My argument doesn't assume the victim knows what's happening. Grooming can be achieved subconsciously or, even more effectively, by empowering the victim to believe it reached it's own conclusions.
Heterosexuals are groomed too with what boys wear vs girls, the activities they do, the hairstyles they have, the toys they play with. You can certainly condition children into behaving inappropriately. There are cases of feral children raised by animals that don't even behave like humans. The way you decide to avoid raising children certain ways is because you see them as wrong for either the children or for people around them.
What harm are homosexuals causing? Say that it became almost completely accepted, it's obvious that it's not going to escalate the way that race is doing where almost half of the USA will be non-white. Homosexuality will probably always remain a small minority. If homosexuals reached 10% of the population, what's the bad outcome that you fear?
This perception was obviously official not that long ago. Homosexuality has only been officially acceptable since the 1960s-80s. Before that, they put out public service announcements like this pushing the idea that homosexuality was deviant:
[VIDEO]
This was the same time they had ads with demeaning depictions of women:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
These changes in people's perception take a long time because they depend a lot on how people raise their children. Fortunately the public school system allows children to get a broader awareness of culture, race and gender so it can change in a generation or two. The big hurdle for homosexuality is tackling the religious side because nothing in their rule book says anything about race but is quite clear on homosexuality. This also has a solution:
I don't doubt it (as I mentioned before) but is it statistically significant? Is it enough to perpetuate the trait?
If you were to assume that homosexuals can only come from homosexual parents then you'd have to assume that every single generation before that person was born of a homosexual. This isn't the case. Heterosexual parents have homosexual children. I would say the fact that anyone can have homosexual children is statistically significant. The sexuality is also not solely determined by their genetic makeup.
Heterosexuals are groomed too with what boys wear vs girls, the activities they do, the hairstyles they have, the toys they play with. You can certainly condition children into behaving inappropriately.
An antrhorpologist would say that is squarely placed under gender, not sexual attraction, although that is usually a factor begets the aspects of prescribed gender roles.
In fact, from an anthropologist's PoV, a homosexual act (or even pedophilia) may be neither, if the reason behind it — no matter how misguided — is not done for homosexual (or pedophilic) reasons. For instance, take the Etoro people of Papua New Guinea, a location where multiple islands, rough waters, and high mountains have created a vast array of different cultures within a relatively small gengrapic area.
There are cases of feral children raised by animals that don't even behave like humans. The way you decide to avoid raising children certain ways is because you see them as wrong for either the children or for people around them.
The problem with cases of feral children is that we simply don't enough about their circumstances. Besides being very poor at articulating them, the situations that lead to them being feral occur at a very young age where they are not likely to remember, even if they wanted to. We possibly coould learn a great deal about the mind from creating feral children to see how they develop (or the lack thereof) but that would be the definition of inhumane.
The most famous case is Genie. Honestly, it's most famous because we do know a lot more about her situation then other cases. I understand why she was protected from society after her rescue and hope she has been able to adapt but they odds don't look good. Perhaps after her death we'll get some detailed information that can be used by psychologists.
You haven’t addressed this. Or are you saying that everyone is coerced into being sexual, whether that be straight, gay or something in between?
This does not correlate with your repeated assertion that all gay people are “victims”.
To first point, yes.
To the second, I don't have an issue with people being gay, I have an issue with how they became gay. Whether you believe it's genetic or coercion, it's not a conscious decision so they're not at fault.
To the second, I don't have an issue with people being gay, I have an issue with how they became gay. Whether you believe it's genetic or coercion, it's not a conscious decision so they're not at fault.
Im glad you don't have an issue with people being gay, though why do you have an 'issue' with how the 'became' gay? I don't know if its genetic, biological, but i do know that in at least one case, it certainly was not coercion either visible or subliminal.
Im glad you think they are' not at fault' although only because the didn't decide. If homosexuality was a choice (hint - its not) you would then say they're at fault????
Always discussions such as these miss out on third sex, for example a person born with mosaic genetics, so that some of their cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY.
However people 'become' homosexual, IMO they are born that way should only interest us as much as to eye or hair color. It simply doesn't matter any more than that.
So, if its not obvious that I have no problem at all with peoples sexuality, as long as people are of adequate age and competence for consent, they can have sex with the same as them or the opposite - and no one else should particularly care.
Last - Im glad coercion does not play a part. I probably could be coerced (i.e. forced, raped) into a homosexual act, (loaded gun to my head) but I would still not be a homosexual, the very thought if 'making' out myself with someone of the same sex is abhorrent to me, but thats just me, simply because I was born 'straight'
Surely you must know someone who is gay, that you cannot imagine they were coerced?
To the second, I don't have an issue with people being gay, I have an issue with how they became gay. Whether you believe it's genetic or coercion, it's not a conscious decision so they're not at fault.
Why do you have an issue with how I "became gay"? Why the fascination? What is it to you?
And it's so kind and considerate of you to tell me that I'm "not at fault" for being me. And to return the favour, I can say that you're "not at fault" either for being straight. Trust me. I hope that makes you feel better.
You haven’t addressed this. Or are you saying that everyone is coerced into being sexual, whether that be straight, gay or something in between?
This does not correlate with your repeated assertion that all gay people are “victims”.
To first point, yes.
Without coercion, people don’t go through puberty?
Believe me, I wish I was coerced into being sexual, because presumably that would have meant I wouln’t have had to wait until I was 24 to lose my virginity. I had sexual desires for 12 years before I ever had sex! How does that fit into your view that everyone is coerced into being sexual?
Without coercion, people don’t go through puberty?
Believe me, I wish I was coerced into being sexual, because presumably that would have meant I wouln’t have had to wait until I was 24 to lose my virginity. I had sexual desires for 12 years before I ever had sex! How does that fit into your view that everyone is coerced into being sexual?
You mean you only thought about sex after your voice broke? Unsure what a hormonal change has to do with my argument as I am about your belated action though reading some of your posts I can well believe it.
Why do you have an issue with how I "became gay"? Why the fascination? What is it to you?
And it's so kind and considerate of you to tell me that I'm "not at fault" for being me. And to return the favour, I can say that you're "not at fault" either for being straight. Trust me. I hope that makes you feel better.
I'm not a big fan when innocents are groomed in any scenario (homosexuality being one of many). I'm also intrigued by people's polarity on the issue between "I was born this way" vs "it's my choice" as if the possibility of it being someone else choice and they were played for sex is so horrific as to warrant denial. Especially as this third mechanism is at the very foundation of our societies.
Yes, when taken out of context many things can appear patronising.
Im glad you don't have an issue with people being gay, though why do you have an 'issue' with how the 'became' gay? I don't know if its genetic, biological, but i do know that in at least one case, it certainly was not coercion either visible or subliminal.
Im glad you think they are' not at fault' although only because the didn't decide. If homosexuality was a choice (hint - its not) you would then say they're at fault????
Always discussions such as these miss out on third sex, for example a person born with mosaic genetics, so that some of their cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY.
However people 'become' homosexual, IMO they are born that way should only interest us as much as to eye or hair color. It simply doesn't matter any more than that.
So, if its not obvious that I have no problem at all with peoples sexuality, as long as people are of adequate age and competence for consent, they can have sex with the same as them or the opposite - and no one else should particularly care.
Last - Im glad coercion does not play a part. I probably could be coerced (i.e. forced, raped) into a homosexual act, (loaded gun to my head) but I would still not be a homosexual, the very thought if 'making' out myself with someone of the same sex is abhorrent to me, but thats just me, simply because I was born 'straight'
Surely you must know someone who is gay, that you cannot imagine they were coerced?
My original comment was that genetic was the one thing it couldn't be. Unlike hair or eye colour it has a bearing on the mechanism of passing those genes on (unless you're Mr H.) & how many of us belong to this third sex category?
If you did believe it was grooming/coercion (which is more subtle than gunpoint), would you still feel so impartial?
I'm not a big fan when innocents are groomed in any scenario (homosexuality being one of many). I'm also intrigued by people's polarity on the issue between "I was born this way" vs "it's my choice" as if the possibility of it being someone else choice and they were played for sex is so horrific as to warrant denial. Especially as this third mechanism is at the very foundation of our societies.
Yes, when taken out of context many things can appear patronising.
A lot of waffle - just answer my question simply. Why are you so interested? "Grooming". "Played for sex". "Denial". What has this to do with anything I asked? You repeat that you don't have a problem with people being gay but you seem very interested in why they are gay. Could it be that you have a fixed script which cannot simply accept (consensual) human sexuality in all its variety? You seem certain that heterosexuality is "the one true way" and therefore anything else is some kind of weird biological or social anomaly which needs to be evaluated and then possibly, "fixed". I don't know.
I really don't like the taste of cucumber so I don't eat it, but most people do. Can you accept that I don't like cucumber and move on - you probably wouldn't want to deny my rights, attack me, imprison me, kill me or hound me out of my home simply for disliking it. Why are you so fascinated by my same sex desires but not at all interested (I'm guessing here!) in my dislike of a certain vegetables. I like gherkins, just to muddy the issue. Oh, and I'm vegetarian too.
Oh, and you are patronising ("treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority")! By saying, as you did earlier about gay people that "it's not their fault" means that we are at fault in your eyes but we are not responsible for it. What gives you the right to make such personal judgements about people of whom you have no knowledge and have never met?
Without coercion, people don’t go through puberty?
Believe me, I wish I was coerced into being sexual, because presumably that would have meant I wouln’t have had to wait until I was 24 to lose my virginity. I had sexual desires for 12 years before I ever had sex! How does that fit into your view that everyone is coerced into being sexual?
You mean you only thought about sex after your voice broke? Unsure what a hormonal change has to do with my argument
Your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. I suggest that people are asexual (do not have sexual desire) before puberty, and sexual (have sexual desires) during/after puberty, and that coercion has nothing to do with it.
Again, your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. Given that I had sexual desires long before I ever had sex, who or what “coerced” me into being sexual, and what was their motive, given that they didn’t actually conduce me into sexual activity with them?
Your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. I suggest that people are asexual (do not have sexual desire) before puberty, and sexual (have sexual desires) during/after puberty, and that coercion has nothing to do with it.
This seems to be a pretty long-lived thread...
Anyway, just wanted to chime in this: there is a small segment of the population (apparently around 2%, according to the latest article I read about the subject) that is "by nature", whatever that means, asexual (as in, through their life), and people can go through periods of asexuality (per your definition of "do not have sexual desire"). It is, interestingly, genderless behaviour. It's unrelated to coercion, but it might be related to levels of stress through society. That relationship seems to be hotly debated in the world of psychology scholars, people I can't help but imagine wearing university brown sweaters, ugly glasses and carrying tons of paper in darkish rooms full of moths, dust, and old wooden benches poised to a shine by generations of other scholars.
Yet the compound CBD found in marijuana combats all that.
The fact the compound, once treated by an industrial process, may have an effect, doesn't make the original product innocuous. Coca-Cola sells Coca-leaf-flavored drinks, but cocaine is dangerous. Plants and drugs are controlled for a reason, not because governments around the world just thought "hey, what could we do this morning? Let's make laws on random plants".
Marijuana is an interesting plant providing powerful chemicals for human medicinal use, but it should not be considered harmless, as it clearly isn't.
Yes, i agree, private life should be private, not "public".
Your "private" life stops being private as soon as other people try to tell you what isn't right. Some of these people will "tell" you with stones, forks, guns, knives or rats. So, yes, it "should" be private, but as long as it can't be, don't blame people with courage like Cook.
Blame the ones who "defend family" or "defend the Holy Book" or "defend" any cause that can't really speak for itself and say "hey, i never asked to be defended" at the cost of creating suffering and hate. Which by the way probably constitutes " a life of sin" in the eye of the God who said "love each other". Hey, an idea, let's ask God. Oh, wait.
The fact the compound, once treated by an industrial process, may have an effect, doesn't make the original product innocuous. Coca-Cola sells Coca-leaf-flavored drinks, but cocaine is dangerous. Plants and drugs are controlled for a reason, not because governments around the world just thought "hey, what could we do this morning? Let's make laws on random plants".
Marijuana is an interesting plant providing powerful chemicals for human medicinal use, but it should not be considered harmless, as it clearly isn't.
There are strains of the cannabis plant that aren't used as a drug because it's levels of HTC are too low. Hemp isn't smoked, and has many industrial uses yet until recently it was illegal to grow in the US.
Yes, i agree, private life should be private, not "public".
Your "private" life stops being private as soon as other people try to tell you what isn't right. Some of these people will "tell" you with stones, forks, guns, knives or rats. So, yes, it "should" be private, but as long as it can't be, don't blame people with courage like Cook.
Blame the ones who "defend family" or "defend the Holy Book" or "defend" any cause that can't really speak for itself and say "hey, i never asked to be defended" at the cost of creating suffering and hate. Which by the way probably constitutes " a life of sin" in the eye of the God who said "love each other". Hey, an idea, let's ask God. Oh, wait.
And yet, Cook has willingly brought his private life into the public domain. It would have been wiser for him to keep it private.
Comments
Homosexuals do pass genes on at times. Robert De Niro said his father was gay although lived a heterosexual lifestyle his whole life.
I don't doubt it (as I mentioned before) but is it statistically significant? Is it enough to perpetuate the trait?
Q: when did you first realise you're straight?
A: I've always known.
Q: c'mon there must have been a point where you actually did something, an act.
A: (insert a tale of coercion & grooming by a, typically, older opposite-sex person culminating in an act of statutory rape)
You've got to get the delivery right but try a few times. Dead interesting.
I'm with you all the way.
That sounds hysterical. Do you have a link?
Apologies for the inaccurate paraphrasing (memory+age); http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10rvf_gay-age-of-consent_fun ;
Gay age of consent by deep
You haven’t addressed this. Or are you saying that everyone is coerced into being sexual, whether that be straight, gay or something in between?
This does not correlate with your repeated assertion that all gay people are “victims”.
Heterosexuals are groomed too with what boys wear vs girls, the activities they do, the hairstyles they have, the toys they play with. You can certainly condition children into behaving inappropriately. There are cases of feral children raised by animals that don't even behave like humans. The way you decide to avoid raising children certain ways is because you see them as wrong for either the children or for people around them.
What harm are homosexuals causing? Say that it became almost completely accepted, it's obvious that it's not going to escalate the way that race is doing where almost half of the USA will be non-white. Homosexuality will probably always remain a small minority. If homosexuals reached 10% of the population, what's the bad outcome that you fear?
This perception was obviously official not that long ago. Homosexuality has only been officially acceptable since the 1960s-80s. Before that, they put out public service announcements like this pushing the idea that homosexuality was deviant:
[VIDEO]
This was the same time they had ads with demeaning depictions of women:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
These changes in people's perception take a long time because they depend a lot on how people raise their children. Fortunately the public school system allows children to get a broader awareness of culture, race and gender so it can change in a generation or two. The big hurdle for homosexuality is tackling the religious side because nothing in their rule book says anything about race but is quite clear on homosexuality. This also has a solution:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597891/Losing-religion-New-research-shows-religion-declined-Internet-use-increased.html
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mercedes-schlapp/2014/04/18/the-decline-of-religion-will-hurt-america-in-the-long-run
http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/01/27/great-decline-religion-united-states-one-graph/
Still over 70% but the drop will accelerate.
If you were to assume that homosexuals can only come from homosexual parents then you'd have to assume that every single generation before that person was born of a homosexual. This isn't the case. Heterosexual parents have homosexual children. I would say the fact that anyone can have homosexual children is statistically significant. The sexuality is also not solely determined by their genetic makeup.
An antrhorpologist would say that is squarely placed under gender, not sexual attraction, although that is usually a factor begets the aspects of prescribed gender roles.
In fact, from an anthropologist's PoV, a homosexual act (or even pedophilia) may be neither, if the reason behind it — no matter how misguided — is not done for homosexual (or pedophilic) reasons. For instance, take the Etoro people of Papua New Guinea, a location where multiple islands, rough waters, and high mountains have created a vast array of different cultures within a relatively small gengrapic area.
The problem with cases of feral children is that we simply don't enough about their circumstances. Besides being very poor at articulating them, the situations that lead to them being feral occur at a very young age where they are not likely to remember, even if they wanted to. We possibly coould learn a great deal about the mind from creating feral children to see how they develop (or the lack thereof) but that would be the definition of inhumane.
The most famous case is Genie. Honestly, it's most famous because we do know a lot more about her situation then other cases. I understand why she was protected from society after her rescue and hope she has been able to adapt but they odds don't look good. Perhaps after her death we'll get some detailed information that can be used by psychologists.
To first point, yes.
To the second, I don't have an issue with people being gay, I have an issue with how they became gay. Whether you believe it's genetic or coercion, it's not a conscious decision so they're not at fault.
To first point, yes.
To the second, I don't have an issue with people being gay, I have an issue with how they became gay. Whether you believe it's genetic or coercion, it's not a conscious decision so they're not at fault.
Im glad you don't have an issue with people being gay, though why do you have an 'issue' with how the 'became' gay? I don't know if its genetic, biological, but i do know that in at least one case, it certainly was not coercion either visible or subliminal.
Im glad you think they are' not at fault' although only because the didn't decide. If homosexuality was a choice (hint - its not) you would then say they're at fault????
Always discussions such as these miss out on third sex, for example a person born with mosaic genetics, so that some of their cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY.
However people 'become' homosexual, IMO they are born that way should only interest us as much as to eye or hair color. It simply doesn't matter any more than that.
So, if its not obvious that I have no problem at all with peoples sexuality, as long as people are of adequate age and competence for consent, they can have sex with the same as them or the opposite - and no one else should particularly care.
Last - Im glad coercion does not play a part. I probably could be coerced (i.e. forced, raped) into a homosexual act, (loaded gun to my head) but I would still not be a homosexual, the very thought if 'making' out myself with someone of the same sex is abhorrent to me, but thats just me, simply because I was born 'straight'
Surely you must know someone who is gay, that you cannot imagine they were coerced?
Why do you have an issue with how I "became gay"? Why the fascination? What is it to you?
And it's so kind and considerate of you to tell me that I'm "not at fault" for being me. And to return the favour, I can say that you're "not at fault" either for being straight. Trust me. I hope that makes you feel better.
Without coercion, people don’t go through puberty?
Believe me, I wish I was coerced into being sexual, because presumably that would have meant I wouln’t have had to wait until I was 24 to lose my virginity. I had sexual desires for 12 years before I ever had sex! How does that fit into your view that everyone is coerced into being sexual?
I'm not a big fan when innocents are groomed in any scenario (homosexuality being one of many). I'm also intrigued by people's polarity on the issue between "I was born this way" vs "it's my choice" as if the possibility of it being someone else choice and they were played for sex is so horrific as to warrant denial. Especially as this third mechanism is at the very foundation of our societies.
Yes, when taken out of context many things can appear patronising.
If you did believe it was grooming/coercion (which is more subtle than gunpoint), would you still feel so impartial?
Last - you don't know this.
I'm not a big fan when innocents are groomed in any scenario (homosexuality being one of many). I'm also intrigued by people's polarity on the issue between "I was born this way" vs "it's my choice" as if the possibility of it being someone else choice and they were played for sex is so horrific as to warrant denial. Especially as this third mechanism is at the very foundation of our societies.
Yes, when taken out of context many things can appear patronising.
A lot of waffle - just answer my question simply. Why are you so interested? "Grooming". "Played for sex". "Denial". What has this to do with anything I asked? You repeat that you don't have a problem with people being gay but you seem very interested in why they are gay. Could it be that you have a fixed script which cannot simply accept (consensual) human sexuality in all its variety? You seem certain that heterosexuality is "the one true way" and therefore anything else is some kind of weird biological or social anomaly which needs to be evaluated and then possibly, "fixed". I don't know.
I really don't like the taste of cucumber so I don't eat it, but most people do. Can you accept that I don't like cucumber and move on - you probably wouldn't want to deny my rights, attack me, imprison me, kill me or hound me out of my home simply for disliking it. Why are you so fascinated by my same sex desires but not at all interested (I'm guessing here!) in my dislike of a certain vegetables. I like gherkins, just to muddy the issue. Oh, and I'm vegetarian too.
Oh, and you are patronising ("treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority")! By saying, as you did earlier about gay people that "it's not their fault" means that we are at fault in your eyes but we are not responsible for it. What gives you the right to make such personal judgements about people of whom you have no knowledge and have never met?
Yea the approach should be futuristic therefore i am agree with the statement that dont wait just do it.
Your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. I suggest that people are asexual (do not have sexual desire) before puberty, and sexual (have sexual desires) during/after puberty, and that coercion has nothing to do with it.
Again, your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. Given that I had sexual desires long before I ever had sex, who or what “coerced” me into being sexual, and what was their motive, given that they didn’t actually conduce me into sexual activity with them?
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. I have two children, by the way.
Your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. I suggest that people are asexual (do not have sexual desire) before puberty, and sexual (have sexual desires) during/after puberty, and that coercion has nothing to do with it.
This seems to be a pretty long-lived thread...
Anyway, just wanted to chime in this: there is a small segment of the population (apparently around 2%, according to the latest article I read about the subject) that is "by nature", whatever that means, asexual (as in, through their life), and people can go through periods of asexuality (per your definition of "do not have sexual desire"). It is, interestingly, genderless behaviour. It's unrelated to coercion, but it might be related to levels of stress through society. That relationship seems to be hotly debated in the world of psychology scholars, people I can't help but imagine wearing university brown sweaters, ugly glasses and carrying tons of paper in darkish rooms full of moths, dust, and old wooden benches poised to a shine by generations of other scholars.
Yet the compound CBD found in marijuana combats all that.
The fact the compound, once treated by an industrial process, may have an effect, doesn't make the original product innocuous. Coca-Cola sells Coca-leaf-flavored drinks, but cocaine is dangerous. Plants and drugs are controlled for a reason, not because governments around the world just thought "hey, what could we do this morning? Let's make laws on random plants".
Marijuana is an interesting plant providing powerful chemicals for human medicinal use, but it should not be considered harmless, as it clearly isn't.
Yes, i agree, private life should be private, not "public".
Your "private" life stops being private as soon as other people try to tell you what isn't right. Some of these people will "tell" you with stones, forks, guns, knives or rats. So, yes, it "should" be private, but as long as it can't be, don't blame people with courage like Cook.
Blame the ones who "defend family" or "defend the Holy Book" or "defend" any cause that can't really speak for itself and say "hey, i never asked to be defended" at the cost of creating suffering and hate. Which by the way probably constitutes " a life of sin" in the eye of the God who said "love each other". Hey, an idea, let's ask God. Oh, wait.
There are strains of the cannabis plant that aren't used as a drug because it's levels of HTC are too low. Hemp isn't smoked, and has many industrial uses yet until recently it was illegal to grow in the US.
And yet, Cook has willingly brought his private life into the public domain. It would have been wiser for him to keep it private.