Brokeback Mountain

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from Thunderdog:

I really don't think it comes down to choice for guys.

Agreed, and there is scientific evidence to back it up.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=158647

Quick summary of the above experiment: In 2003, scientists observed the behavior of a large flock of sheep. 92% of the rams preferred to mate with ewes, while 8% mated with other rams. The sheep were then slaughtered and their brains biopsied.

The brains of the homosexual rams were found to be significantly <b>physically different</b> than the brains of the straight rams. Think about the implications...

 

[acronym]

Yay, someone mentioned science!!
Strangely, this experiment was done on sheep.
People arent like sheep, ARE they?

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from spect8or:

Even if you have no desire to discourage him, do you consider it wise to encourage him? Celebrate him? Promote him to equal - or better - standing as normal people? If so, from your point of view, why?

What do gay men, people of my ethnicity, and people of your ethnicity have in common? You already know the answer, and it involves showers without water. Dehumanizing people of certain minority groups can easily lead to great needless suffering.

Since sexual orientation is as much a choice as ethnicity, yes- 'promote' them to equal. It's not egalitarianism at all, just basic human decency. Why cause people to suffer needlessly?
If 92% of men were gay and <b>we</b> were the minority, I'm sure you wouldn't want to be treated as 'inferior'.

 

[traderob]

Quote from spect8or:

Promote him to equal - or better - standing as normal people? If so, from your point of view, why?

What do mean, 'normal'. I like women, I was born that way, I can't decide, Ok I will now try to like men. Impossible.

He likes men, born that way...

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Rearden Metal:

What do gay men, people of my ethnicity, and people of your ethnicity have in common? You already know the answer, and it involves showers without water. Dehumanizing people of certain minority groups can easily lead to great needless suffering.

But must it? Necessarily?

If you think so, you must believe that mere tolerance is impossible. That's impossible to tolerate, in the true sense of the word, those you disapprove of.

The liberal version of tolerance says you have to celebrate those traditionally disapproved of, which is not really "tolerance" at all.

But to do that you have to completely alter the society. Shake it to its core. Liberals do so enthusiastically. Others, like myself, believe that that is far too high a price to pay. Yet liberals will settle for no happy medium.

(PS - that's not my ethnicity; unless you apply the one drop rule, which generally isn't done in Europe, at least not with non-blacks, otherwise huge numbers of southern Europeans wouldn't qualify as Greeks, Italians, Spaniards etc)

Since sexual orientation is as much a choice as ethnicity, yes- 'promote' them to equal. It's not egalitarianism at all, just basic human decency. Why cause people to suffer needlessly?
If 92% of men were gay and <b>we</b> were the minority, I'm sure you wouldn't want to be treated as 'inferior'.

But that's impossible without a wholesale restructuring of society. Eventually lofty goals have to reconcile themselves with practical reality.

More in the next post.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from roberk:

What do mean, 'normal'. I like women, I was born that way, I can't decide, Ok I will now try to like men. Impossible.

He likes men, born that way...

So what if they are born that way? To me, all that means is they are born with a debilitating medical condition. That alone hardly justifies celebrating their repulsive behaviour.

Most criminals are "born that way", too, in the sense of possessing a proclivity for crime greater than the average. If they are unable to control their urges, they deserve punishment, because the needs of the majority of law abiding populace take precedence of the needs of the criminally minded. If homosexuals can't resist their repulsive sexual urges, then the least they can do is be clandestine about it.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Rearden Metal:



The brains of the homosexual rams were found to be significantly <b>physically different</b> than the brains of the straight rams. Think about the implications...

To me, that implies that they are sick and need help.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from spect8or:

So what if they are born that way? To me, all that means is they are born with a debilitating medical condition. That alone hardly justifies celebrating their repulsive behaviour.

Most criminals are "born that way", too, in the sense of possessing a proclivity for crime greater than the average. If they are unable to control their urges, they deserve punishment, because the needs of the majority of law abiding populace take precedence of the needs of the criminally minded. If homosexuals can't resist their repulsive sexual urges, then the least they can do is be clandestine about it.

With due respect, I think you're going off the deep end here. Please make no mistake. Personally, I'm not completely comfortable with the gay issue and I don't have any gay friends that I am aware of. (I don't specifically seek them out, but if an old friend came out of the closet, I would like to think that our friendship could continue.) I think that the Gay Games that are to be held here in Montreal is the epitome of stupidity (are there Straight Games?), and I dislike Gay Pride parades (are there Straight Pride parades?) because they are extreme and in-your-face. I dislike extremes of any kind because they can generate discomfort and are therefore somewhat disrespectful. However, to feel the need to rob people of their dignity just because they are different than you and me is just plain wrong. Sexual orientation is not a choice and it does not appear to be a disease as some respondents here are suggesting. There is no need to either feel or assign guilt here. People who do not cause harm to others should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (And I'm not talking about the leather-clad or effete cartoon characters on the Gay Pride float, because I think that those guys left their dignity at the door.)

 

[spect8or]

Could you explain to me what living their lives in dignity would look like?

For example, back in my office-work days, I had a boss who was gay. Incredibly smart and well spoken and, as far as the job went, I looked up to him. But during coffee breaks he'd often talk in such a way as to draw allusion to his homosexuality. I found that extremely off-putting. Whose "rights" would trump whose here, according to your "dignity model"?

Were I to have a friend who "came out", I don't think, in all honesty, that I could maintain my friendship. At least, not in the same manner. I mean, I might feel sorry for him, but I could never look approvingly on that behaviour. Really, I'd fault him for coming out. I don't think gays should "come out". I really don't.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Sparohok:

I'm curious, is that personal experience?

I wasn't alive in the 1950s. But my dad liked to say that "People who are nostalgic for the '50s didn't live through them." From him and others of his generation, I have the impression of a time of national paranoia, oppressive conformity, and despite the postwar boom, economic insecurity.

No, it's not personal experience. I don't see why that should mean I shouldn't look upon what I can learn about the era approvingly. Liberals don't live in a liberal utopia either, yet are sustained by a vision of what they consider proper.

As for the paranoia etc, sure, you'll find people in every era who feel that way. Life, afterall, is pretty tragic stuff. (The comment on "oppressive conformity" brought a smile, though, as that's pretty how I feel right now, being forced to toe the PC line on controversial toics. I know that's not what you're thinking of, but it's clearly related.)