And bisexual people have no choice but be attracted to men and women.
And pedophiles have no choice but be attracted to children.
And people whose mothers don't want them have no choice but to be aborted.
And thieves have no choice but to steal.
And murderers have no choice but to kill people.
Got it.
None of that follows. However:
Bisexual people are attracted to some men and some women. If there is mutual attraction and consent, they may choose to have sex. No problem.
Pedophiles are attracted to children. However, children haven't the capacity/maturity to consent to sex, so to act on those feelings would be both wrong and a crime.
People whose mothers don't want them have no choices at all, as they aren't actually people, they are a bundle of cells with no consciousness.
Thieves who thieve have a victim. Thus, it is wrong and a crime.
People with murderous feelings who act on the, have a victim. This it is wrong and a crime.
Two adults (of any combination of sexes) who consentingly choose to have sex; there's no victim and it's none of your damned business.
Jobs made iPhones and iPads. Since then there were lot's of strange changes. And now it's clear what's going on in Apple: now they make gayPhones and gayPads.
You raise an interesting point in your observation of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
I think that a lot of people regard most pedophiles as being homosexual, which therefore blackens homosexuality even more. How much of that is choice and how much is down to genes is open to debate, but historically, that is the uncomfortable truth.
He didn't raise a point about a link between homosexuality and paedophilia; you just did. There is no such link.
"I think that a lot of people regard most pedophiles as being homosexual"? No they don't. Only wilfully ignorant bigots think that.
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
Thanks for a straightforward answer. "...gay in 'real terms' means being attracted to the same sex..." exactly that is my point. If we were to then investigate this further, (which I'm not going to do here) then it's pretty easy to see that asking a few more questions based on your answer will show that 'gay' becomes a very nebulous concept, especially in relation to being not 'gay'. An example of of some of the pertinent questions I could ask would be ... 'if a 'gay' male were to get the horn upon seeing a comely female, would that make the person in reality 'not gay' or perhaps 'bisexual'. And of course we have to wonder what 'being attracted to' really means. For a male it may simply be being attracted to the way males deal with life and nothing at all to do with sex (as you have already said).
But you see the problem is that unless it is explicitly stated then the default idea that most people and certainly young people would have in mind when told that two males were in a gay relationship would be that they were in a sexual relationship, and I'm not going to go further on that. I guess you would agree that two males could call themselves 'gay' while still having no sexual relations with other males and only sexual relations with females. In other words, as I maintain, generally being 'gay' is a lifestyle choice, or even a political choice.
And it then follows that it does not seem right for so called 'gay' people to then foist their politics onto the institution of 'marriage' and thereby subvert the meaning of what marriage is and that predates religion.
No, that doesn't follow at all. I don't think you're actually trying to make a coherent argument or if you are, you're failing badly. You're just putting out a series of baffling non-sequiturs and calling that a debate.
What it sounds like is you're trying to express your clear discomfort with and dislike for homosexuality but can't quite come out and admit you're homophobic. The fact that you labeled everyone who took issue with anything you said as an angry gay only emphasises this.
I deeply disagree with homophobia, but at least other posters have been more direct in their bigotry.
For those asking, I'm guessing that the need to declare oneself "proud to be gay" will disappear right about the same time as people stop getting hated, abused, beaten up or just plain killed for being gay.
The reason you never hear anyone saying they are "proud to be straight" is because straight people never have to deal with crap like that simply because of their sexual orientation.
My only beef with his statement was his assertion that it was a "gift from god". That's fine and all, but the kind, loving, benevolent god he seems to be invoking isn't the one described in the Christian bible.
My only beef with his statement was his assertion that it was a "gift from god". That's fine and all, but the kind, loving, benevolent god he seems to be invoking isn't the one described in the Christian bible.
That mostly depends on the old v new testament. God really mellowed out after he had a son.
And if you looked around, you would see that the paparazzi media is looking for every bit of scandal they can find and/or manufacture. As much as Tim Cook wanted to keep his private life private (and that is exactly what he said in his interview), as the CEO of one of the biggest global companies (and especially as a bachelor), he has no choice - there is always someone looking to make a person of Cook's distinction private life public.
Additionally this is true, but that's missing what I meant.
When a man kisses a woman on the cheek as she leaves home, when a man and woman walk along the street hand in hand, when a man and woman embrace closely as they dance at an office party and when they lay together in their swimwear on the same towel on the beach they are making their private life public. They just don't think of it that way.
When a CEO stands up on a platform to deliver a speech to 400 shareholders of the company and says "Last night, whilst speaking to my wife, I ..." then he is making his private life public.
In our society, women can be physically expressive in a way that's far less common for men without raising eyebrows, but if two men did the things I've described above or that director (Tim Cook?) instead said "Last night, whilst speaking to my boyfriend, I ..." some (on here?) would say that they are "flaunting their sexuality" or "shoving it in our faces" or "making their private life public".
My interest is why now and not years ago or years from now.
Because Apple just had the best quarter ever and released new product category developed under Cook's leadership. He first proved his leadership of Apple beyond a shadow of a doubt before bringing any attention at all to himself. Very measured and responsible move, as usual.
Because Apple just had the best quarter ever and released new product category developed under Cook's leadership. He first proved his leadership of Apple beyond a shadow of a doubt before bringing any attention at all to himself. Very measured and responsible move, as usual.
Are you going to make a SolipsismZ at some point? Also... isn't it a bit self-defeating to have multiple Solipsisms? (That one's been bugging me for _SO_ long...)
Are you going to make a SolipsismZ at some point? Also... isn't it a bit self-defeating to have multiple Solipsisms? (That one's been bugging me for _SO_ long...)
Just the one at a time. The other accounts are no longer used. I have no idea what I'll do next. This change was on a whim due to a suggestion by [@]Tallest Skil[/@] so take it up with him.
My only beef with his statement was his assertion that it was a "gift from god". That's fine and all, but the kind, loving, benevolent god he seems to be invoking isn't the one described in the Christian bible.
It does seem to be the one announced by Christ though. As usual, religion is just as complex as human beings, and hence just as cruel, but also just as generous.
Anyway, having today discovered a story (through the National Post, so... worth whatever the Post is...) where the Canadian founder of an asylum house for beaten up men suicided after being harassed by feminists (Earl Silverman), stating that he was a former victim and had been treated like a criminal. In his words:
“When I went into the community looking for some support services, I couldn’t find any. There were a lot for women, and the only programs for men were for anger management. As a victim, I was re-victimized by having these services telling me that I wasn’t a victim, but I was a perpetrator.”
I would not have believed such a thing possible, but it does seem that straight males also need to now say proudly they're straight and standing for their fellow straight men...
This change was on a whim due to a suggestion by @Tallest Skil so take it up with him.
Hey, I didn’t suggest it; I was just explaining why I had remembered you’d done it in the past. I don’t like the idea, but as long as all previous accounts get the ‘privileges revoked’ tag it’s good with the higher-ups. And really it only went through because your name stayed the same.
Hey, I didn’t suggest it; I was just explaining why I had remembered you’d done it in the past. I don’t like the idea, but as long as all previous accounts get the ‘privileges revoked’ tag it’s good with the higher-ups. And really it only went through because your name stayed the same.
I wouldn't have made the change if not for your SolipsismY quip so for better or worse I give you the credit.
I wouldn't have made the change if not for your SolipsismY quip so for better or worse I give you the credit.
Seems that's where it's due indeed
One thing I find a bit sad with the Internet is the fact everyone is so far away. Would be nice to have some way to share a BBQ with everyone, with all the arguments shared/fought. Of course, you'd have to put a good meat stack away to feed the trolls (these things get hungry), and maybe some bouncers to keep the most vehement sides apart ^^
To be fair, God has to be gay or female. No way the world would look and smell this nice if it was designed by a straight guy. Just go into any single straight guy's bathroom and take a deep breath.
It highlights an important aspect of religion IMO, which is that you can make up your own interpretation as you go.
I have always had a problem with the term 'sexual preference'. Does sexual mean gender, or sex. There are plenty of heterosexual people that enjoy sexual acts with the same sex, but aren't interested in any romantic involvement with them. Ultimately someone is straight, or gay depending on who they go out on dates with, take walks in the park with, goes to dinner with, goes away for a weekend with, etc, etc.... For me a more correct term would be 'romantic preference'.
I sort of agree, but I raise a Freddie Mercury. "Gay as a daffodil" and deeply in love with his wife, as well as his partner.
I'd use "sexual orientation" to define the gender you're primarily attracted to (people who are disgusted by the other gender seem to me to have some clinical problem, but you're welcome to hate me for this). Romantic preference would define who you're in love with, and sexual preference... well, I'm not sure, but I find the word a bit offensive, like if it implied you could actually choose what you are attracted to, which you can't.
It does seem to be the one announced by Christ though. As usual, religion is just as complex as human beings, and hence just as cruel, but also just as generous.
Anyway, having today discovered a story (through the National Post, so... worth whatever the Post is...) where the Canadian founder of an asylum house for beaten up men suicided after being harassed by feminists (Earl Silverman), stating that he was a former victim and had been treated like a criminal. In his words: “When I went into the community looking for some support services, I couldn’t find any. There were a lot for women, and the only programs for men were for anger management. As a victim, I was re-victimized by having these services telling me that I wasn’t a victim, but I was a perpetrator.”
I would not have believed such a thing possible, but it does seem that straight males also need to now say proudly they're straight and standing for their fellow straight men...
That's not an issue about gay vs straight but male vs female, gay men could similarly be subjected to domestic abuse so it's men standing up for their fellow men. But you still wouldn't say you're 'proud to be straight' in that context, nor even 'proud to be male' because nobody says you should be ashamed to be male. It shows a double standard clearly, like if Jay-Z gets assaulted by his sister-in-law in an elevator it's a joke:
You can guarantee the same people who would label those differently are the same people who campaign for equality. People still have predefined roles and behaviours for genders engrained and scenarios like these brings those feelings to the surface.
What I notice a lot is how people fall back into stereotypes so easily and the media plays on this all the time. Whether it's issues of sexism, race, religion whatever, the media structures headlines to rile people up and get the clicks.
The media is picking out statements like 'proud to be gay' and 'thanking god for being gay' because they know people will react to those. If you glance at the ads around the sides of certain sites, you see the same kind of titles. They have titles like 'Warren Buffet indicator 50% stock collapse', 'she is 51, looks 25, dermatologists hate her', 'What the Bible says about money (shocking)', 'Stay At Home Mom Makes $4589/ Month on Google'. They are designed to make you react to them.
When you brush away the language in news headlines that makes you react to them, the stories behind the headlines are usually not intended to provoke. Tim Cook isn't being hostile to anyone here, he's not mocking anyone's religion, he's just saying that he's gay, he's not ashamed of it and he hopes that can be of comfort to other people like him.
Tim Cook isn't being hostile to anyone here, he's not mocking anyone's religion, he's just saying that he's gay, he's not ashamed of it and he hopes that can be of comfort to other people like him.
Male homosexuality is a genetic defect. It serves no evolutionary purpose. It is nothing to be ashamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of it either.
Comments
And bisexual people have no choice but be attracted to men and women.
And pedophiles have no choice but be attracted to children.
And people whose mothers don't want them have no choice but to be aborted.
And thieves have no choice but to steal.
And murderers have no choice but to kill people.
Got it.
None of that follows. However:
Bisexual people are attracted to some men and some women. If there is mutual attraction and consent, they may choose to have sex. No problem.
Pedophiles are attracted to children. However, children haven't the capacity/maturity to consent to sex, so to act on those feelings would be both wrong and a crime.
People whose mothers don't want them have no choices at all, as they aren't actually people, they are a bundle of cells with no consciousness.
Thieves who thieve have a victim. Thus, it is wrong and a crime.
People with murderous feelings who act on the, have a victim. This it is wrong and a crime.
Two adults (of any combination of sexes) who consentingly choose to have sex; there's no victim and it's none of your damned business.
You raise an interesting point in your observation of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
I think that a lot of people regard most pedophiles as being homosexual, which therefore blackens homosexuality even more. How much of that is choice and how much is down to genes is open to debate, but historically, that is the uncomfortable truth.
He didn't raise a point about a link between homosexuality and paedophilia; you just did. There is no such link.
"I think that a lot of people regard most pedophiles as being homosexual"? No they don't. Only wilfully ignorant bigots think that.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
Thanks for a straightforward answer. "...gay in 'real terms' means being attracted to the same sex..." exactly that is my point. If we were to then investigate this further, (which I'm not going to do here) then it's pretty easy to see that asking a few more questions based on your answer will show that 'gay' becomes a very nebulous concept, especially in relation to being not 'gay'. An example of of some of the pertinent questions I could ask would be ... 'if a 'gay' male were to get the horn upon seeing a comely female, would that make the person in reality 'not gay' or perhaps 'bisexual'. And of course we have to wonder what 'being attracted to' really means. For a male it may simply be being attracted to the way males deal with life and nothing at all to do with sex (as you have already said).
But you see the problem is that unless it is explicitly stated then the default idea that most people and certainly young people would have in mind when told that two males were in a gay relationship would be that they were in a sexual relationship, and I'm not going to go further on that. I guess you would agree that two males could call themselves 'gay' while still having no sexual relations with other males and only sexual relations with females. In other words, as I maintain, generally being 'gay' is a lifestyle choice, or even a political choice.
And it then follows that it does not seem right for so called 'gay' people to then foist their politics onto the institution of 'marriage' and thereby subvert the meaning of what marriage is and that predates religion.
No, that doesn't follow at all. I don't think you're actually trying to make a coherent argument or if you are, you're failing badly. You're just putting out a series of baffling non-sequiturs and calling that a debate.
What it sounds like is you're trying to express your clear discomfort with and dislike for homosexuality but can't quite come out and admit you're homophobic. The fact that you labeled everyone who took issue with anything you said as an angry gay only emphasises this.
I deeply disagree with homophobia, but at least other posters have been more direct in their bigotry.
For those asking, I'm guessing that the need to declare oneself "proud to be gay" will disappear right about the same time as people stop getting hated, abused, beaten up or just plain killed for being gay.
The reason you never hear anyone saying they are "proud to be straight" is because straight people never have to deal with crap like that simply because of their sexual orientation.
My only beef with his statement was his assertion that it was a "gift from god". That's fine and all, but the kind, loving, benevolent god he seems to be invoking isn't the one described in the Christian bible.
That mostly depends on the old v new testament. God really mellowed out after he had a son.
And if you looked around, you would see that the paparazzi media is looking for every bit of scandal they can find and/or manufacture. As much as Tim Cook wanted to keep his private life private (and that is exactly what he said in his interview), as the CEO of one of the biggest global companies (and especially as a bachelor), he has no choice - there is always someone looking to make a person of Cook's distinction private life public.
Additionally this is true, but that's missing what I meant.
When a man kisses a woman on the cheek as she leaves home, when a man and woman walk along the street hand in hand, when a man and woman embrace closely as they dance at an office party and when they lay together in their swimwear on the same towel on the beach they are making their private life public. They just don't think of it that way.
When a CEO stands up on a platform to deliver a speech to 400 shareholders of the company and says "Last night, whilst speaking to my wife, I ..." then he is making his private life public.
In our society, women can be physically expressive in a way that's far less common for men without raising eyebrows, but if two men did the things I've described above or that director (Tim Cook?) instead said "Last night, whilst speaking to my boyfriend, I ..." some (on here?) would say that they are "flaunting their sexuality" or "shoving it in our faces" or "making their private life public".
"Fish are the last to recognise water."
Because Apple just had the best quarter ever and released new product category developed under Cook's leadership. He first proved his leadership of Apple beyond a shadow of a doubt before bringing any attention at all to himself. Very measured and responsible move, as usual.
That would be my guess, as well.
That would be my guess, as well.
Are you going to make a SolipsismZ at some point? Also... isn't it a bit self-defeating to have multiple Solipsisms? (That one's been bugging me for _SO_ long...)
Just the one at a time. The other accounts are no longer used. I have no idea what I'll do next. This change was on a whim due to a suggestion by [@]Tallest Skil[/@] so take it up with him.
My only beef with his statement was his assertion that it was a "gift from god". That's fine and all, but the kind, loving, benevolent god he seems to be invoking isn't the one described in the Christian bible.
It does seem to be the one announced by Christ though. As usual, religion is just as complex as human beings, and hence just as cruel, but also just as generous.
Anyway, having today discovered a story (through the National Post, so... worth whatever the Post is...) where the Canadian founder of an asylum house for beaten up men suicided after being harassed by feminists (Earl Silverman), stating that he was a former victim and had been treated like a criminal. In his words:
“When I went into the community looking for some support services, I couldn’t find any. There were a lot for women, and the only programs for men were for anger management. As a victim, I was re-victimized by having these services telling me that I wasn’t a victim, but I was a perpetrator.”
I would not have believed such a thing possible, but it does seem that straight males also need to now say proudly they're straight and standing for their fellow straight men...
Hey, I didn’t suggest it; I was just explaining why I had remembered you’d done it in the past. I don’t like the idea, but as long as all previous accounts get the ‘privileges revoked’ tag it’s good with the higher-ups. And really it only went through because your name stayed the same.
I wouldn't have made the change if not for your SolipsismY quip so for better or worse I give you the credit.
I wouldn't have made the change if not for your SolipsismY quip so for better or worse I give you the credit.
Seems that's where it's due indeed
One thing I find a bit sad with the Internet is the fact everyone is so far away. Would be nice to have some way to share a BBQ with everyone, with all the arguments shared/fought. Of course, you'd have to put a good meat stack away to feed the trolls (these things get hungry), and maybe some bouncers to keep the most vehement sides apart ^^
To be fair, God has to be gay or female. No way the world would look and smell this nice if it was designed by a straight guy. Just go into any single straight guy's bathroom and take a deep breath.
It highlights an important aspect of religion IMO, which is that you can make up your own interpretation as you go.
Ever visited God's bathroom?
I have always had a problem with the term 'sexual preference'. Does sexual mean gender, or sex. There are plenty of heterosexual people that enjoy sexual acts with the same sex, but aren't interested in any romantic involvement with them. Ultimately someone is straight, or gay depending on who they go out on dates with, take walks in the park with, goes to dinner with, goes away for a weekend with, etc, etc.... For me a more correct term would be 'romantic preference'.
I sort of agree, but I raise a Freddie Mercury. "Gay as a daffodil" and deeply in love with his wife, as well as his partner.
I'd use "sexual orientation" to define the gender you're primarily attracted to (people who are disgusted by the other gender seem to me to have some clinical problem, but you're welcome to hate me for this). Romantic preference would define who you're in love with, and sexual preference... well, I'm not sure, but I find the word a bit offensive, like if it implied you could actually choose what you are attracted to, which you can't.
That's not an issue about gay vs straight but male vs female, gay men could similarly be subjected to domestic abuse so it's men standing up for their fellow men. But you still wouldn't say you're 'proud to be straight' in that context, nor even 'proud to be male' because nobody says you should be ashamed to be male. It shows a double standard clearly, like if Jay-Z gets assaulted by his sister-in-law in an elevator it's a joke:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/jay-z-solange-elevator-fight-mocked-snl-article-1.1796878
If Ray Rice assaults his fiancee in an elevator, it's called horrific, he loses his job and is investigated by the FBI:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/ray-rice-punch-video_n_5783380.html
This is even though his fiancee married him afterwards and stood by him:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/09/us/ray-rice-nfl-janay-rice/
You can guarantee the same people who would label those differently are the same people who campaign for equality. People still have predefined roles and behaviours for genders engrained and scenarios like these brings those feelings to the surface.
What I notice a lot is how people fall back into stereotypes so easily and the media plays on this all the time. Whether it's issues of sexism, race, religion whatever, the media structures headlines to rile people up and get the clicks.
The media is picking out statements like 'proud to be gay' and 'thanking god for being gay' because they know people will react to those. If you glance at the ads around the sides of certain sites, you see the same kind of titles. They have titles like 'Warren Buffet indicator 50% stock collapse', 'she is 51, looks 25, dermatologists hate her', 'What the Bible says about money (shocking)', 'Stay At Home Mom Makes $4589/ Month on Google'. They are designed to make you react to them.
When you brush away the language in news headlines that makes you react to them, the stories behind the headlines are usually not intended to provoke. Tim Cook isn't being hostile to anyone here, he's not mocking anyone's religion, he's just saying that he's gay, he's not ashamed of it and he hopes that can be of comfort to other people like him.
Male homosexuality is a genetic defect It has no purpose in the evolution of the human specie.
Tim Cook isn't being hostile to anyone here, he's not mocking anyone's religion, he's just saying that he's gay, he's not ashamed of it and he hopes that can be of comfort to other people like him.
Male homosexuality is a genetic defect. It serves no evolutionary purpose. It is nothing to be ashamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of it either.