narcimund

RonD1120

We should know more soon, I hope.

It's tempting to read that as a tautology. But what makes it otherwise is that while most people do generally learn as time passes, there are in fact other people who do not.

Speaker's Corner was unusually interesting these last few weeks.

It's interesting to see RonD1120 drop his mask just for a second to confess that he fits even the tighter, dropzone.com/speakers-corner-adopted version of the definition of troll:

A) Posts solely or primarily to sow rancour and discord in a community
B) And intentional deception

It's unfortunate. There are (or have been) many intelligent, thoughtful, sincere people who are generous with their wide variety of viewpoints who have posted here. The conversation has sometimes had the potential to actually offer some learning and growth like a good Salon can. But those who wage trust-destroying behaviours sabotage that potential. Then with few exceptions those who live by higher standards drift away seeking better opportunities.

Speaking of all that, I've just reminded myself of something important.

You want extreme? This is extreme: Conlon Nancarrow's Study for Player Piano #21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2gVhBxwRqg

It's seemingly purely chaotic and quite difficult to listen to. But underneath the craziness he's exploring a simple, original musical idea. You'll maybe be tempted to give up early. But if you stick with it you'll probably get what he's up to about halfway through. Then you'll know it's worth the three minutes of effort to let him finish.

We rented the entire Moolack Shores Motel with 30 friends and family in all 12 rooms for the whole weekend. It was a few hundred meters north of the shadow's first landfall. Unbelievable amounts of shared food and wine. Kiting up and down the beach. Other hijinks I won't mention.

The weather kept me nervous up to the last second. There were entire minutes during the partial phase where nothing was visible. And the deepening cold created a thick fog. But when the moment came it was plenty clear enough. We got this picture through my telescope.

Quote

I made a stupid mistake and I embarrassed myself.

This is surely one of the most jaw-dropping Speaker's Corner posts in many, many years.

Three years ago I reserved a favourite coastal motel that we've been visiting for many years. It also happens to be the very first lodging under the shadow, 0.01 seconds after first landfall at Yaquina Head. We have all 12 rooms for 30 of our friends and family for the whole weekend.

I've been planning this for 38 years -- since the last one to come through Oregon when I was a young teenager and I hitchhiked to the Goldendale Observatory.

The chance of clear skies is favourable though far from certain. But time spent on the Oregon Coast is better than time spent anywhere else. Maybe it'll be the best show ever and maybe we'll just play on the beach with our friends for a couple of days before the clouds go dark for 2 minutes. Either way we're going to have a hell of a party!

Antonin Scalia: Dead at 79 of complications from chronic Argle Bargle exacerbated by an acute attack of Jiggery Pokery.

Amazon

Plenty of people can tell stories about Ted.. but I would caution people to use the axiom about "speaking ill of the dead" and not go there.

He ran a shady dump but the world needs some of those. I'm glad I made my first couple of hundred jumps at Sheridan.

Unfortunately I'm not a creative enough writer to retell any of the stories in a way that makes him look good.

Amazon

There have been a couple Dizzie Dot Commers representing for the team

Other married couples?

As the only one here* that this ruling actually applies to, I'd just like to say:

[#ff69b4]HOT [#fdd017]DA[#34dddd]MN[#7f00ff]!

* (As far as I know)

First Class Citizen Twice Over

grimmie

The GOP POTUS wanna be party bus will go on the anti gay "Bakers of Gay Wedding Cakes" hate tour across the heartland. Sarah Palin will rant incoherently about how this is a war on Christians. The yellers at Fox News will lose their minds, cuz you know, pedophiles. The TPNN, The Blaze, Breitbart, Conservativedaily, Weekly Standard and Newsmax will all blame Obama. And the comments under those articles will all be so hateful and poorly written that it will make you glad you live in Canuckistan. The rest of America will be tuning in to "The Bachelor" and the "Caitlyn Jenner Show" and not even know what is going on.

Well, that about says it all. I think that's the definitive answer to my question. Thanks everyone else for your contributions but I think we can all go home now.

cvfd1399

Like I said before make everyone equal as far as laws go, and quit making it the prime news spot.

As far as I can tell the amount of "making it the prime news spot" we've experienced is exactly HOW one makes it equal as far as laws go. It wasn't happening on its own.

Personally though I'm sympathetic to your complaint. I find gayness to be annoyingly prominent in the public forum. I don't mean gay people are too gay -- to each their own and bless anyone who throws glitter in their hair. What I mean is the number of commercially published news stories, opinion articles, organized religious arguments, and general political fuss -- on both sides of the divide -- is stupidly loud. Unfortunately this excess is probably necessary to make progress.

I would be very pleased if it dies down once gay marriage gets settled. And that's basically the question I posed in the OP. Will it die down or will the anti-gay side find ways to keep egging it on?

turtlespeed

There is too much fanatic religious fervor for there to be a loss of interest.

Can you say more about what you think would happen?

Soon we'll hear from the US Supreme Court about Obergefell v. Hodges which might just settle the federal gay marriage situation. There are several possible outcomes but the press seems to anticipate it will go wholly in favour of gay marriage.

I'm curious what people here anticipate the response from the other side might be if that's how it goes. The far right websites I browse for cultural voyeurism are full of sturm und drang. Hundreds and hundreds of thoughtfully written, credibly proofread articles written by seemingly sober people, some of whom are famous, have encouraged wild reactions from their readers. My poll responses are taken directly from these articles. These aren't just one-offs either. They keep coming, one after another, for months!

Are these people just hyperbolic cranks whose websites mimic being popular and organized? Or is there actually momentum to this apocalyptic movement? I don't live in the US any more so I don't get much first-hand information about what's going on down there.

Here in Canada gay marriage was debated 10 years ago, then when it was settled it immediately became yesterday's news. I work with the public from all regions of the country and I'm often asked about my family. I easily mention my husband. Nobody at all -- young, old, different ethnic origins, from small towns or cities, east or west -- even twitches their eye about it. My intuition is roughly the same thing would happen in the US but there's enough noise online to make me curious if the folks here have other views.

(By the way, I know I only post here about gay marriage politics these days, but it's really not an obsession. It's just kinda the last remaining topic in Speaker's Corner that interests me enough to post about.)

lawrocket

First is the idea that he actually made the choice to be straight instead of gay. Second is the implication that he could have been gay quite easily.

I don't believe the "gay is a choice" argument is represented correctly in this type of rebuttal. They're not saying that heterosexuals made the choice to be heterosexual.

Rather their position is that everyone is born heterosexual, but occasionally a few unfortunate souls make a regretable decision to abandon this default status to become homo. Nobody decides to become hetero (because everyone gets that for free at birth) but some people do decide later to convert to homo.

Therefore the standard jibe of, "When did you decide to become heterosexual?" is essentially attacking a strawman.

The111

While I applaud you for your honesty, the general statement "I don't know where x comes from and I don't care" isn't something that I would see a religious person ever saying. Religion exists as "the answer" to all of life's impossible questions.

Perhaps this is why people willfully fall into the trap of trying to prove biologicial causation. They suspect that if the meddlers believe that "God made homos gay" then the argument and political meddling would most likely disappear.

Although, the meddlers know that nobody can ever prove that point, which is probably why they stick to it as their main defense. Ironic, considering that the divine basis for their beliefs is also beyond proof.

I think you're right. Causation seems a firmer lever to press against. And I can't argue with the results. Society has swung hard in the direction I'd like them to. I just don't respect the argument that got them there very much.

Thanks for saying so. It's fun to think hard on a complex intertwined social and scientific issue and share some headway in understanding.

But I should also say that as much fun as it is to overthink all intullekshual about it, the way being gay mostly plays out for me is sharing a life with a wonderful guy, supporting each other's dreams, commiserating in setbacks, and with some regularity being frisky in bed. Or in the woods or a mountaintop. Or the pool table... against the refrigerator... in the hottub...

Hey! Now that I think of it that's also the same kinds of goals straight couples have.

Andy9o8

Quote

Claiming immutable genetic causation... accepts the presumption that homosexuality is inferior to the alternative.

I don't think that logically follows at all, nor have I heard it either expressed or implied as such, at least by people who support gay rights. But I understand your point.

I missed an important concept in my earlier reply to this. Only a lawyer could care but here we go:

I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing that "immutable genetic causation" implies that "homosexuality is inferior to the alternative". I find no connection between those two precepts.

Instead I'm arguing (and I should have been more careful with this nuanced phrasing) that engaging in the debate by countering the bigots' axiom that gayness is changeable tacitly accepts the bigots' OTHER axiom that gayness is morally wrong. The gay side is countering meddlers with, "Don't oppose our sex lives -- it's immutable so we can't help it." But that's inferior to, "Don't oppose our sex lives -- it's not a transgression so you have no legitimate interest."

Not only does it address the wrong aspect, the gay side has also let itself be cornered into an untenable position, claiming as fact a position that has not yet been teased out by science. That'll come back to bite them if science works out the origin(s) of gayness someday and gays picked the wrong side. That's a lot to bet on a complete unknown.

rehmwa

this applies to so many other aspects of everything in life. "I'm a victim of chance, please help me" vs "I'm an individual capable and willing to responsibly live my own life based on MY choices (or just plain how I am) and don't need or want any help, just respect that I'm my own boss and let me live my life as I see fit for me"

I think you're slipping into an unrelated rant. This is quite different. This is between "I'm a victim of chance but I'm stuck with it so leave me alone" vs "I'm an individual capable and willing to responsibly live my own life so leave me alone."

Both are defenses against busybodies who are actively attacking, not (as in your example) pleas for undeserved social assistance.

Andy9o8

Quote

Claiming immutable genetic causation... accepts the presumption that homosexuality is inferior to the alternative.

I don't think that logically follows at all, nor have I heard it either expressed or implied as such, at least by people who support gay rights. But I understand your point.

Yeah, I haven't heard it expressed either. I'm expressing it as my own view. I know it's sacrilege to have a non-partyline view but there you go.

I remember getting in an argument with the leader of a gay/lesbian group in college in roughly 1985. The two of us were about to get in front of an auditorium to educate the straight masses. At the last minute she discovered I wasn't prepared to assert that I just KNEW gayness was OBVIOUSLY genetic in basis. She made the same case you're making: people want to change us and our defense must be that we're unchangeable. I said my defense is different: my sexual orientation is nobody's lookout but my own. I wasn't invited back.

rehmwa

the whole one size fits all thing is really annoying

Absolutely! That points to yet another falsehood in the "innate" vs "choice" debate: that there's a singular answer.

To demand that gayness comes as a consequence of DNA is to claim there's only ONE way for a homosexual encounter to occur. This way of thinking denies the possibility that a kid might jerk off his buddy on a passing whim. Or that a woman could fall in love with her best lady friend just because they're so goddamn wonderful together. Or that I could mostly love men because I totally dig how they think and communicate and secondarily because their bodies are hot.

People are different and even when they're the same they get there by different paths.

Andy9o8

I think you're kidding yourself if you try to deny the linkage between "the causation issue" and people's attitudes

I didn't deny that there's a linkage in the minds of the meddlers. I don't know what spurious justifications they prop themselves up with, nor do I care.

See, the underlying axiom in this battle between "innate" and "choice" is that gayness is a transgression and the only excuse would be congenital inevitability. The implication is that gayness should be allowed only if gay people are victims of fate. I deny that whole mindset.

Claiming immutable genetic causation is a bullshit ploy in a number of ways. First, it's a made up claim of a fact of nature. Nobody knows if it's true. Second, it accepts the presumption that homosexuality is inferior to the alternative. I don't buy that.

I'm still not pretending I know where being gay comes from even if the meddlers could be dissuaded by it. I don't know where it comes from and I don't accept that it matters.

Andy9o8

Quote

So what if it's innate? So what if it's learned? So what if it's chosen on a whim?

This is so what:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+deprogramming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts

https://www.google.com/search?q=beating+the+gay+out+of+your+child&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts

Yeah, that's the consequence of meddlers feeling sexual orientation is malleable. But the problem isn't in the malleability of sexual orientation -- it's in the meddlesomeness.

I'm not going to pretend I can somehow mystically sense 'geneticness' to shut them down. The answer is it's none of their concern and they should butt out.

RonD1120

Quote

Innate sexual orientation...; it exists from birth.

There indeed is my hangup. I am going to spend some time with this subject. At this juncture, I do not believe it has been proven to be true.

I also have no idea if it's true but I don't see that it matters. So what if it's innate? So what if it's learned? So what if it's chosen on a whim? It's nobody's business regardless.