Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Nurvingiel]

[edit]
I see now that I'm credited for starting this thread. Any Entmoot history buffs out there should note that TinuvielChild was the original thread starter, and it had over 300 pages (IIRC).
[/edit]

I'm reading that interview with Dobson RÃ*an. It seems his Spongebob Squarepants comments were taken out of context - I get the impression he didn't like the cartoon characters being in the pro-gay video, not that he actually thought the characters were subtextually gay or something. Which begs the question, why is their presence a problem? I think it's the pro-gay video and its potential success that he really doesn't like.

DOBSON: I have here a page from the Web site of the organization We Are Family that produced this video that's going to be sent to 61,000 schools, and the purpose is to drive them toward a pledge of tolerance.

Now I want to read you two lines from that. I know you don't like people to read. But here's -- children, now, elementary schoolchildren going to be asked to sign this: "I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, and sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

If what he's saying is true, then I'd have to agree with him there. I don't think making kids sign a pledge is the best way to promote diversity. I do think establishing clear rules stating that bullying (for any reason at all) or prejudice will not be tolerated in the classroom or school yard is a good idea though.

DOBSON: Oh, it's Alan. OK. I -- I would like to put it in different terms.

Of course, I support respect for every human being on the face of the earth. I mean, everyone: those that we disagree with, those that have ideas that are really considered ridiculous by us. They're still entitled to those ideas, and they're entitled to their dignity and respect.

But the word "tolerance" and "diversity," those words are buzzwords for an effort to change the way children think. And we're going to speak up when we see that take place, and this is an example of it.

*bangs head on desk*

Tolerance and diversity are not just buzzwords, gah! Well, I suppose they have been used as buzzwords, but they are not meaningless jargon or just something to say to sound cool. They have deeper meaning than just "look at me, I'm tolerant." Though they have been used that way by some, it isn't fair to dismiss them out of hand as buzzwords.

Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve. Authoritarian systems practice the opposite of tolerance, intolerance. Tolerance is seen as a more widely acceptable term than "acceptance" and particularly "respect," where the application to controversial parties is concerned. Tolerance implies both the ability to punish and the conscious decision not to. It is usually applied to non-violent, consensual behavior, often involving religion, sex, or politics. It rarely permits violent behavior.

In the wider sociological sense, "tolerance" carries with it the understanding that "intolerance" and conformity breeds violence and social instability. "Tolerance" has thus become the social term of choice to define the practical rationale of permitting uncommon social practice and diversity. One only tolerates people who are disliked for their differences. While people deemed undesirable may be disapproved of, "tolerance" would require that the party or group in question be left undisturbed, physically or otherwise, and that criticism directed toward them be free of inflammatory or inciteful efforts.

Diversity

Social context

In a social context, the term diversity refers to the presence in one population of a wide variety of cultures, opinions, ethnic groups, socio-economic backgrounds, et cetera.

Planetary context

At the international level, diversity refers to the existence of many peoples contributing their unique experiences to humanity's culture. The preservation of our planet's formidable linguistic and cultural diversity in the context of world wide economic integration is the object of great concern to many people in the wake of the 21st century.

Politics

It is often used in conjunction with the term tolerance in political creeds which support the idea that such diversity is valuable and desirable.

Critics of diversity claim that in the political arena, diversity is a code word for forcing people to tolerate or approve people and practices they find repugnant. Critics also point out that diversity programs in education and business inherently emphasize minority groups (e.g. African-Americans, Latinos, and women) and do not give equal time to non-minority groups (white males). They claim that pluralism is a more accurate term for the presence of variation, and that, under the banner of "diversity," groups actually forbid criticism of protected groups by restricting what they call hate speech.

"Diversity" or the phrase "to respect (someone's) diversity" has also been used to refer to sexual orientation and appears in the name of Montréal's annual gay pride celebration, DiversCité (http://www.diverscite.org/).

"Respect for Diversity" is one of the six principles of the Global Greens Charter, a manifesto of Green parties from all over the world subscribed to.

In this political context, the word diversity is somewhat meaningless or differently understood outside of North America: for example in the UK the US concept of diversity does not wholly exist as there is no UK context for US affirmative action programs. This is not to say that others are not supportive of the underlying agenda of US diversity, but it is described with different words, such as using "respect", "tolerance" and "multi-cultural" as the context requires.

Buzzword

A buzzword (also known as a fashion word) is an idiom, often a neologism, commonly used in technical, administrative and political environments, consisting of an over-used word or phrase. Buzzwords appear ubiquitously but their actual meanings often remain unclear. A buzzword may or may not appear in a dictionary, but if it does, its meaning as a buzzword does not match the conventional definition. Buzzwords differ from jargon in that they have the function of impressing or of obscuring meaning, while jargon (ideally) has a well-defined technical meaning, if only to specialists.

Why do speakers use buzzwords?

A generous view allows that buzzwords have the same function as jargon in scientific disciplines: as newly-minted terms to describe new concepts, without the danger of over-simplification and confusion that can arise from using words and phrases with previously established, commonplace meanings.

Buzzwords can also function to control thought by being intentionally vague. In management, stating organizational goals by using words with unclear meanings prevents anybody from questioning the directions and intentions of these decisions, especially if many such words are used. (See also newspeak, Machiavelli.)

A less cynical interpretation might claim that the intentionally vague phrase may boost individual thinking and creativity by deliberately raising questions.

All three definitions are from Wikipedia.org Follow the links for their complete definitions.
Tolerance
Diversity
Buzzword

One final comment. This interview didn't really touch on the (apparently) major issues of the pro-gay video and what Dobson thinks about it.

[The Wizard from Milan]

I am a gay man. Out of the closet.
I had not seen this thread before.

I have read some, but not all of the posts. No, being gay is not a choice. I don't know if it is inborn, or if it is set by age two or whatever, but in my case the gender to which I was attracted was clearly defined at puberty. Girls just never interested me. Being gay was such a shameful thing in italy at that time, that when I reached puberty I did not realize immediately that being attracted to men = being gay. It took me a few years

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I have read some, but not all of the posts.

of you actually read 'em ALL i'd say you were a madman

always good to hear from those who actually know first hand

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

No, being gay is not a choice. I don't know if it is inborn, or if it is set by age two or whatever, but in my case the gender to which I was attracted was clearly defined at puberty. Girls just never interested me.

Glad to hear it first hand. No one believes us straights when we say it. Unfortunately, however, some here would simply state that it IS a choice but that you just dont realize it. Go figure...

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am a gay man. Out of the closet.
I had not seen this thread before.

I have read some, but not all of the posts. No, being gay is not a choice. I don't know if it is inborn, or if it is set by age two or whatever, but in my case the gender to which I was attracted was clearly defined at puberty. Girls just never interested me. Being gay was such a shameful thing in italy at that time, that when I reached puberty I did not realize immediately that being attracted to men = being gay. It took me a few years

Hey, welcome. I almost read the whole thread once, but then got bored by all the repetition, and the unhelpful comments I kept coming across.
I know what you mean by taking a while to clue in that you were gay...happened to me, too. It was weird when it finally all made some kind of sense....I thought to myself, "Oh, so that's how it is. I think I understand now." And then I proceeded to try to run away...heh heh....didn't work.

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Glad to hear it first hand. No one believes us straights when we say it. Unfortunately, however, some here would simply state that it IS a choice but that you just dont realize it. Go figure...

Yeah...well I don't really care anymore if it is a choice. For me, the choice was whether to be VERY unhappy for the rest of my life trying not to be gay, or instead maybe come to some peace and try to figure out just what being queer meant for me...

[Lizra]

I suppose if you're bisexual.... there's a choice, but if you are gay or straight....you are just doing what comes NATURAL! Just because something might be different...doesn't mean it's not natural!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am a gay man. Out of the closet.
I had not seen this thread before.

same here, Il Milano-Mago

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I have read some, but not all of the posts. No, being gay is not a choice.

same arguement i have been making for the past 9months

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I don't know if it is inborn, or if it is set by age two or whatever, but in my case the gender to which I was attracted was clearly defined at puberty. Girls just never interested me. Being gay was such a shameful thing in italy at that time, that when I reached puberty I did not realize immediately that being attracted to men = being gay. It took me a few years

join the party

[inked]

Is so a choice.

And while we are at it, it is the choice of <2% of teenagers in America in surveys of sexual activity. See the report on teen sex in TIME, last week.

Course, I think you should all be careful at all times if electing sexual activity.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Is so a choice.

And while we are at it, it is the choice of <2% of teenagers in America in surveys of sexual activity. See the report on teen sex in TIME, last week.

Course, I think you should all be careful at all times if electing sexual activity.

Do you mean that it is a choice to follow through with your orientation and have sex? If so, I agree with you.
One can always choose celibacy. One can also try to have sex with people of the other sex regardless of the orientation (for females it is actually easier than for males).

In as far as the percentages I am tired to discuss them. I think the best survey (from a methodological point of view) is the one by Laumann et al "The Social Organization of Sexuality", University of Chicago Press.
But who cares about the number? What if it were 0.002%? Does that mean that one can tramp on the rights of part of the population just because it is a minority?

[Elemmírë]

*grumbles* And thus you have a plain example of the suppression of the minority by the majority. Democracy is not perfect.

inked, where exactly is the choice? It seems to me that love, no matter what orientation you are, is not something you can control (not that I'd know one way or the other, I suppose ). It's either there, or it isn't.

[inked]

As Albus Dumbledore observed to Harry Potter, our choices are what make us who we are!

The importance of percentages is two-fold: 1) perspective (the allegations made by Kinsey and through my medical school training of 10% of the population are grossly erroneous in regards to the homosexually active population) and social impact (if costs of medical care for sexual activity-related disease, for example, are calculated, the proportion for MSM rises dramatically if there are 2 or 10 percentage points as the basis), and 2) to offset the illusion that vast numbers of persons are in fact represented by Will & Grace or similar Disney-esque portrayals of homosexual lifestyle(s) where the portrayal of populations seems disproportionaltely large due to urban concentration.

What rights are trampled, in your estimation? A short list will do. I must warn you though that the mere designation of an activity does not entail its being a right IMHO. But let's have that list and procede.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

*grumbles* And thus you have a plain example of the suppression of the minority by the majority. Democracy is not perfect.

inked, where exactly is the choice? It seems to me that love, no matter what orientation you are, is not something you can control (not that I'd know one way or the other, I suppose ). It's either there, or it isn't.

YOu have swooned to the romantic notion of the irresistable tide of love. Love is not = luv. Love is not =like. Love is not infatuation. Love comes in at least 4 varieties, none of which require sexual intercourse per se:
storge - love of familia
eros - passionate love of object
philia - friendship
agape - disinterested love

Elemmire, I have no understanding of your allegation of suppression of the rights of someone *grumbles*, so make it plain. Unless you mean that it is patently unfair that there are only <2% of people who are >12 years and <20 years who admit to being gay? That reality is neither fair nor not. It is.

And of course democracy is not perfect! It is better than any of the alternatives (check out your 20th century history for evidence). But the democracy can spring from political reality: humanity is not so good as to allow absolute power to any, but spread it among all, OR, it can spring from the actualization of suppression of natural superiority ("I'm as good as you" becomes "You can not be better than me"). The real problem arises when the political fiction becomes the social norm. You do not act it out in real life, nor can anyone, on every level. You do not desire equality in your sanitation engineer and your physician in education or cleanliness. They may either vote or not as they choose and for whom they choose. SEE the difference? Political equality is NOT social parity on every level.

[Lizra]

You can't please everyone guys....I would just ignore someone who tells me they know more about why I do what I do than I myself do.....

[The Wizard from Milan]

inked,
before I start making lists, I think it would be great if you make the list of alternatives that a gay (LGBTQ) person has. I had started in my answer above.
1. follow his/her sexual orienatation
2. celibacy
3. attempt (with varying degrees of success) to have sex with people of the other gender (something that is not quite as satisfactory for gay people as heterosexuals, i would call it right down distastful to me)

As far as relationships the choices are:
1. same-sex relationship
2. celibacy
3. different-sex relatioship, in my opinion different-sex relationship for gay people has a tiny hope of success (and is based on those idealized non-sexual love) and a possibility for being downright hell, not just for the gay partner but for the heterosexual partner too.

Although it is true that choices make us what we are to a certain extent, it is also true that the set from which we have to choose makes us what we are to a certain extent. Although I could choose to train to become a F1 pilot, I just don't have the right frame for that, so I would likely remain a third class pilot.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Is so a choice.

is not

and, as we discussed before, some choices are so greatly intwined with upbringing that to call them a "choice", as if you could simply change your mind, is grossly misleading

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inky

Love is not = luv.

ROTFL!!!!!!!

[Embladyne]

Just to refute the "straight until proven gay" theory, it does NOT require sexual activity to know or determine your sexual orientation. Which is where studies get bogged down. All the numbers I've seen for percentages of gay or straight people, have assesed sexual orientation based on recent sexual activity. And that is highly falliable. Personal assesment of your own sexuality is a better course, I believe, because sexuality is such a subjective idea. Not to say that that isn't falliable...but if you don't know your own sexuality, then no one can decide for you.

[inked]

TWFM,
Your list pretty much covers the options for sexually active people of either homo- or hetero-orientation: same-sex. other-sex, celibacy. Note that this is an equal opportunity state of affairs. Equal rights for any orientation in this regard.

The question then becomes what basis for choosing does one take.

If we follow brownjenkins logic upbringing (nurture) is dominant. If we seek deterministic models (nature) we have no scientific data to support the allegations of determinism. That pretty much devolves the decision to the self. The self then orders its priorities (if it is able to do so and not released from choice by an iron determinism) according to its personally selected moral or ethical basis. Since the latter are entirely personal in origin, the self can do no error (per brownjenkins). So then the self must decide if expression of sexuality is necessary. If the self determines that it is not, voile, celibacy. If expression is imperative, the choices of autoeroticism versus partnered experience opens. Since the self is making its own determinations based on its own moral or ethical system, I can progress no further. The self decides.

On the other hand, if we take morality as a given, the self will decide within the framework of the given. The choices remain the same but the reasons for their choices do not. The reasons then become actualization of the good inherent in morality (maximization of self-potential, respect for others, maximization of others, etc) even in its restrictions, or the rejection of the restrictions purporting to be for the good of the self and others in favor of the self (self-gratification trumps others or even that which may be best for the self).

If the person deciding has a moral framework from a religious perspective, the reasons for choices will be perhaps better informed in some of these benefits and consequences. And some will choose obedience within those guidelines, and others to disobey. So we have chastity before marriage, fidelity in marriage, and abstinence as options in the Western moral tradition. (If you happen to have been a devotee of Astarte, the list would be different.) Within that Western moral tradition, marriage is reserved to male and female, and same-sex sexual expressions are repudiated. That leaves the homo-erotically inclined with the choice of abstinence or disobedience to the moral tradition.

To continue brownjenkins nurture argument means that no one can disobey the social moral tradition because it is so nurtured in and because it is the majority viewpoint, so I don't think you'll get much help there. If the society has determined the morality and you disobey, the society will set the punishments (even if the self persists in stating its own morality contrary to the society).

Looks like you have exhausted the possibilities in your response, except for the issues of marriage between sexes and chastity and abstinence, which I have elaborated.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Within that Western moral tradition, marriage is reserved to male and female, and same-sex sexual expressions are repudiated. That leaves the homo-erotically inclined with the choice of abstinence or disobedience to the moral tradition.

or, you can try to change that very western moral tradition... something which has happened in the past, and will happen in the future