particular time, which is her right to do so. Was she genuinely choosing which sex might have triggered arousal?Quote:
Where were her feelings invalidated? If she chose to be in a lesbian relationship and then a hetero one, she has the right to choose. However it does raise questions as to the reasons/causes of sexual nature and moves more towards the choice (through nature and nurture) than "born this way". Regardless, it helped her career so why not.
Are they really different matters though? Why introduce such a distinction? Gender doesn't have to come into it when we're simply discussing who we as humans find to be attractive due to our sexuality. In terms of preference, heterosexuals still (unthinkingly or not) differentiate between members of the opposite sex, homosexuals still differentiate between members of the same sex and bisexuals still differentiate between members of both sexes. Despite the varying preferences, each preference still falls under the umbrella of sexual attraction. Sexual preference can transcend gender and is not restricted by the concept.Quote:
This doesn't quite make sense, sorry. If you are talking about bisexuality or choosing between genders, they are different matters. In addition attractiveness and interaction are different matters, regardless of sexual preference.
I think I have covered this directly above, but what are the obvious reasons for a necessary separation of genders for the purposes of a discussion on sexual attraction exactly? If you think I've not explained my point satisfactorily above, point out where you think it's lacking and I'll be happy to try and re-iterate it in some other terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
I can't say he doesn't have other faults. Whether or not he was seeking attention in later life, the outburst about Polanski's victim was reprehensible. Perhaps it was confirmation that he was a past-it intellect. I was simply suggesting his thoughts specifically on the topic at hand might be relevant and constructive/instructive. On the idea of "ghettoisation", he was getting at something similar to the idea of bourgeois nationalism or the notion of identity politics (basing your political goals on perceived or real group marginalisation) dividing or fracturing the broader civil community and its interests, isn't he? I don't think the idea that such fragmentation inhibits the creation of genuine opportunities for ending marginalisation by setting one marginalised group against the other in terms of having their voices heard or the idea that affirmations of difference might perpetuate marginalisation are things with which a modern liberal need necessarily disagree.Quote:
Wouldn't be a big fan of Gore Vidal, apart from his work being a bit over praised (especially Duluth), I fully turned off once he did his diatribe about Roman Polanski. Which doesn't take away from his general stances, just that he tried to be smarter than the average cat and made less sense. I do agree with him on becoming ghettoized, but this runs against the grain of the modern liberal (which he would have died again dealing with).
I have no opinion in any sense as I do not judge others for their lifestyle choice, to each their own. I believe that they should have continued access to help/information centres, as for the moment (even in the most "enlightened" societies there is still a need) it is important to inform and support, especially in the realm of sexual health - the same with teens and the heterosexual community. I am not aware of any "re-orientation" places, though no doubt there is, no doubt the church is involved and no doubt there are 2 sides to the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
It is one opinion, another is that people are born with predilections (nature), another is that it is due to external societal influences (nurture), or that it is a mental dysfunction, that it is chemical, that it is a result of trauma, it is a result of x, y, z. It is entirely wrong to be entirely sure or determined to force home one point or another, one cause or another. I personally believe that if 2 consenting adults wish to enjoy each others company they should be allowed to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
In that particular case there are so many grey areas that it is unfair to comment other than that she did what she did and later in life (she's still young) choose to marry a man and have children. However there are many cases, including hers though I have questions, where it is not a simple "bisexual" tendency. A case in point: Martina Navratilova has changed her story many times, though the original and most pointed is that she was sexually abused by a substantially older male coach as a young teen. She engaged in a semi-consentual relationship with a younger male coach, had a pregnancy scare and "swore off" sex. It was around this time (still a teen) she began travelling with an older female pro who became her first lover. From this, what can be made? She came from a fractured background, was vulnerable and now lives a happy life with her new Russian partner. What is objectionable is the abuse of a minor, simply that. She is now in a good place in her life and settled, and a really wonderful person to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
While appreciated and interesting to read someone's views on the topic, I don't see the need. To each their own and it is entirely within the right of adult human beings to be with whom they choose, regardless of gender, race or creed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
It's difficult to read the exact meaning behind a polemicist, though for the Polanski issue he had sense to make, though it just was wrong and too polemical. It boils back to the old school (regardless of background) that "stuff happens". I think his point was that Polanski came from a different background (French/European) where "this sort of thing" was permissable, that girls could be just as bad hustlers as males, that this stuff goes on because it always has. I remember at the time thinking, I wish he has broadened it out from showbusiness - or at least used it as a platform to attack real criminality in the industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Agree on the ghetto idea. Making yourself "special" leaves you open to special attention, which again feeds into the rage machine on all sides and allows for self-publicists and vested interests to take hold.
A lot of worry here at present, oil below $50 a barrel, a new structure of investment relations and laws in force to allow "capital return". There have been some other laws from Jan 1st which snuck in. One scare that began in October last year was a law to "ban iphones". As a non-owner I'm okay with it, but it actually wasn't a law at all. It was a reaction from Apple to stop selling their products in Russia due to currency fluctuations. I bought an iPhone for a prize for 30,000rbs in July, the same item is over 50,000rbs now. So Apple halted distribution, but needed a good cover for it - and it was Mikhailov and Partners (local pr firm) who directed the online and media campaign to soften the blow.
Another law in is the blog law, which requests that any blog with 3,000 or more readers register their real name with the government (actually with the tax authorities). The angle was a clamp down on free speech - partially true - though it is more a means of gathering taxes and controlling advertisements/product placements etc. An example, a blogger in Kazan has more than 20,000 followers, he works with AK Bars bank and reviews financial products. His identity put a bit of a halt to his earnings when it was discovered that he'd been bigging up his employers products because it was his job, but he was a "crusader" until that point.
And...in football, the exodus is worrying, for hockey also. Could be a ripe time for LOI clubs to pick up top level performers for peanuts - or spuds anyway :-)
Oil down again - 45,62$ a barrel. Shale oil is getting hit hard, all those North Dakotan boom towns suddenly questioning the value of bulk buying Levi jeans and cowboy boots.
One another topic, a very interesting point made on a tv chat show (on the only, kind of, liberal channel left). A correspondant from Radio Ekho (willfind her name in a minute) spoke about how the terror in Paris is a daily issue in Russia. She gave a list of statistics from an NGO and one from the government on murders in the RF of a) journos and b) civilians. The overwhelming number of b) is the usual gang or friend/family, but when she broke it down there are 2.2 people killed each day by Islamic terrorists. She discounted security forces and police from the total. In the meantime the government keep a lid on anti-muslim speak and protests.
Are those attacks Chechen-related?
In relation to your raising of the case of Martina Navratilova above, I suppose it shows we can potentially be anything and everything depending on genetic make-up, upbringing and life circumstances.
Danny, (2nd part), this is the nub of the whole issue in relation to sexuality etc, it just cannot be down to 1 thing or another, and I always feel very uncomfortable when there is a complete railroading into one category or reason. And ultimately, once 2 adults are happy to be together, fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
On the Chechens, no, not completely. Although we need to take into account the overflow from Chechnya into the holding camps of Dagestan, Ingueshetia etc. There is a sizeable rump of anti-Kadyrov Chechens who have divided into 2 camps, moderates who want democracy and a Islamo-themed state like Jordan, and those who were educated by Saudi's (after the Iranian backed teachers were murdered) to live by Sharia. The latter are the ones who carry out the bombings (suicide and other) and attacks on civil society. Quite a number have flocked to big urban centres in the south - Volgograd, Rostov, Krasnodar and even here in Voronezh. They have a completely different mental make up and it is not down to recent events, but to a heady mix of religion, culture, drugs and alcohol.
And I know it was brought up in another thread (by me) in relation to Free PR, the status of minorities, eg sexual, is not covered in the whole of the RF. In areas where sharia law redominates in the south, homosexuals have been flogged and beaten (I have not heard of murder), many young gay males have fled to Moscow and in Moscow I knew 1 lesbian from Makhachkala who was thrown out of her home by her educated and moderate father as he feare personal retribution. Anyway, that's off topic!
Luckily this year the feared ISIS threats did not materialise, after what happened in Volgograd last December it was a bit nervy moving about.
Some very strange things in Russia, and not really covered outside. The former liberal "icon" Navalny was due to have his sentencing confirmed (3 1/2 years), along with his brother, and there was a march of about 100 pro-navalny-ites. A counter march of 500-800 pro-Kremlin supporters met them. There were arrests on both sides, the usual gombeens jumping out like LOI fans, but without umbrellas, and lots of chanting. The cossacks were also out around the country, parading with crosses and icons. Navalny, on Radio Ekho, decried his fate. He said that many more businessmen get away with more yet because he was challenging the authorities his records were pored over.
Most worrying is the arrival on the streets of "Sabin's Peace Patrol" with their ribbons and attitude. I need to read more about them, but it's a member of United Russia who set up a law and order force to prevent another Maidan. This was the threat by Navalny and his people, that Maidan would be in Moscow. Which scared the living daylights out of most liberals, professionals and thinkers.
MyPost; I dunno if you've not been on or if you've simply decided to drop out of the prior discussion on sexuality and not bother responding to my points, but, in light of your reliance in argument on and advocation of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible on the matter, you might find this a thought-provoking read if you get a chance: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_...ers_are_wrong/
It's an excerpt from 'God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same Sex Relationships' by Matthew Vines.
Two excellent reports from Russian TV a couple of weeks ago will soon come to light in the english media (it's not Moscow and most in the english media are afraid to venture from the capitals) - and it's causing a ruckus. Pepsico have gone all out to drive product sales this year, Coke too. Increased advertising, backing of government projects - gloves are off. Why? One region (Vologda) banned sales of fizzy drinks to minors - ALL fizzy drinks. Wait for this to grow!
Discrimination does happen to us, albeit not much in the UK. Instead it happens in the USA, and we know it as the "undocumented Irish".Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
I didn't write the first sentence, and it's not about "education" in the second. It's about realising what the natural order of man/woman attraction is. Men and women are biologically designed to be attracted to each other, because a) they are fundamentally different, and b) to keep the human race going. So those who have turned their back on that order have made a choice to be different. And they celebrate that choice in their own ways. But you can't do that one minute, then demand equality when it suits.Quote:
It's telling that you think the West doesn't like homosexuals and has no time for them by the way. Most people, especially those who are younger or better-educated, don't have the same problem with other people's sex lives as you do.
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
In Russia, people are overwhelmingly conservative, and they prefer order over liberalism. While in society in general, there are behaviours, rules, and laws for people to observe and follow. Those who follow them have an easy life. Those who choose to complicate matters and/or not follow them face a different life.Quote:
Is this your position too? The acceptance and protection of minorities and minority interests is all part and parcel of free and open democratic society. Diversity of ideas is strengthening and helps advance our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. That is progress and represents security in the self. Closed societies are grounded in insecurity and fear of difference because the very notion of diversity or contrasting modes of thought might be perceived as threatening to the conservation of the established order. Which is truly the weaker grounding here?
It doesn't bother me what you are. The undeniable reality however is that Irish people are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion is very conservative in many ways. I'm not a bible-basher at all, but I stand squarely with it's stance on this specific issue. One I'd rather not deal with, as unfortunately in Ireland today, there's little tolerance for the alternative view. But regrettably, it's inevitable these days when Russia is brought up, and that says more about Irish people than them.Quote:
The Catholic Church may have some influence over some of the Irish population, but we remain a secular republic. Catholicism is not "our" religion. Many Irish people subscribe to other beliefs and faith systems too, or none even. Or are you in denial of the shared Irishness of these others too? Do you deny me my Irishness because I might be an agnostic atheist?
Now back on topic.
The UN says that an average of 29 people are losing their lives in Eastern Ukraine every day. The toll has now passed 5,000. That's FIVE THOUSAND people, many of whom are innocent victims, who just wanted a normal life, under a government (either Ukraine or Russia) able to guarantee their security and freedom to go about their daily business as they wish.
As I don't believe the West influenced the Kiev uprising, I don't believe the conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk is being orchestrated by Moscow. It's as accurate as saying that the Irish government was responsible for atrocities in Britain during the troubles, which was never the case.
20 people were shot in Paris recently. There was rolling coverage of the events for several days, and many world leaders showed up to be seen in Paris, some of them with at best, questionable approaches to the notion of free speech. By contrast, 30 people were slaughtered in Mariupol at the weekend, 80 were injured. There was no outpourings of sympathy for them and Europe's media were more interested in an election in Greece with a toll of 0.
Priorities, priorities.
Although I wouldn't agree with the balance you're showing with the blame game (Maidan-Rebels), I agree completely with the overwhelming non-interest in what's happening in Ukraine. The Irish media are biased towards Greece - money and politics, the World media loved Paris - Oh La La French factor, media and religion, while the conflict in Ukraine is bubbling away, waiting for the Spring thaw and re-invigorated slaughter. Here we're getting (mostly) one side, but I've met refugees from Ukraine, they're very blunt in what they see as two criminal groups having at one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The media rolled from Ukraine (having shot their load on the maidan for a few days), ISIS, Paris (shortcutting it all) and nobody cared. Nobody cares that in Lugansk oblast there are villages without electricity or oil/gas since December - we're at -11 here today and it's terrible, there it's -20 today. Thousands of children had to be given school places in September this year in regions from Rostov to Belgorod to Voronezh - where there is already a strain on the regional budget to re-open school places shut down in the early 2000's.
The Russian economy garnered more words than the conflict, and Mariupol, like Markale shelling in Sarajevo, nabs a few headlines but disappears from view. And this morning it's all Greece. There is a new Bosnia heating up in Ukraine and we haven't even seen the ethnic communities yet.
And you'd advise those Irish on the end of discrimination to avoid complicating matters by just following the rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I'm sorry to say, but that's just pseudo-scientific bunkum. I made a number of points outlining why this simply cannot be the case up-thread, although you seem to have by-passed them, conveniently. There is no "natural order" to realise, nor is there is some "biological design" with a purpose for us in the mind of some designer. I'm not sure how you can casually make such claims without even attempting to back them up. Humans are a part and product of nature; our actions, thoughts and desires are, therefore, natural by definition. Even if you seek to separate us from nature, how do you explain homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, if there is some natural order of things? Just because things might be fundamentally different, doesn't mean they have to be attracted anyway. Do you find yourself attracted to every woman, because that is how you were designed, supposedly? If not, then aren't you turning your back on this supposed order? What about priests who decide to remain abstinent and decline to reproduce? Are they defying this order?Quote:
It's about realising what the natural order of man/woman attraction is. Men and women are biologically designed to be attracted to each other, because a) they are fundamentally different, and b) to keep the human race going. So those who have turned their back on that order have made a choice to be different.
Very little tolerance for "the alternative view"? You mean your view? C'mon, you're having a laugh. Isn't "the alternative view" (which is an outrageous and insulting description for an establishment position that has enjoyed such mainstream sway for so long to the great suffering of many anyway) an inherently intolerant one itself? It seeks to stick its nose in and cast negative moral judgment on the private family affairs of consenting adults.Quote:
It doesn't bother me what you are. The undeniable reality however is that Irish people are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion is very conservative in many ways. I'm not a bible-basher at all, but I stand squarely with it's stance on this specific issue. One I'd rather not deal with, as unfortunately in Ireland today, there's little tolerance for the alternative view. But regrettably, it's inevitable these days when Russia is brought up, and that says more about Irish people than them.
And what do you think the raising of this issue when Russia is mentioned says about Irish people exactly?
And do you think this is okay (and incidentally, this is far less severe than the discrimination Russian homosexuals are facing, or my hypothetical anti-catholic UK)? Because initially you seemed to be defending the Russians for sticking to their guns and going with what the majority wanted, flying in the face of what the "weak" West thinks:Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
If you weren't referring to homosexuals in the last sentence, who do you think the West is catering for, in spite of not liking them, and having no time for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
As for the "natural order", it is the natural order for humans to sh*t in the corner of a cave and die of septicemia at the age of 28, but I don't see you or the catholic church defending that.
Some further interesting reading on various research done into human sexuality: http://blog.ted.com/2014/02/20/6-stu...man-sexuality/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica Gross
I didn't advise anyone. What I am saying is "When in Rome?..."Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
You've answered your own question. They have made a decision. The realities of that decision are well known, and what they choose to live with.Quote:
I'm sorry to say, but that's just pseudo-scientific bunkum. There is no "natural order" to realise, nor is there is some "biological design" with a purpose for us in the mind of some designer. I'm not sure how you can casually make such claims without even attempting to back them up. Humans are a part and product of nature; our actions, thoughts and desires are, therefore, natural by definition. Just because things might be fundamentally different, doesn't mean they have to be attracted anyway. What about priests who decide to remain abstinent and decline to reproduce? Are they defying this order?
Then you contradict yourself, telling us that humans are a product of nature, after saying we have no natural order. Now it has to be one or the other, not both. I have backed up my "claims" in the last post with a) and b).
The majority of countries are completely intolerant of non-hetero practices, and in some cases, execute those found doing so. What the Russians have done barely registers by comparison, yet it's the big issue about the country in western media.
Eurovision is the biggest annual live music concert in the world, where cover versions are banned, and where performers either sink or swim in front of several hundreds of millions of people over 3 minutes. Yet we're informed that this wonderful celebration of European culture is defined and dismissed in the west as a homofest, which I take serious offence to, especially when 99.9% of organisers and performers in it are as straight as a wall.
This thread is supposed to be about Russia, it's culture, it's identity, it's relations with it's neighbours, Chechnya, Ukraine, the fact that people are losing their lives everyday in massive numbers across the border, the oil/gas situation, and the knock on effects on the Russian/world economy, etc. There's a tonne of material there to work with.Quote:
And what do you think the raising of this issue when Russia is mentioned says about Irish people exactly?
Sadly, it's yet again hijacked by a pointless debate on the same sht issue that has killed a total of 0, for a country with frankly far more serious issues to deal with.