Gay Travel to Sochi, Russia or Yemen

[ibx 2]

Quote

seriously, you made an honest mistake based on not understanding the original meaning of a word that's not your native language, so totally understandable, and knee jerked to a crappy assumption about a reasonable poster here. Then one of the more PC, but also reasonable, members explains it nicely and politely to you.

your reaction - scramble and try to make it look like you did it on purpose with an even more direct insult to the original commenter

classy as hell

I'm sorry my reply was rather snappish. I apologize for the tone.
English is one of my native languages since I grew up speaking English and German. I even went to an English school for the first 6 years. As I tried to explain earlier, the law part of Davjohns post did not make in sense within the context of gay meaning what it used to mean.

What Davjohns wrote was rather strange...

[davjohns 1]

I meant passing laws to forbid people being happy seemed silly. Again, it was a pun.

As to being gay...

My son is gay. I never really questioned why. I think of it as a simple preference. It could be influenced by genetics, conditions in the womb, socialization, choices...I don't know. I never worried about it too much. In some ways, it makes sense. Guys understand each other pretty easily. Compared to the war between the sexes, it almost makes sense to choose someone of the same gender. Plenty of guys are emotionally closer to their male friends than to the women they have sex with.

I have certain preferences in a sexual partner. I don't know why. Nature or nurture? I couldn't say. Do I desire women because my genetics dictate it or because I was raised that way? I will never know. It's just the way I am and I'm fine with it.

So, it would be preposterous for me to say why someone else has the preferences they have. Some guys like a big girl. Some guys like a skinny girl. Some like blondes. Large breasts. Small breasts. Some like other guys. Some like whoever is available. How did that guy develop that preference? If I can't answer that question for myself, how can I begin to answer it for someone else?

I use the masculine in this discussion because I fully understand Lesbians. I'm always delightfully surprised that women want to have a male as a sexual partner. I've seen men in the locker room. Ugg!

In the end, it is none of my business. They aren't hurting anyone else. If you think they are violating God's law, then let God handle it. If He needs your help...well...in the words of the philosopher Hulk, "Puny god."

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rifleman 61]

^ this ^ +1000

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[ibx 2]

Very nice reply and the healthiest attitude towards the whole thing IMHO.

[rehmwa 2]

davjohns

I have certain preferences in a sexual partner. I don't know why. Nature or nurture? I couldn't say. Do I desire women because my genetics dictate it or because I was raised that way? I will never know. It's just the way I am and I'm fine with it.

HERE - good answer

instead of spending a load of time trying to rationalize positions (either way) with 'why', we'd all be better off just saying, "it doesn't matter, it just is", and accepting each other without being assholes or over the top, etc etc etc.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[toolbox 0]

[Andy9o8 0]

rehmwa

***I have certain preferences in a sexual partner. I don't know why. Nature or nurture? I couldn't say. Do I desire women because my genetics dictate it or because I was raised that way? I will never know. It's just the way I am and I'm fine with it.

HERE - good answer

instead of spending a load of time trying to rationalize positions (either way) with 'why', we'd all be better off just saying, "it doesn't matter, it just is", and accepting each other without being assholes or over the top, etc etc etc.

Bill, the reason I think it IS important is that assigning sexuality, especially homo-, to "nurture" results in a number of ill consequences. One is that it ascribes the BEING of homosexuality as programmable-in; thus, logically, it must also be programmable-OUT. This invites horrid abuse of homosexuals under the rationalization of (for example) "beating the gay out of them." Another is the rationalization of ostracizing or abusing homosexuals on the grounds that they have CHOSEN a state of BEING that is socially unacceptable. Either way, the consequence is abhorrent.

Millions - probably billions - of people living today are socialized to reject the attitude of "it doesn't matter, it just is". Ascribing homosexuality, even of some, to nurture, enables their intolerance, for it provides a viable soil to nurture it.

[rehmwa 2]

I disagree. Acceptance is an action that's requires just existing. Trying to control "how" people get to acceptance is counterproductive and ignores that people are different in how they process things.



an aside - Also, if a human is being mistreated, the problem is the abuser, making the focus on the innocent is just not attacking the real problem. (example: bullying is wrong, the problem is the bully, the problem is not whether he's picking on smaller boys, nerds, a gay kid, sick kids, shy kids, or otherwise - the status of the victim is NOT the issue. Your approach is not problem focused, is a social statement that leaves out other innocents. Take away the desire for that jerk to attack one group, and he just moves to another group.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

Andy9o8

******I have certain preferences in a sexual partner. I don't know why. Nature or nurture? I couldn't say. Do I desire women because my genetics dictate it or because I was raised that way? I will never know. It's just the way I am and I'm fine with it.

HERE - good answer

instead of spending a load of time trying to rationalize positions (either way) with 'why', we'd all be better off just saying, "it doesn't matter, it just is", and accepting each other without being assholes or over the top, etc etc etc.

Bill, the reason I think it IS important is that assigning sexuality, especially homo-, to "nurture" results in a number of ill consequences. One is that it ascribes the BEING of homosexuality as programmable-in; thus, logically, it must also be programmable-OUT. This invites horrid abuse of homosexuals under the rationalization of (for example) "beating the gay out of them." Another is the rationalization of ostracizing or abusing homosexuals on the grounds that they have CHOSEN a state of BEING that is socially unacceptable. Either way, the consequence is abhorrent.

Millions - probably billions - of people living today are socialized to reject the attitude of "it doesn't matter, it just is". Ascribing homosexuality, even of some, to nurture, enables their intolerance, for it provides a viable soil to nurture it.

I see your point. And it's a good one. The problem those people still have to overcome in my mind is this...why is it a problem? Even if it is nurture, that's the way they are. If they are happy, who are you to tell them that they must change?

For the record, I think both nature and nurture are involved in various people to various degrees. There is no one answer. I could be wrong. Hard to prove one way or another until someone finds the 'gay' gene.

If pinning a yellow flower in your lapel every morning makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else, I really don't care if someone else thinks god decreed it to be wrong.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

If pinning a yellow flower in your lapel every morning makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else, I really don't care if someone else thinks god decreed it to be wrong.

That's all fine and good, until people decide that yelow-flower-lapellers don't have the same rights as red-flower-lapelers.

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

Great.
Now you've offended those of us that don't believe in ribbons.

[davjohns 1]

DanG

Quote

If pinning a yellow flower in your lapel every morning makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else, I really don't care if someone else thinks god decreed it to be wrong.

That's all fine and good, until people decide that yelow-flower-lapellers don't have the same rights as red-flower-lapelers.

Pretty much my point. If it isn't hurting anyone, it's not your business what your neighbor does. By extrapolation, it is not society's / government's business.

In my head, I just reverse things. You want homosexual sex to be illegal and you are in the majority? Okie doke. What are you going to do when those who want to make heterosexual sex illegal become the majority? What if they reach majority status and require it?

Let's make a deal; no mattter who is in the majority, let's keep laws out of each other's lives when nobody is being harmed by the underlying conduct. In the long run, I think we'll all be better.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Nelyubin 0]

rickjump1

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-olympics-usa-travel-warning-idUSBREA091BN20140110 " It also highlighted a Russian law, much criticized by rights groups, that would make it a crime to publicly promote the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."

Staff at the U.S. State Department does not know the law.
The law has no such proposals. In the law there is no such sense.
The law prohibits the promotion of a minor.

[rehmwa 2]

davjohns

Let's make a deal; no mattter who is in the majority, let's keep laws out of each other's lives when nobody is being harmed by the underlying conduct. In the long run, I think we'll all be better.

WHAT? Crazy talk.

You mean people are "allowed" to have different opinions on subjects and we don't worry about it unless they act to force it on others?

Now you're clearly nuts. How am I supposed to make people think like me?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,145]

rehmwa

***Let's make a deal; no mattter who is in the majority, let's keep laws out of each other's lives when nobody is being harmed by the underlying conduct. In the long run, I think we'll all be better.

WHAT? Crazy talk.

You mean people are "allowed" to have different opinions on subjects and we don't worry about it unless they act to force it on others?

Now you're clearly nuts. How am I supposed to make people think like me?

Nobody is harmed by driving through a red light. There is already a law against hitting somebody else with your car.
Clearly most traffic laws can be scrapped.
Nobody being harmed by me driving 200mph
Nobody being harmed by me not having my headlights on at night
Etc etc.

The thought is wonderfully utopian though.

[rickjump1 0]

Nelyubin

***http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-olympics-usa-travel-warning-idUSBREA091BN20140110 " It also highlighted a Russian law, much criticized by rights groups, that would make it a crime to publicly promote the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."

Staff at the U.S. State Department does not know the law.
The law has no such proposals. In the law there is no such sense.
The law prohibits the promotion of a minor. OK, "the U.S. State Department does not know the law" (nothing new here), but can you agree that there is a crackdown on gays in Russia? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[davjohns 1]

SkyDekker

******Let's make a deal; no mattter who is in the majority, let's keep laws out of each other's lives when nobody is being harmed by the underlying conduct. In the long run, I think we'll all be better.

WHAT? Crazy talk.

You mean people are "allowed" to have different opinions on subjects and we don't worry about it unless they act to force it on others?

Now you're clearly nuts. How am I supposed to make people think like me?

Nobody is harmed by driving through a red light. There is already a law against hitting somebody else with your car.
Clearly most traffic laws can be scrapped.
Nobody being harmed by me driving 200mph
Nobody being harmed by me not having my headlights on at night
Etc etc.

The thought is wonderfully utopian though.

Sigh...

OK, Mr. Pickypoo. How about, "If nobody is reasonably going to be endangered by the conduct?"

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jclalor 12]

When ever I read the post of the couple of homophobes that post here, I just chuckle and think back to this:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

***You mean people are "allowed" to have different opinions on subjects and we don't worry about it unless they act to force it on others?

Nobody is harmed by driving through a red light. There is already a law against hitting somebody else with your car.
Clearly most traffic laws can be scrapped.
Nobody being harmed by me driving 200mph
Nobody being harmed by me not having my headlights on at night
Etc etc.

The thought is wonderfully utopian though.

Yeah - instead of accepting each other as being different, we need to do whatever it takes to force people to think the same...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rickjump1 0]

jclalor

When ever I read the post of the couple of homophobes that post here, I just chuckle and think back to this:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

It was closer to vomiting for me watching 2 guys butt fuck each other on some porno film somebody slipped in the projector at college.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Nelyubin 0]

rickjump1

******http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-olympics-usa-travel-warning-idUSBREA091BN20140110 " It also highlighted a Russian law, much criticized by rights groups, that would make it a crime to publicly promote the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."

Staff at the U.S. State Department does not know the law.
The law has no such proposals. In the law there is no such sense.
The law prohibits the promotion of a minor. OK, "the U.S. State Department does not know the law" (nothing new here), but can you agree that there is a crackdown on gays in Russia? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Please read in the original law.
http://www.rg.ru/2013/06/30/deti-site-dok.html

Quote

Promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among minors , expressed in the dissemination of information aimed at developing unconventional sexual juvenile facilities, attractiveness of unconventional sexual relationships, distorted notions of social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relations , or the imposition of information on non-traditional sexual relationships , causing interest in such relations ,

Do not use gossip.

[davjohns 1]

I could argue all day about the meaning of 'unconventional sex" and "traditional sex". I'm pretty sure that since man has existed, someone has been putting his tackle into anyplace warm and wet. It takes no great imagination to think that early women were likely used by males and sought comfort from each other.

I think those are nice euphamisms for a type of sexual majority rule. I wonder if laws like that would still garner enough votes to pass if they were quite clear that blow-jobs carried a death sentence? I obviously have no way of knowing, but I think in today's world, most sexually active people have at least tried oral and/or anal sex. So, it is unlikely they are trying to outlaw the actual act. They are just trying to regulate who you can perform it with...without coming out and saying so.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Um yeah, your translations basically says what the poster above claimed:

Quote

It also highlighted a Russian law, much criticized by rights groups, that would make it a crime to publicly promote the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Although, to be fair, it is not a crime to promote their equality as people, just the equality of their lifestyle. Also, just talking about how being gay is not so bad would be covered under:

Quote

distorted notions of social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relations , or the imposition of information on non-traditional sexual relationships

Saying that it only counts when children are in the room is bullshit and everyone knows it.

- Dan G

[Nelyubin 0]

Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.
Obvious.
No need to lie about social equivalence of such relations.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

My heterosexual marriage has produced no offspring, nor can it. So same-sex relationships are equivalent to my relationship. Should I not be allowed to talk about my marriage in front of children?

- Dan G