Sexual Orientation

[DeletedUser]

Now how am I supposed to do that when the first 22 pages are missing?

Just clicked the link, and the pages came up fine.

Regardless, as you noted it is was published in 2003 (written earlier), which is too old, as we discussed earlier.

So...was the APA article (and others) you cited earlier written and published 20 minutes before you added the link in this thread??? I think not. The fact you are even making this argument exhibits a weak mind and an intolerance of even considering new and/or different scientific paradigms.

And it truly doesn't matter who wrote it, as long as the person wrote it actually educated on the material he/she is discussing.

Well, Roger Lancaster is the director of the Cultural studies PHD program at George Mason University. I assume one wouldn't rise to such a level of academia if he wasn't respected and didn't know what he was talking about.

But seriously, that's going to be your retort??? So what you are saying is; a gay scientist has no right to study his sexuality, its origins, its place in society, how it's defined by other individuals and groups. Moreover you are saying anthropology and sociology, mainstays of the social sciences since the early 20th century also have no place in determining sexual orientation.

Wow....

So who decides who's qualified to do research then Hellstromm? Some little scientist wearing a white coat hoping he can find some inconsistent evidence purporting the Gay Gene. Regardless of the fact that no lesbian or bisexual gene has ever been "discovered" to support your theory, but there is a Gay Gene, there really is. I'm beginning to wonder if you have any knowledge whatsoever on this subject. I think instead you hastily and haphazardly gathered together half a dozen articles that supported your very selective argument so you could shout, Eureka I've got it!!!

Lancaster's research and findings are based on in-depth qualitative methods of research. Read the book, you may learn something. But wait, that's right, the link didn't work and even if it did 2003 is practically the Middle Ages, therefore it should be dismissed as irrelevant. I'm truly surprised you're not demanding he be burned at the stake for heresy.

Developmental theories focus on a person's upbringing and personal history to find the origins of homosexuality. ... <but it was> demonstrated that psychoanalytic <developmental> interpretations of homosexuality were based more on prejudice than on science.

What prejudice/s are you referring to? This statement depends on one's definition of science! In other words from which school you are approaching the subject. You are choosing to apply only your narrow perception to the discussion, and dismissing all other paradigms as irrelevant. Again this is selective and will always result in biased findings.

Point of being, I'm a little disappointed you completely dismissed, or failed to read, how she covered the genetic, prenatal hormonal, and other physiological studies, demonstrating how genetics account for, "at least half of the variance in sexual orientation (Pillard & Bailey, 1998)

Well, actually, I did read that section of the chapter and discovered yet again your propensity for selectivity in this argument. You chose to omit the first and last parts of the paragraph from where you took the reference, the parts that state:

"If homosexuality were solely a genetic trait, it should have disappeared long ago. Because homosexuals have been less likely than heterosexuals to have children, each successive generation of homosexuals should have become smaller, until genes for homosexuality disappeared from the gene pool. Yet rates of homosexuality have remained constant. Concordance rates for siblings, twins and adoptees reveal that genes account for at least half of the variance in sexual orientation (Pillard & Bailey, 1998). Even so Bailey and his colleagues agree that environmental factors are also important."

Moreover, since you dismissed the book as purely educational at a 101 level I really don't understand why you are citing a reference from it. Surely it's beneath your erudition.

Anyway, point being, what is presented here is cursory.

The only thing that's cursory is what you presented in rebuttal. The fact that you began your reply by saying the link didn't work, then arrived at the conclusion that Lancaster didn't know what he was talking about, even though you didn't read his work, really argues my case for me.

You are WRONG Hellstromm and your contention that the Gay Gene theory is the only contributing factor in determining homo-sexual orientation is also wrong.

At the very least I have conceded in earlier posts that genes/genetics may play a role in such a determination. The fact that someone educated (I'm assuming you have been to university) would persist in such an obstinate fashion implies they may be suffering from homophobia and the only way that person could personally accept and tolerate homosexuals and homosexual behaviour as normal is to completely exclude them, as individuals, and their life experiences from the decision making process by proposing they are born that way and it's out of their control. What's next; a black gene, an asian gene, a muslim gene?

 

[DeletedUser]

No Black, I am not wrong. But, unlike you, I'm not really trying to WIN an argument. I summarized the evidence obtained by researchers who have since presented sufficient evidence to indicate genes, prenatal hormones, and other physiological processes are at work to create a child's sexual orientation prior to birth. Seriously, in my earlier report, I specifically referenced the:

• American Psychiatric Association
• American Psychological Association
• University of California, Davis, Department of Psychology
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• University of Oslo (Norway)
• National Academy of Sciences (Proceedings of, peer-reviewed)
• Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
• The New England Journal of Medicine (peer-reviewed)
• United States Supreme Court
• United States Government (WWII military psychiatric reports obtained by Bérubé through the Freedom of Information Act)

If you want to call THEM wrong, by all means.

Anyway Black, in your above post, you are intentionally distorting my earlier statements. I indicated that the link you provided would not show pages 1 through 22. Using a different browser came up with the same results, precisely because the service hosting the book is only providing portions of the book due to copyright restrictions. Because of this, I could not examine what it is you are referring to. How about if you merely quote what it is, specifically, that you are attempting to have me look at as it is unlikely they are between pages 1-22, as you contend.

As to the professor, I said that him being gay should have no relevance on the information presented, as any academic presentation worth its salt would not be based on anecdotal evidence (in this case, his personal experience). I also indicated that since I earlier referenced the biological/physiological aspects of sexual orientation, it is not reasonable to examine the musings of a professor of culture (a specialized field of sociology) unless he specifically addressed biological/physiological reports. And finally, I said (as I said in three previous posts) that 2003 IS too old for this particular discussion precisely BECAUSE the more significant biological/physiological findings are dated AFTER his book was published.

As to the quote you pulled off the book from Jannell Carroll, it is becoming abundantly clear you are attempting to confuse people, as you pulled that paragraph out of context.

First off, the contention about environmental factors (as quoted, "Even so Bailey and his colleagues agree that environmental factors are also important") was made in 1998 (remember that whole out-of-date issue I have been having to bring up over and over and over and over and over again??? Yeah, that issue). I am also not okay with Carroll referencing the statements from 1998 as present tense. She did not present a 2010 report from Bailey (and colleagues) stating such, which indicates that it was taken from the 1998 report, and posed as present tense when it is, in fact, past tense. The correct wording should have been, "even so, Baily and his colleagues agreed, in their 1998 report, that environmental factors are also important."

The above grammatical error is yet another demonstration that this book is a 101 book, and it truly is. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of the book and read the preface, etc.

Anyway, second, it is specifically indicating that genes "alone" are not sufficient due to the simple (and not altogether correct) assumption, that homosexuals don't also reproduce. More to this, however, is that there is indeed other factors, as demonstrated through the rest of the summations following, inclusive of prenatal hormones and other physiological processes.

So yes, Black, you're wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

OK, so just so I'm clear on your stance, Hellstromm, you don't believe that a person can be homosexual without being born with a specific gene?

 

[DeletedUser]

I summarized the evidence obtained by researchers who have since presented sufficient evidence to indicate genes, prenatal hormones, and other physiological processes are at work to create a child's sexual orientation prior to birth.

And like I said earlier (in every post) I'm not calling their findings wrong or invalid, just not 100% conclusive and irrefutable.

I indicated that the link you provided would not show pages 1 through 22. Because of this, I could not examine what it is you are referring to. How about if you merely quote what it is, specifically, that you are attempting to have me look at as it is unlikely they are between pages 1-22, as you contend.

The book is about sexual identity. You say identity is decided in the womb. Lancaster contests that p-o-v. I think the fact that he is gay gives an advantage, if anything, to his research. But then I never said anthropological and sociological data was unbiased. It's as prone to bias as any other "science", biology included. At the end of the day it's up to the reader of the data to make their own conclusion based on their life experiences.

Or, from your perspective, perhaps from predestined genes and hormones inherited before birth

As to the professor, I said that him being gay should have no relevance on the information presented, as any academic presentation worth its salt would not be based on anecdotal evidence (in this case, his personal experience). I also indicated that since I earlier referenced the biological/physiological aspects of sexual orientation, it is not reasonable to examine the musings of a professor of culture (a specialized field of sociology) unless he specifically addressed biological/physiological reports.

Not relevant for you, and that's fine. But again you're coming from a purely medical perspective, maintaining that biological/physiological and cultural/social are separate entities with no earthly connection whatsoever. I entirely understand where you are coming from, but I don't think this argument can ever be proved 100% conclusively. The world doesn't exist in such reductivist terms. You make mention of interdisciplinary studies, (if this link doesn't work, here) yet you don't see the relevance in a gay anthropologist studying (reflexively or otherwise) his sexual orientation.

You may have seen this report. It's from 60 Mins so I hope you consider it worthy.

Part I
Part II

Obviously this is intended to be viewed by the general public as the thrust of the article is pretty obvious from the get go. And while the evidence supports genes, pre natal hormones etc, it's also made quite clear by presenter and researchers alike that nothing is conclusive.

And finally, I said (as I said in three previous posts) that 2003 IS too old for this particular discussion precisely BECAUSE the more significant biological/physiological findings are dated AFTER his book was published.

You can't dismiss theoretical models/research findings out of hand because they are presented earlier than current evidence. If that were the case every time a new study was published the study that preceded it would be thrown away. And as you know theories are developed, expanded and refined over decades. Old theories are constantly being applied, juxtaposed to newer theories. The point of research, regardless of what school the researcher comes from, is to reach an holistic understanding and that can't be achieved by studying something from only one discipline.

"Even so Bailey and his colleagues agree that environmental factors are also important"[/I]) was made in 1998 (remember that whole out-of-date issue I have been having to bring up over and over and over and over and over again??? Yeah, that issue). I am also not okay with Carroll referencing the statements from 1998 as present tense. She did not present a 2010 report from Bailey (and colleagues) stating such, which indicates that it was taken from the 1998 report, and posed as present tense when it is, in fact, past tense. The correct wording should have been, "even so, Baily and his colleagues agreed, in their 1998 report, that environmental factors are also important."

Mate, you have to get over this, mine was written after yours so yours doesn't count concept. Like I have said over and over and over again all the empirical evidence you have supplied contains old references, old arguments and old research. Just because Jannell cites a reference from 1998 doesn't mean her data isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The above grammatical error is yet another demonstration that this book is a 101 book, and it truly is.

Are all the articles you presented 100% grammatically correct. Please. As for the books validity, again, this is for the reader/s of the text to decide. So you dismiss it, that's fine, but clearly there's something to the book as a 4th edition is planned. (See Jannell's website for proof)

Anyway, second, it is specifically indicating that genes "alone" are not sufficient due to the simple (and not altogether correct) assumption, that homosexuals don't also reproduce. More to this, however, is that there is indeed other factors, as demonstrated through the rest of the summations following, inclusive of prenatal hormones and other physiological processes.

And environment.

So yes, Black, you're wrong.

Perhaps I am wrong, and I haven't been trying to win an argument just suggesting there's more to the human being than his/her genetic being. But we'll never agree on this Hellstromm, so I will extricate myself. It's been a journey.

 

[DeletedUser]

OK, so just so I'm clear on your stance, Hellstromm, you don't believe that a person can be homosexual without being born with a specific gene?

No. In fact, since you've been participating in this thread from the beginning, I find this particular rephrasing to be opportunistic redress. Let's make abundantly clear that I indicated it was not merely genes, but prenatal hormones and other physiological factors. As well, and as you were a party to these previous discussions, I indicated it's a lot more than choice. Repeating myself, if you're a heterosexual man, you are aroused by an attractive woman, and not aroused by a handsome man. From there, you cannot "choose" to be aroused by a man. And while some homosexual transvestites may attempt to trick your visual and olfactory senses, the pheromones aren't there. Essentially, it's a biochemical issue, based on the biological makeup of your brain.

To add, there is the issue that it isn't a homo vs hetero equation. It's not ones and zeros. It's not, "you're gay, you're straight." The measures for such are based on your genetic makeup, prenatal hormonal influences, and other physiological factors that could present you anywhere on the spectrum of sexual orientation. So you could be predisposed slightly, or largely, to persons of the same sex, depending on where on that spectrum you land. I.e., consider it variables. From one extreme to the other, and everyone in the middle of those two extremes. In fact, you could consider it two variables:

99.9% same sex aroused ----------------------------------------- 0.1% same sex aroused

99.9% opposite sex aroused -------------------------------------- 0.1% opposite sex aroused

A person with a low same sex and opposite sex arousal would very well be gender neutral, whilst someone with high arousals from both sexes would be bi-sexual. However, more commonly, one arousal pattern firmly dominates with the opposite sex pattern being the genetic norm. So yes, a predominant interest in same sex is abnormal, but it is nonetheless suspected to be a natural process due to environmental responses (high population, secondary/tertiary males from the same womb, etc). This is a part that I believe is confusing Black, in which he is misinterpreting the meaning of, "environment" when presented in studies from biologists/geneticists. Environment does not translate to "nurture," it translates to the environment in which a child is born in, and changes occurring within the womb, or prior, as a result of signals received from the progenitors. I.e., pre-birth changes induced by environmental factors.

In fact, as that 60 minutes (made for lay television viewers) report, provided by Black, indicates, "Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture ... but that theory has been disproved. Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior; it’s physiological." ~ 60 minutes article (2006), presented by Black, on the 2005 twin studies

Finally, there are the instances of sexual addiction and of misinterpreting sexual stimulation as arousal preference, which is a sort of psychological distortion, or confusion, due to a traumatic event (or series of events). As I wrote earlier:

Now, you can be sexually stimulated by either sex, but that's not the same thing as arousal, and it is this confusion that hits victims of molestation or rape, in that they are confused by their having enjoyed the encounter to some degree, thus start questioning whether it was rape, was molestation, or in the case of same sex incidents, whether they are homosexual. As such, some victims of young age same sex molestation/rape can travel the route of bisexuality for having experienced sexual stimulation long before experiencing arousal. This, in turn, would result in their seeking sexual satisfaction in relationships (sex addiction), as opposed to love/attraction.
​

It is also the above that I believe Black is misinterpreting, in which said events are not truly environment, but incidents of psychological (and physical) trauma which could result in a person attempting to come to terms (adverse healing) with the events they experienced and the manner in which their sexual organs reacted to said experience(s). Without the proper tools, the knowledge, to understand there is a difference between sexual stimulation and sexual arousal, a person could heal incorrectly. Adverse healing is an issue that can be addressed through therapy with a trained (and informed) psychologist. However, if there are no incidents of sexual molestation and/or rape, it is universally held that therapy is totally inappropriate.


edit: Let me just reiterate that biologists/geneticists are referring to pre-birth environmental factors (nature), not post-birth environmental factors (nurture), when they mention or use the word, "environment." Please understand this Black, because it is the part I just now realized is confusing you in your arguments.

 

[DeletedUser]

No problem, Hellstromm. I think we just have very divergent opinions on the subject.

In reply, I’ll highlight some points of interest from an essay titled, “Biology and Identity” (2010) written by Anne Fausto-Sterling, whom received her Ph.D. in developmental genetics from Brown University in 1970 and currently teaches at Brown. The essay can be found in, “The Sage Handbook of Identities” published by SAGE in 2010.

_________________________

“The idea that prenatal hormones affect brain development in some manner that influences gender identity formation remains a favourite hypothesis despite a lack of direct evidence or the elucidation of a specific developmental pathway to support it. Nevertheless biologists and biological psychologists remain quite committed to either a prenatal hormone or a brain sex hypothesis.” (p. 171)​

She goes on, “In the absence of direct evidence (and the unlikelihood of ever obtaining it given the fact that we cannot experiment with human development), the prenatal hormone hypothesis takes the following form: the fetal gonad produces hormones that affect brain development in some unspecified manner. The assumption is that the brain produces gender identity.” (p.171)
​

And, “Those who believe strongly in a hormone-brain-identity nexus use indirect evidence to support their case.” (p. 171).​

On page 175, Fausto-Sterling suggests there are big methodological problems and limitations to genetic and twin-studies when one wants to study the biological basis of sexual orientation.​

On page 179, “By looking at the dynamics of identity and behavioural change over longer periods, Diamond (referring to a 10 year study 1998-2008) has identified the need for a new paradigm for understanding relationships between sexual identity and biology.”​

Then, “She (Diamond) further emphasizes the cultural and environmental components that influence sexual identity formation.” (p. 179)
​

In the conclusion, “Academic work linking race, gender and sexual identities to biology has produced important results. But attempts to use biological difference as an explanatory force in the study of identity are hampered by a theoretical framework that pits biology against culture.” (p. 181)
​

And, “Behaviours, desires and identities are embodied via specific biological systems. Critically, however, the forces influencing embodiment are social.” (p. 181)​

__________________________

Obviously the above snippets should not be taken out of context and the article should be read. I'm not suggesting biology isn't important in identifying sexual orientation/identity, merely, as I've maintained since joining the debate, that it's not the only ideology applicable to the question. This link is Safari and Internet Explorer friendly.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

LOL@ Brown university..........says it all right there.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

OK, so just so I'm clear on your stance, Hellstromm, you don't believe that a person can be homosexual without being born with a specific gene?

It's mainly believed now that homosexuality is not genetic but embryonic. This is something that happens to a baby's brain in the womb when bathed in certain hormones.

 

[DeletedUser]

My eyes pop reading a lot of different point of views lol

Straight forward answer, there is no need to find a GOOD and ABSOLUTE answer, heck, there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE ANSWER in life. That knowledge only belongs to God and thats how we know all how it is.

So whats the point of this thread and argument between different and personal views? what are u trying to see? what are u trying to hear? What are u trying to CONVINCE? we are mere mortals, we are who we are, and we cant change it. No matter how confuse u are in life, u will find the answer within certain point of time.

this is the MAIN REASON why CONFLICTS exist in life, there is no COMPREHENSION. Its all about SELFISH matters, you you me me I I..

Sometimes DECISIONS doesnt represent as a WHOLE, there are EXTERNAL factors that we cant even control. Its exist in equality, we decide what we want, but we cant change what has been made or coming in future.

So the point is? there is no point... just accept the mystery.

 

[DeletedUser]

Reverend Black's opinion is more convincing to me. He debate this issue in a highly mature manner and not object 100% to your views. On the other hand.... Hell...

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally im a straight bloke, with a hint of lesbian

Not got a problem with gay blokes, apart from those who are overly camp and girlie, why are they like that? women dont act/speak/etc like it, yet gay camp men do, never understood that bit.
Also, I dont go for all this "Gay and proud" crap, going on marches, making it a point to tell the world you are gay, why?
Gay rights? another thing I dont get, do we have straight rights? straight pride marches?

Be gay, be a tranny, be a lesbian, be whatever, just be it like straight people, be it, but dont shout about it, its boring now.

Ok, soap box away.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally im a straight bloke, with a hint of lesbian

You're like me then but the opposite. Straight girl with a hint of homo guy.

Also, I dont go for all this "Gay and proud" crap, going on marches, making it a point to tell the world you are gay, why?
Gay rights? another thing I dont get, do we have straight rights? straight pride marches?

They do it cuz they feel they have to. Discrimination of homosexuals are well spread all over the world. Just to name a few examples: they don't have the same right to get married or adopt children all over the world as straight people do even though we are all humans. Isn't that something worth marching for? Human rights should be for all humans regardless of who they are in love with or have sex with.

Be gay, be a tranny, be a lesbian, be whatever, just be it like straight people, be it, but dont shout about it, its boring now.

Be it like straight people? And how are straight people then? There are lots of straight people that shout about their sexuality. We are bombarded with straight "lifestyle" and sex life everywhere. TV, newspapers, internet, you name it. And by the way. most homosexuals don't act in some noticeable way. They are just part of the big gray mass like the rest of us. I bet a bunch of the homo-haters in this thread doesn't even have a clue that someone they know somewhat well is gay. On most people you can't see weather they are homosexual or not.

Anyway.. to give the haters more things to feel sickened about..
My sexual identity and sexual behavior does not go hand in hand. I also have the privilege to have a bunch of friends that are homo, bi, hetero, poly, dominant, submissive, queer. They are all normal humans in my eyes.

Btw, Stewie Griffin is gay

 

[DeletedUser]

Be it like straight people? And how are straight people then? There are lots of straight people that shout about their sexuality. We are bombarded with straight "lifestyle" and sex life everywhere. TV, newspapers, internet, you name it. And by the way. most homosexuals don't act in some noticeable way.

Not quite the same thing as shouting about being gay as in gay pride though is it?

What you are confusing is the advertising and media of the modern world or straight people, and calling it "shouting about being straight", which it isnt.

I for one, have never heard a straight person shout about their sexuality! why would they?

Also, Gay people have more rights now than at any time since it was made legal, well in the UK anyway.

I did actually say, "The camp ones" I didnt say "All" so calm down dear.


Are you a vegetarian by any chance?

 

[DeletedUser]

I saw a quote recently that i liked, i don't even know where it is from:
"some people are gay...get over it"

Does it matter why people are gay, maybe they are born that way, maybe environmental factors are responsible. The truth is, for whatever reason, some people are gay, its not a choice, they just are...camp or straight acting, it doesn't matter... what the hell difference does it make to me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not quite the same thing as shouting about being gay as in gay pride though is it?
I for one, have never heard a straight person shout about their sexuality! why would they?
Also, Gay people have more rights now than at any time since it was made legal, well in the UK anyway.

Yeah, I think you're missing the point Lastagain. Homosexuality is illegal in many places. Homosexuals are even killed in some countries. Homosexuality is discriminated against. In the workplace, in daily life, in jokes on television or in movies, etc and so on. Take your repulsion out of the equation and focus on the goal, the objective, of those who push for gay equality. Recognize their intent and you'll see their parades, their calls out, are very similar to other minority equality wars. Identity is one of those calls, it's a means to differentiate themselves to indicate to others that society is, indeed, oppressing them. Granted, the behavior, body language, talking style of the more extreme gay persons does make them a novelty, even a figure of ridicule, but so does the caricatures posed by some black men and some hispanics. It is this identity drive that develops in some to counter their insecurities in being an oppressed minority, and while it may be repugnant, or comical, it is nonetheless a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

The problem is prejudice, hatred, inequality, oppression... not accepting that which is "different in our society, but that is otherwise law-abiding."

Finally, although gays may have more rights in the U.K. now, it is still not equal and, if it were, laws themselves do not create equality, they merely enforce it through punishments. Society as a whole is comprised of the people, and it is people that discriminate (of course, sometimes they create laws to enforce their discrimination). So while laws may be in effect, in the U.K., to attempt to "protect" gay/bi/trans, protection alone doesn't change mindsets. Homosexuals are still treated as deviants, sick, or otherwise "wrong" persons. They're still treated unequally.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, I think you're missing the point Lastagain. Homosexuality is illegal in many places. Homosexuals are even killed in some countries. Homosexuality is discriminated against. In the workplace, in daily life, in jokes on television or in movies, etc and so on. Take your repulsion out of the equation and focus on the goal, the objective, of those who push for gay equality. Recognize their intent and you'll see their parades, their calls out, are very similar to other minority equality wars. Identity is one of those calls, it's a means to differentiate themselves to indicate to others that society is, indeed, oppressing them. Granted, the behavior, body language, talking style of the more extreme gay persons does make them a novelty, even a figure of ridicule, but so does the caricatures posed by some black men and some hispanics. It is this identity drive that develops in some to counter their insecurities in being an oppressed minority, and while it may be repugnant, or comical, it is nonetheless a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

The problem is prejudice, hatred, inequality, oppression... not accepting that which is "different in our society, but that is otherwise law-abiding."

Finally, although gays may have more rights in the U.K. now, it is still not equal and, if it were, laws themselves do not create equality, they merely enforce it through punishments. Society as a whole is comprised of the people, and it is people that discriminate (of course, sometimes they create laws to enforce their discrimination). So while laws may be in effect, in the U.K., to attempt to "protect" gay/bi/trans, protection alone doesn't change mindsets. Homosexuals are still treated as deviants, sick, or otherwise "wrong" persons. They're still treated unequally.

My repulsion??? where???, on that note I wont bother to continue this debate then, as anything that is actually said obviously doesnt mean anything.

And spouting a reply that has absolutely no baring on anything I have said makes it all the more pointless.



Edit to answer your last point.

Which rights do gay people in the UK not have? treated unequally? total dross, sorry, end of debate for me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay, so you are going to act all offended because I used the word "repulsion?" Fine, you're not repulsed by the thought having sex with a hairy ass. You're not repulsed by a guy grabbing your crotch and saying, "come up and see me sometime." You're not repulsed by homosexual lifestyle or a video of a guy having sex with another guy. Fine.

Can you honestly say you're not repulsed by that? If not, then why are you offended that someone would act flamboyant? After all, their actions merely remind you of their lifestyle. And if it's not their lifestyle that bothers you, then specifically what is it?

As to your claim that gay people in the U.K. are treated equally, perhaps you should look into this further. Being that you're not gay, I would say you're "assuming" quite a bit simply because you're not impacted by the prejudice they must endure on a regular basis. Not your problem, right? You're not gay, right? Ignorance is bliss, after all.

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay, so you are going to act all offended because I used the word "repulsion?" Fine, you're not repulsed by the thought having sex with a hairy ass. You're not repulsed by a guy grabbing your crotch and saying, "come up and see me sometime." You're not repulsed by homosexual lifestyle or a video of a guy having sex with another guy. Fine.

Can you honestly say you're not repulsed by that? If not, then why are you offended that someone would act flamboyant? After all, their actions merely remind you of their lifestyle. And if it's not their lifestyle that bothers you, then specifically what is it?

I'd be repulsed by a guy treating me that way, but it doesn't mean that heterosexuality repulses me. I don't care for porn of any kind, but it doesn't necessarily repulse me. I don't see why the same can't be true for a male. I'm also not necessarily "repulsed" by those who act flamboyant, but it does seem that some behave the way they do to purposely disturb those around them.

As to your claim that gay people in the U.K. are treated equally, perhaps you should look into this further. Being that you're not gay, I would say you're "assuming" quite a bit simply because you're not impacted by the prejudice they must endure on a regular basis. Not your problem, right? You're not gay, right? Ignorance is bliss, after all.

I agree with this part. There's a big difference between being protected and being accepted. Gay Pride/Awareness strikes me more as being for acceptance than protection (although protection is good too!). If people only judge the homosexual community by those who are flamboyant, "camp", "butch", etc., it makes it a lot harder for others to be accepted too. I think it does help to see that being gay doesn't mean you're really different from anyone else (other than your choice of partner). If you don't think heterosexual people are ever "flamboyant", you obviously haven't been to a lot of bars on weekends!

 

[DeletedUser]

If you don't think heterosexual people are ever "flamboyant", you obviously haven't been to a lot of bars on weekends!

Aye, but heterosexual "flamboyance" doesn't necessarily bring up mental images of hairy butts.

 

[DeletedUser]

Aye, but heterosexual "flamboyance" doesn't necessarily bring up mental images of hairy butts.

You obviously don't go to Minnesota bars! :razz: