: : No. That's not what I'm saying.: Right, I think this is getting to the stage where we're just aggitating each other and posting for the badness, if you really want to know my views read the posts between me and Floyd, away down the page, they are more or less everything I wish to say on the matter at this stage.
Lark, sorry if I'm agitating you; I am trying to be as non-confrontational as possible on this issue, since I know you feel somewhat beleaguered.
: The argument took a turn for the 'it's natural debate' which doesnt interest me at all. I dont believe it's natural but I dont believe that it matters whether or not it is anyway.
Do you have any evidence for it 'not being natural'?
: What I was debating was that, in my opinion, homosexuals where being anti-social through centreing everything in their life around sex and people who are interested in sociability and a society where consideration for others isnt a laughing matter should join with me to persuade homosexuals their current behaviour was unhelpful to their cause and an annoyance to everyone else.
But they don't. I've never met anyone, (heterosexual or homosexual) who 'centred everything in their life around sex'. It's a major drive, but it doesn't feed or clothe you...
: Now we did get side tracked because I had commited the sin of holding unpopular opinions and thinking differently and was therefore a homophobic gay basher, which isnt the case.
Have I ever said this, Lark? - I have tried to be as reasonable as is possible in debating this with you...
: : So you've never felt attracted to men. No problem.
: No never, I'm being honest as well not repressed or any old shit.
Never doubted it, squire.
: : Saying that no-one should feel attracted to other men, though, that's a big problem; especially given the medical evidence.
: Right now I believe it is not natural to be attracted to someone of the same sex but if you choose to and they do as well then fine, dont ask me to support such behaviour just tolerate it and keep it out of my sight, I think it's a distinct lack of consideration for others that make you wish to make it an issue.
Again, why do you think it 'unnatural'?
Keeping such behaviour out of sight is probably a good idea though; as long as it is applied to all sexual behaviour.
However, consider the ramifications; where do you draw the line?
Is all interpersonal contact to be censored because it hints at sex; the Puritan way?
Not really. A certain level of public sexuality is allowed by society; you are 'allowed' to walk down the street, or kiss in public; as long as you don't start getting undressed.
All that I'm saying is that the same thing should be allowed of homosexuals; no more, no less.
As Floyd points out, a lot of the current 'in yer face'-ness of 'gay pride' is a reaction to homophobia - "we're here, we're queer, get used to it".
Gays get abused in the street for holding hands; the hyper-extroversion of their reaction is a direct response; a demonstration that they are not going to go away.
As Floyd says, it might well disappear past a critical point, when gays are accepted and empowered as such; when they don't have to hide for fear of assault.
: : I wasn't talking of real incidents, Lark; the question I was asking was; do the majority have the right to oppress the minority because the minority are perceived as 'abnormal'?
: I have never advocated that aswell know.
Never suggested you did. But does society as a whole have the right to imprison people for feeling attracted to the same sex?
: : You're saying that there is a 'right' way to be. I'm not; my position is that the 'right' way to be is an entirely subjective concept; and depends upon your environment as much as anything else.
: What you are saying is that the right way to be is bisexual and that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, or social and media construct, so you are actually adovcating a number of right ways to be.
I said there is no 'right' way to be. According to the medical data, 'most people are capable of responding to same-sex stimuli to some extent'; which is like saying 'most people naturally have hair'.
I'm not saying any mode of behaviour is 'right' any more than being brunette is more 'right' than being blonde.
You can choose to be blonde, choose to be brunette, or choose to shave your head - but, unless you're completely bald, you all have hair.
Do you see my point here?
Nature has equipped you with hair; what you do with your hair is entirely your own choice.
In the same way, most people can be homosexual, asexual or heterosexual; they are physically capable of all three.
As I said, 'right' as in 'right and wrong' is an entirely human concept; applying it to a part of our biological makeup is simply unsupportable.
: : : Because if they homosexual lobby is prepared to advocate their behaviour as natural, yet hetero-advocacy is phobic, intolerant, sexist etc. there must be a counter force putting the alternative position or view. This doesnt require violence etc.
: : Lark, this is *exactly* what White Power and New Lad types say.
: Well I'm trying to say that I dont accept the 'correct' or rather popular wisdom in these things, I dont think your association of me with people is a good thing, I dont want to stamp anything or anyone out after all, I just think there is a lacking of sound balance in this field of debate.
And this is where you differ from Floyd, Barry, NJ and myself; you perceive the balance as tilted towards gays where we see it tilted the other way.
: However this is all of subject, I was talking about social/anti-social behaviour.
: : No-one is suggesting that gay groups are out to turn people into raging queens and corrupt kiddies; if you're aware of gay leanings, they usually manifest themselves by the age of 15.
: What if someone is wondering if they're gay? Are they instantly gay?
No. A lot of people have some homosexual experiences during their teenage years. This doesn't 'make them gay'.
There are various factors, but most people realise that they are gay simply because they find themselves more physically attracted to the same sex than they do to the opposite sex. Some find either sex equally attractive; they are bisexual. It's usually a continuous spectrum rather than a strict trinary division; nothing as clear-cut as 'I like men/women'; rather 'I prefer X to Y'.
Does the fact that someone prefer blonds make them anti-brunette? - no; it just means that they find blonds more attractive.
:I dont think so, the media, parentage, society, religion etc. all play a significant role in determining such things, as the homosexuals realise and heterosexuals seem not to.
As I said, primates are generally bisexual; pygmy chimpanzees especially so; however, same-sex/different-sex responses can be 'switched off' by environment and upbringing.
If you walked down the street hand-in-hand with another man in Ireland, you'd probably get aggro because people would assume that you were gay.
If you did the same in India, no-one would assume anything of the sort; it's not that India is more homosexual; they just don't have the block on male-male touching that Ireland does.
In this case, male-male contact is 'switched off' by our cultural upbringing.
: : The fact remains, blacks are still the largest single group in prisons; they are still more likely to be passed over for jobs, stopped by the cops and die violent deaths - 35 years after the Civil Rights movement. Women are still underpaid and unequally treated after 100 years of feminism. Prejudices like that take over a century to erase; the Gay Lib fight has only been going 30 years...
: Yet the Sun asks are we being run by a gay mafia?
You and I both know exactly how much the Sun's opinion is worth; this is the paper that still maintains that all Irish people are really Provos and that all Germans are Nazis in hiding...
: It appears that some people who havent made their sexual orientation their entire life have done alright for themselves, not that the Sun is anything to go by.
Note that the Sun asked if we were being run by a gay mafia when it emerged that 2 members of the Cabinet might be gay. It didn't ask if we were being run by a 'straight' mafia because the remaining 10 ministers were heterosexual.
It's like saying "We're all being run by a female mafia!"; while conveniently ignoring the fact that 95% of the cabinet is male; a flagrant double standard.
: : Until people can go for a job, a mortgage or a drink equally, whether black, white, male, female, gay or straight, the fight will not be over.
: Alright with this again, do heterosexuals make the whole issue of going for a drink, socialising at all infact, even going out of their houses or getting up in the morning their sexual orientation?
No - and neither do gays.
: : I'm white, English and middle-class; I'm not ashamed of this; but I don't think that anyone else is 'better' or 'worse' than I am.
: Oh but are you proud to be either heterosexual or homosexual? It would appear it is a good thing to be gay and proud and a bad thing, or even a silly thing, to be heterosexual and proud.
Being proud of who you are is good - as long as you don't express it by oppressing those who are different.
Being proud of being white is fine; as long as you don't express your pride in being white by lynching blacks.
(I'm not for a moment suggesting that you have ever advocated lynching gays or any other such abuse; but a lot of people do abuse gays.)
I've never abused a black man or a Jew or an Irishman in my life, nor would I ever; but that doesn't stop me from trying to stop some of my fellow Englishmen abusing them - racism needs to be combatted by all sides, not just the victims.
: : I'd say;
: : "Wait until you're 22/23 - you can't really make a final decision about what you are until you've finished growing up both physically and mentally. It doesn't ultimately matter to me whether you're gay, bi or straight - that is for you, and you alone, to sort out."
: I'd say that too.
Great!
Would you also accept it if they decided they were gay? - I certainly hope so.
: : "Whatever you choose, you can count on my continued support as long as you are happy with yourself and don't exploit others."
: I'd say you know my attitudes to this fuck off, I never want to see you again!! No, only joking, I'd say if you make this your entire life, every conversation you have with anyone, every TV show you want, every film you see, every Radio show you watch etc. your wasting you life and my time and I dont want anything what so ever to do with it.
Anyone who makes their sex life their major driving force in life has only one possible career; a Tory MP (preferably Kensington and Chelsea).
: : - I do not believe that any of the major sexual orientations are 'superior' to the others.
: Neither do I just think heterosexuality is natural.
It's natural for you. As far as the medical bit goes, bisexuality is the most common orientation.
This does not mean that any single mode of sexuality is 'right' or 'wrong'. You're no less 'right' than anyone else; nor are you more 'right' - your sexuality is your own personal decision and nobody else's.
: : Again, as a fellow anarchist, how would you defend imposing your moral code on everybody else?
: That's simple, as I've always said, I would impose nothing but I would directly advocate an alternative position, make my opinion and opposition known and attempt to persuade people of my perspective.
And if you want to do so, provide evidence. If you can provide me with compelling evidence that heterosexuality is 'natural', I will cede this argument to you...
: For God sake Farinata I didn't say gays should be imprisoned and battoned with electronic shock devices I said society would benefit if we all complied with a common set of values and didnt try to stamp out differing opinions.
I have never even implied that you did, Lark; in the same way that I've never implied you were a racist.
However, racism occurs; do you try and stop this by marching in on the behalf of the oppressed, or do you abstain from doing anything because you're never likely to be attacked by racists yourself?
(Cue the famous quote from Pastor Niemoller)
The fascists are out there; they like to pick upon gays, blacks, Irish and Lefties alike...I personally view discrimination on the grounds of hetero/homosexuality the same way as discrimination on the grounds of race or gender.
Equality and tolerance are my aims; I'm not saying anyone who wants to be heterosexual is wrong; but neither am I saying that anyone who wants to be homosexual is wrong; 'right' and 'wrong' are meaningless when it comes down to human biology.
Farinata
