Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Nurvingiel]

Pedophilia is not an orientation because sexual orientation has to do with gender (yours and the people you're attracted to) and not age.

Group marriage, polygamy, and polygyny also are also not orientations, even though I don't have a problem with them, unlike pedophilia.

[inked]

Ahhhh, reverse discrimination is NOT good, GLBT'S!!!!!!

GAY BARS GIVEN A STRAIGHT ULTIMATUM (really, that's the title)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...058989,00.html

Interesting how the law is a two-edged sword, isn't it?
===============================================

On the other hand, getting the government to pay for homosexuality education isn't going down to well in NC:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=3079

and, commentary: http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.c...nky-winky.html

The latter is worth a look for logo for the Governor's Seminar. Does it or does it not spell GAY?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Desires that come from genes are not going to change due to any program, yet since change in desire is apparent, so desire does not come from genes.

Well of course desire comes from genes. Where else would it come from? We are all programmed to desire. It helps keep the numbers up. Now WHO you desire may be effected by a wide variety of factors SOME of which are certainly genetic. But just because something may have a basis in our genes doesnt mean its impossible to restrict it or deny it. We do that every day with other urges and instincts.

Furthermore, even if you outright reject any notion that there is a genetic factor involved in homosexuality, we do know that IMPRINTING plays a specific roll in who we are attracted to. And imprinting is a process that hardwires a trait or a disposition into us such that it may as well be genetic. It has been shown to be as hard to reverse and ignore as any genetic predisposition would be. So the notion that as long as theres not some gay gene then things can easily be changed is erroneous.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Thanks for a great response, Jonathon . I'm afraid I'm going onto break from this thread for a while, so I won't have much more to offer until I return.

Thank you for your response! Enjoy your break

Just some quick replies:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Studies, unless demonstrated to be invalid or insufficient for some reason, are a valid form of evidence.

Maybe there's only a small difference in nuance but I'd rather say studies, unless demonstrated to be valid and sufficient, should not be considered proof. Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Though there are often noticeable trends in family lifestyles that exist in the vast majority of homosexuals, according to Exodus International. Abuse and poor relationships with parents are common among homosexuals.

Trends in families? Sounds like it could be a genetic thing then Anyway, one could ask oneself whether homosexuality is a result of poor relationships with parents or if the poor relationships are due to the offspring's homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The nonexistant average bisexual person would be evenly inclined toward both genders, not toward neither, I should think.

I agree that it doesn't seem unlikely. However, as I stated earlier, it would sometimes be hard to define who is bisexual and who is not. If a married man (married to a woman) with kids turned out to be latently homosexual, would he qualify as a bisexual? Because evidently, his wife must have successfully made him excited at some point since they have kids (unless there was adoption or insemination involved).
What I'm trying to say is that heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are nothing but words made up by humans to simplify things. Sexual orientations may be too difuse to be so easily classified.
Just think that's good to have in mind.

Originally Posted by inked

Ahhhh, reverse discrimination is NOT good, GLBT'S!!!!!!

GAY BARS GIVEN A STRAIGHT ULTIMATUM (really, that's the title)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...058989,00.html

Interesting how the law is a two-edged sword, isn't it?

To me, it's a matter of course that gay bars should be opened to people of any sexual orientation, just like ordinary bars should be. But how many heteros would go to a gay bar anyway?

Inked, did you have a point in bringing this up or was it just one of your regular articles? It's not like being "pro-gay" automatically makes you like the idea of "reverse discrimination".

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Maybe there's only a small difference in nuance but I'd rather say studies, unless demonstrated to be valid and sufficient, should not be considered proof. Do you agree?

Decidedly yes.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Trends in families? Sounds like it could be a genetic thing then Anyway, one could ask oneself whether homosexuality is a result of poor relationships with parents or if the poor relationships are due to the offspring's homosexuality.

A point Lady Marion brought up earlier. I responded to her.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I agree that it doesn't seem unlikely. However, as I stated earlier, it would sometimes be hard to define who is bisexual and who is not. If a married man (married to a woman) with kids turned out to be latently homosexual, would he qualify as a bisexual? Because evidently, his wife must have successfully made him excited at some point since they have kids (unless there was adoption or insemination involved).
What I'm trying to say is that heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are nothing but words made up by humans to simplify things. Sexual orientations may be too difuse to be so easily classified.

That makes sense to me. I'll have to do research before saying I agree, though.

I'm going now . Wizard of Milan and IR, sorry for not getting back to you now.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Trends in families? Sounds like it could be a genetic thing then

I believe he means that among homosexuals, those things are found to be present in a higher percentage that in the general population.

Your point after that is a good one, though, IMO.


SO - any comments on the Exodus conference, where both sides really were kind and considerate to each other and therefore able to communicate? I think it was great.

[Nurvingiel]

I would totally go to a gay bar.
How could you even tell if someone was straight to ban them anyway? Or what if a bisexual guy was there with his girlfriend? Would bisexuals be banned too?
I'm glad discrimination based on sexual orientation, in all forms, is legislated against.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well of course desire comes from genes. Where else would it come from? We are all programmed to desire. It helps keep the numbers up. Now WHO you desire may be effected by a wide variety of factors SOME of which are certainly genetic. But just because something may have a basis in our genes doesnt mean its impossible to restrict it or deny it. We do that every day with other urges and instincts.

Furthermore, even if you outright reject any notion that there is a genetic factor involved in homosexuality, we do know that IMPRINTING plays a specific roll in who we are attracted to. And imprinting is a process that hardwires a trait or a disposition into us such that it may as well be genetic. It has been shown to be as hard to reverse and ignore as any genetic predisposition would be. So the notion that as long as theres not some gay gene then things can easily be changed is erroneous.

I'm not really sure what makes a person gay, but the point is you can't change that part of yourself. There's a lot we don't know about the human brain, but I don't really care what makes people gay. Your sexuality is a part of you, and it is alright.

You can change who you date or marry, but you can't actually change your sexuality.

I could start dating women, and I could even marry a women. But that wouldn't make me a lesbian. I would still be heterosexual no matter what I did.

[Nurvingiel]

This thread went to a gay bar, so it didn't update with my previous post.

[Rían]

the gay bar thing (denying people who "look" like hets) reminds me of something I heard when watching some Mardi Gras coverage. The reporter was talking about a club there that was for African American men. Just made me sad that if there was a club for Caucasian men, I imagine it would get picketed and there would be all sorts of outcry against it. This world is sad.

(and yes, I understand why the double standard is there, but it still makes me sad)

[Nurvingiel]

According to the article, some clubs would ask people questions about the local gay scene if they thought they were het, and if they couldn't answer the questions with a certain about of knowledge, then they'd be denied entry. To that I say, eh what?

I totally agree with you Ri.

I don't like reverse-discrimination either Jon. Actually, I don't think anyone has expressed that they do like it in this thread.

It's still discrimination and fortifies an "us versus them" attitude.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Inked, did you have a point in bringing this up or was it just one of your regular articles? It's not like being "pro-gay" automatically makes you like the idea of "reverse discrimination".

Yes, Inked; what exactly WAS your point bringing up this article? So, reverse discrimination exists. It exists on many different levels, there's blacks-only, whites-only, punks-only, bikers-only, and etcetera kinds of bars and clubs, just in Hollywood alone. And?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Just made me sad that if there was a club for Caucasian men, I imagine it would get picketed and there would be all sorts of outcry against it.

Why in the world would that make you sad?

[Rían]

because African-American men can have an exclusive club and it is "celebrated", and Caucasian men can't, without IMO an extremely high likelihood of it being villified.

Don't you think that's wrong?

(And yes, I recognize the background behind why one is celebrated and one isn't - what I think is sad is that the background even existed and thus causes double standards. )

[Insidious Rex]

Wait... where is it legal to have a single race only public establishment in this country?

[Lotesse]

I have no idea, but whether or not it's legal really doesn't make a difference. It's not like a club posts a large sign out front that says White Punk Skinheads Only, or African American Blacks Only, or Crips Only, or Bloods Only, for that matter , or Gays Only, or White-Collar Perfectly Dressed Beverly Hiltonites Only, but hey - guess what? Such places are in abundance all over town. So? Big deal. If certain groups want their own kind only around them, then great. It's when the Beverly Hiltonite suddenly wants to go to a Crips Only bar, or a Skinhead suddenly gets and urge to pop into a Israeli themed bar, or - you get the idea - that then there's problems. That's life.

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Skinhead suddenly gets and urge to pop into a Israeli themed bar

Hah, what fun that would be to watch. I'd pay for tickets!

[Insidious Rex]

Well as long as we are clear its not currently legal in this country to have a whites ONLY or blacks ONLY bar. Now what some clubs will do is discriminate based on clothing which is generally upheld in a court of law. This is generally used to keep out the scrubs and the low lifes to the snotty bling bling clubs that everyone wants to be seen at (for some reason) and there is no real breakdown by race (if you are good looking and can bring in chicks you can come in). But in some southern cities, especially New Orleans, there are places that will discriminate against say baggie clothes and big chains and traditional black (thug?) was of dressing. They have gotten in trouble because they sometimes let white folks in dressed exactly the same as the black folks they wont let in. This is why you see "black only" clubs but they arent really black only. You can bet youll find a decent number of good looking white girls in these "black only" clubs because they bring in more business to the club. And they will let a white guy in if he really wants to come in. Now as to if he will get quick service well...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Wait... where is it legal to have a single race only public establishment in this country?

I don't know. All I know is that I was watching some Mardi Gras coverage on TV, and the guy pointed out someone who was wearing distinctive clothing and said something like, "And there's a member of [club name, which I forget], a long-standing club in New Orleans for African-American men."

That's what I heard, and it was said as, "Oh, isn't that interesting?" instead of "How DARE they have a club based on a person's race?!?!" And to me, that seemed to be a double-standard.

[Insidious Rex]

Are you talking about a Margi Gras club? Like a Crew?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Yes, Inked; what exactly WAS your point bringing up this article? So, reverse discrimination exists. It exists on many different levels, there's blacks-only, whites-only, punks-only, bikers-only, and etcetera kinds of bars and clubs, just in Hollywood alone. And?

O the tiresome lobby is at meaningful questioning, is it?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gay bars given a straight ultimatum
David Cracknell, Political Editor

GAY clubs will risk prosecution if they deny entry to heterosexual customers under new laws intended to protect homosexuals from discrimination.
Under regulations to be published next month it will be illegal for a gay bar or nightclub to exclude anyone on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The full implications of the new law have caused alarm among gay rights activists, who are surprised at the perverse effects of a measure they believed would advance their civil rights.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) The title of the article was priceless.
2) These are public bars, not private clubs.
3) Equality under the law means that someone can shove their heterosexuality in your face with the same equanimity as non-heterosexuals go about shoving theirs in everyone else's.
4) Gay bars have better male dancers and you don't have to be gay to dance (experentia docet), but who should choreograph your next appearance on the dance floor?
5)The irony was superb.
6)Some orientations are more equal than others in their own eyes and so deserve special treatment: "We can go to yours but you can't come to ours."
7) Could a bouncer reliably tell one's orientation or would it be solely an external characterization based on stereotypes?
8) Is Hollywood in England, Lotesse?

Really, though, the last sentence says it all. The law was thought to have one purpose in the gay activist mind, but turned out to be a double-edged sword. That was the point, Lotesse and Jonathan. Equality often means equality, not what one group has envisioned. And, I must admit, that the use of the word perverse still has me smiling in amusement at the writer's audacity.