[subego]

Because "I don’t know if you have ever been to one, but they wear these little Speedos and they grind against each other and it’s just a terrible thing".

As the Republican candidate for Governor of New York puts it, along with the direct question to Matt Lauer whether he would bring his kids to one. Lauer didn't answer.

The kids are relevant because his opponent brought his daughters (one is 12 and two are 14 I believe) to be with him in last summer's parade.

So, what age is okay? I'm especially interested in the answers from people who wouldn't go to one on their own (though everyone can play).

[Big Mac]

It is clearly inappropriate for parents to bring children to such events. Parents can impart values about homosexuality to their children without dragging them to the vile spectacles that gay pride parades appear to be (IMO). If you look at the pictures of Cuomo and his daughters, the kids appear to be embarrassed being there and seeing their father parade around moronically with the gay flag. But then again, perhaps Cuomo wants to come out of the closet himself.

Maybe it's a bit different if a parent has an ostensibly gay child, but even then the parent can impart his or her values on that child without going to gay pride parades. It's just obviously inappropriate, and it seems to me that Cuomo was pandering to the homosexual vote just as much as the Republican guy was pandering to the conservative vote with his speech to the Hassidic synagogue.

If a young person wants to go gay parading (whether straight, gay or whatever), let the kid on his or her own at 16 or older. It's no place for parents to drag their kids to, as far as I'm concerned.

[subego]

When do you consider someone to no longer be a child?

Would you forbid them from going if they asked?

[ghporter]

I think it depends on the tone of the parade. If it's a parade with the sort of overt sexuality described, then I don't think anyone under about 16 should attend (below 12 or so and they would be horribly confused, between 12 and 16 they would be quite embarrassed - and more confused).

On the other hand, if it's more a bunch of people dressing up silly, cross dressing, holding hands (and maybe kissing) members of the same sex, that's far less problematic. The thing is, I don't know of any place where such a relatively sedate gay pride parade would be held. Certainly not in Austin-it's still quite warm and conducive to speedo wearing and over-the-top behavior.

Of course the pride organizations could do something to make their events more family-friendly, or at least hold a parallel event that is more restrained.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

When do you consider someone to no longer be a child?

By secular standards, 18 (which is the simple answer), and at that age if they really feel compelled to go parents should not stop them. But really, below 18 nearly all kids are far too immature to be capable of consistently making prudent decisions in an adult context. They're prone to making rash decisions and being susceptible to peer/group pressure. Even 18 is very young, but it's considered adulthood in most legal senses, so it makes sense to apply that standard.

Note when I refer to adolescents making rash choices and being susceptible to peer pressure, I'm not implying that a gay pride parade has any great potential to turn a kid gay - I think that's highly unlikely. On the other hand, I can't completely rule it out, either. While I think that for the vast majority of humanity, sexual orientation is probably hard wired from birth, I think there is definite albeit slim potential for children who would otherwise grow up to be heterosexuals to be "turned gay" if they are influenced by homosexuality at a formative point in development. However, I have to assume such cases are rare, but I've seen evidence that makes me think it can happen.

Would you forbid them from going if they asked?

No, but speaking from a personal POV, I have to be honest that if I am blessed with children in the future, the upbringing I will provide for them will preclude them from ever asking me permission to go to a gay pride parade. I'll raise them from an early age with the knowledge that boys and girls grow up, get married to one another (man and woman) and make new families. And while I'll teach them about the existence of homosexuals, I will not characterize it as a valid alternative orientation/lifestyle. I will teach them not to hate or scorn the sinner but also not to approve of the sin (and when I say sin I'm talking primarily about one specific sexual sin) or the lifestyle that leads to it. No personal offense meant to anyone here, but that's my view.

[Oisín]

Of course the pride organizations could do something to make their events more family-friendly, or at least hold a parallel event that is more restrained.

Many Pride Parades actually do have ‘family events’ or even ‘family areas’ with playgrounds and more family-oriented activities (no, that’s not a euphemism!).

I think it depends on the tone of the parade. If it's a parade with the sort of overt sexuality described, then I don't think anyone under about 16 should attend (below 12 or so and they would be horribly confused, between 12 and 16 they would be quite embarrassed - and more confused).

More than this, it depends on the parents and the children. I have attended the San Francisco Pride Parade (not exactly one of the ‘tamer’ ones) together with a father (a MacNN member, even) who brought both his children along. They were, if memory serves, 7 and 9 years old. They had a blast, thought it was great fun, and were both impatient to get the next turn in sitting on dad’s shoulder to be able to see anything. But then again, they’re very mature, open, tolerant kids, and without actually knowing for sure, I would guess their parents had, by that time, already told them what sex was, and why it’s perfectly harmless if approached properly.

I haven’t participated in too many different Pride Parades (San Francisco, Copenhagen, and Dublin only), but in my experience, the Copenhagen one has far more children participating than others: there are lots and lots of parents (gay and straight) who bring their children (of all ages) along, and thus far I’ve never seen any children appear to be anything but happy and enjoying themselves. Sexual or not, it’s still a parade with lots of colours and happy people dressed up in funny costumes. So basically, I disagree almost entirely with what Big Mac says—I think bringing your kids along from a very young age is a good and healthy way to associate (homo)sexuality with something positive and funny, rather than something that needs to be made into a taboo by restricting it to the very private sphere.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'll raise them from an early age with the knowledge that boys and girls grow up, get married and make new families.

This in and of itself doesn't seem like it would preclude them from asking. Judging by the number of infants I've seen at these things, plenty of people there are following this exact plan.

Though perhaps in a bit more of a meandering fashion than you imagine for your kids.

[Big Mac]

Okay, I anticipated that type of response and clarified things in an early edit to that post.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

So basically, I disagree almost entirely with what Big Mac says—I think bringing your kids along from a very young age is a good and healthy way to associate (homo)sexuality with something positive and funny, rather than something that needs to be made into a taboo by restricting it to the very private sphere.

Far enough. We have very different values. The basic disagreement is that I don't think homosexuality should be shown as either positive or funny. In my very honest opinion it's not a positive thing, and it's not a funny thing, unless you're talking about homosexual behavior being "funny" from a vantage point of irony and ridicule.

I have a substantial amount of tolerance for homosexuals, to the extent that I believe consenting adults in liberal democracies have the liberty to live their lives with other consenting adults and to interact in private with them in ways they wish as long as they aren't violating each other's or others' rights. I personally strongly disapprove especially of male homosexual sex, finding highly disgusting, but I don't have a say as to what other people do in their private lives.

I personally believe that the moral fabric of society was harmed considerably by the social movements of the '60s-'70s, although please don't misunderstand me - a lot of good came out of that era as well. But I think that in terms of sexuality, heterosexuals and homosexuals both screwed things up at that time by being far too free with themselves. The very functional forms of modesty and self-restraint that served society very well went out the window at that time, and my mother who is of that generation agrees that society was not well served by it. Casual and promiscuous sexual behavior and having children before marriage was taboo before that era, and society was much better off, at least narrowly in that regard back then. Sexuality in its proper context is a holy thing, but prostitution and other explicit, illicit forms of sexual behavior are profane and neither children nor society at large benefit from such openness.

Children are not well served by being sexualized early on, but if they're going to be exposed to that aspect of life at early ages it's far, far preferable to expose them to heterosexuality. Yes, homosexuals are a part of the world. There's a lot of human conduct in the world that I dislike and would prefer to shelter my children from, to varying extents depending on age and xontext.

For those who disagree with me, do you think it would make any sense to have a heterosexual pride parade? Because aside from the quantitative reality of heterosexuality being the way of most of the world, if it's good to expose kids to oblique or direct forms of sexuality why not have both kinds of pride parades?

[Oisín]

The basic disagreement is that I don't think homosexuality should be shown as either positive or funny.

Fair enough as far as disagreements go—but note that I said “associated with”, not “shown as”. I was referring specifically to child-rearing here, and the value of associating something with either good or bad experiences/feelings/things, in order to allow the children to naturally shape an appropriate attitude towards it; rather than necessarily presenting something as being either good or bad.

I agree with you that homosexuality in itself is neither ‘positive’ or ‘funny’ (though not negative or unfunny, either)—it just is. What I do consider positive (which I also think you’ll agree with) is that our societies allows it to be, also in the public sphere, rather than prohibiting or preventing it, like so many societies unfortunately still do.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

For those who disagree with me, do you think it would make any sense to have a heterosexual pride parade? Because aside from the quantitative reality of heterosexuality being the way of most of the world, if it's good to expose kids to oblique or direct forms of sexuality why not have both kinds of pride parades?

If it was the more family oriented things Oisín was talking about, I think that would be a good thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'll raise them from an early age with the knowledge that boys and girls grow up, get married to one another (man and woman) and make new families. And while I'll teach them about the existence of homosexuals, I will not characterize it as a valid alternative orientation/lifestyle. I will teach them not to hate or scorn the sinner but also not to approve of the sin (and when I say sin I'm talking primarily about one specific sexual sin) or the lifestyle that leads to it. No personal offense meant to anyone here, but that's my view.

Fair enough. What would you do, though, if your child still ended up gay, either by choice or by genetics? Would you continue to accept your child for who they are or choose to be, or would you disown that child?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Fair enough as far as disagreements go—but note that I said “associated with”, not “shown as”. I was referring specifically to child-rearing here, and the value of associating something with either good or bad experiences/feelings/things, in order to allow the children to naturally shape an appropriate attitude towards it; rather than necessarily presenting something as being either good or bad.

I understand where you're going, but I have to say I don't agree there. I think harm can be done to children if parents have too accepting an attitude toward homosexuality. Or, to put it another way, I think that if one's goal is to have a gay child, one should be very open and tolerant of homosexuality. If one wants to minimize the chance of that, it's important to set normative boundaries that promote traditional gender types and heterosexuality. I've seen anecdotal evidence that points to such notions being true.

What I do consider positive (which I also think you’ll agree with) is that our societies allows it to be, also in the public sphere, rather than prohibiting or preventing it, like so many societies unfortunately still do.

I agree that it's positive not to repress homosexuals, and I'm fine with it being in the public sphere in the United States and many other liberal democracies, but I don't think children should be directly exposed to it. Yes, it exists, and that's okay - I personally believe it's G-d's will that it exists - but that doesn't mean it's good for kids to be immersed in it.

If you believe there's such a thing as sexual trauma that children can suffer, then you have to grant me that there's a potential for children to be traumatized by certain forms of exposure to sexuality, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Fair enough. What would you do, though, if your child still ended up gay, either by choice or by genetics? Would you continue to accept your child for who they are or choose to be, or would you disown that child?

CH"V, AFAIK I would not disown a child, but depending on behavior it could very seriously strain a relationship. I'd try to get the best help and counseling possible for the child, and it would be a very difficult thing for me to handle. Hypothetically I'd fault myself for doing something wrong. It would not be pleasant at all, but at a certain point I'd accept it as G-d's will.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

For those who disagree with me, do you think it would make any sense to have a heterosexual pride parade? Because aside from the quantitative reality of heterosexuality being the way of most of the world, if it's good to expose kids to oblique or direct forms of sexuality why not have both kinds of pride parades?

I agree that Gay Pride parades are far too explicit for a public event. I don't think they do any good for growing tolerance of homosexuals and I think the overt sexuality of the events sends the message that homosexuality is all about sex. If there were a Heterosexual Pride parade that were equally explicit, it would likely get shut down (outside of New Orleans).

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I agree that Gay Pride parades are far too explicit for a public event. I don't think they do any good for growing tolerance of homosexuals and I think the overt sexuality of the events sends the message that homosexuality is all about sex. If there were a Heterosexual Pride parade that were equally explicit, it would likely get shut down (outside of New Orleans).

I would hope not. I’d have nothing against a heterosexual Pride Parade, and if such a thing were to be shut down for being too explicit, that would be hypocrisy of the highest rank.

If you believe there's such a thing as sexual trauma that children can suffer, then you have to grant me that there's a potential for children to be traumatized by certain forms of exposure to sexuality, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual.

Absolutely. I just don’t think people in swimming trunks dancing and showing some relatively intimate physical contact (hugging, kissing) should be enough to cause any kind of trauma for a child. If it does, I’d say it’s a sign that child has been brought up in an unhealthily repressive atmosphere where one’s body is something to hide away and be ashamed of, rather than something to accept and live with as a natural part of oneself.

I would agree completely that something like Dore Alley (warning: be prepared for explicit imagery if you don’t know what this is and Google it) would be a very inappropriate place to bring a child. That’s very explicitly sexual and sex-oriented, and to someone whose sexual identity is only just forming or beginning to form, it might well cause emotional trauma and/or confusion.

Pride Parades, though, are parties. Parties where sexuality just happens to be one of the basic constituents, yes—but first and foremost, they’re parties, celebrations of life and its diversity; and they are usually not, in my experience, directly/overtly/explicitly sexual enough to cause any kind of emotional stress or trauma in anyone who’s been brought up with a healthy attitude towards their own biological selves.

(What’s “CH"V”?!)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

and when I say sin I'm talking primarily about one specific sexual sin

If you're referring to what I think you are, you may be surprised to know there's a fair number of homosexual males who aren't into that.

Of course, there's a bunch of heterosexuals who are. Is the gravity of this transgression (from a religious standpoint) different for them? I'm honestly curious.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

(What’s “CH"V”?!)

Since you asked, it's an anglicized form of a Hebrew abbreviation. It translates as Heaven Forbid.

(Responded to subego by PM - don't want to get NSFW)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Pride Parades, though, are parties. Parties where sexuality just happens to be one of the basic constituents, yes—but first and foremost, they’re parties, celebrations of life and its diversity; and they are usually not, in my experience, directly/overtly/explicitly sexual enough to cause any kind of emotional stress or trauma in anyone who’s been brought up with a healthy attitude towards their own biological selves.

I think this is what it's supposed to be, but a lot of politics gets tied-up in it, and that's where things get problematic. As a form of resistance, you have people dialing their sexuality up to 11.

Now, I think the need for resistance is completely legitimate, but I don't think using sexuality as a weapon like that is particularly healthy for anyone involved.

[smacintush]

I don't approve of the behavior during these events, so I wouldn't attend at all thus I wouldn't be "bringing" them. Also, since I don't approve I wouldn't be allowing them to go so long as they were still under my care.

This has nothing to do with some notion of "sexualizing" or "damaging" them in any way. The very idea that attending an event like this once or twice would somehow harm a child is ludicrous. You don't destroy the influence of their genetics and upbringing by going to a parade. It also has nothing to do with any objection to homosexuality, I have no such objections.

It has to do with the specific behaviors and activities that go on at these things. This isn't the kind of behavior we should be condoning in public IMO.

I believe it is wrong to do something that is or would appear to be supportive of something that I disapprove of. Attending such a spectacle…unless I were protesting (which I would never do)…is in effect, support and it is for this reason I would not go or allow my children to go.

[ort888]

I'm just going to lock my child in a pumpkin until he is 34.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'm just going to lock my child in a pumpkin until he is 34.

Good luck finding a self-expanding pumpkin big enough to house a 34-year-old.

It has to do with the specific behaviors and activities that go on at these things. This isn't the kind of behavior we should be condoning in public IMO.

Might I ask what behaviours and activities you mean, exactly, and why they shouldn’t be condoned in public?

[ort888]

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[ghporter]

I've seen some pretty "hot and heavy" behaviors among straight couples (and more) at certain events. I agree that certain specific behaviors are not appropriate in public - to be specific, particularly active sexual behaviors. But I don't see a difference in quality or appropriateness between straight people doing these things in public and gay people doing them.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I've seen some pretty "hot and heavy" behaviors among straight couples (and more) at certain events. I agree that certain specific behaviors are not appropriate in public - to be specific, particularly active sexual behaviors. But I don't see a difference in quality or appropriateness between straight people doing these things in public and gay people doing them.

We do many of those things behind bedroom doors, as straight people, but we like to feel superior to gays, so we label what they do as gross or yucky or disgusting or whatever other term comes to mind that makes us feel better about ourselves.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have a substantial amount of tolerance for homosexuals, to the extent that I believe consenting adults in liberal democracies have the liberty to live their lives with other consenting adults and to interact in private with them in ways they wish as long as they aren't violating each other's or others' rights. I personally strongly disapprove especially of male homosexual sex, finding highly disgusting, but I don't have a say as to what other people do in their private lives.

I have a substantial amount of tolerance for people with cerebral palsy, they're allowed to walk funny with support and take all the good parking spots, so long as they don't violate each others' rights. I know it's genetic, but I strongly disapprove especially of males with cerebral palsy, finding it highly disgusting, but I dont have a say to what other people do in their private lives.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think it depends on the tone of the parade. If it's a parade with the sort of overt sexuality described, then I don't think anyone under about 16 should attend (below 12 or so and they would be horribly confused, between 12 and 16 they would be quite embarrassed - and more confused).

Agreed. I wouldn't bring a child to a parade with that type of tone period. Doesn't matter if it's Gay Pride or Mardi Gras. Some parties are for "grown folks" ... no children allowed.

OAW

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

We do many of those things behind bedroom doors, as straight people, but we like to feel superior to gays, so we label what they do as gross or yucky or disgusting or whatever other term comes to mind that makes us feel better about ourselves.

<prude>I'm not terribly interested in seeing ANYONE else engaging in those activities.</prude>

Maybe that's not really prudish on my part, but I am uncomfortable with being exposed to anything beyond a certain (fairly modest) level of other people's sexual activity, again, regardless of who those people happen to be. I don't label these activities "OK" for one group of people and "yucky" for another. I am much more comfortable with such activities being engaged in in private.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Agreed. I wouldn't bring a child to a parade with that type of tone period. Doesn't matter if it's Gay Pride or Mardi Gras. Some parties are for "grown folks" ... no children allowed.

Pretty decent analogy. My friend took me to one and there was a guy with his dong hanging out. Surprised he wasn't arrested. Guess it's the gay version of showing someone their boobies. The parades started off sensible, more of a march, but now it's Mardi Gras for gays. You don't have to be gay to have fun at one (lots of booze and parties), but it's not appropriate for kids.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Pretty decent analogy. My friend took me to one and there was a guy with his dong hanging out. Surprised he wasn't arrested. Guess it's the gay version of showing someone their boobies. The parades started off sensible, more of a march, but now it's Mardi Gras for gays. You don't have to be gay to have fun at one (lots of booze and parties), but it's not appropriate for kids.

And then again, if it was just “his dong hanging out”, why do you think that would have a negative impact on a child? Children are humans, too—most of them have seen at least their parents without their clothes on. Seeing another human being without his/her clothes on shouldn’t be something we need to shield our children against (and never was, until the whole Elizabethan thing happened).

If it’s actual sexual activity, then I agree: children are not yet geared to process and understand that, and it’s better to just keep it away from them until they are. But simply not wearing clothes is not sexual activity. To a child, it’s just someone without clothes on; they don’t get the sexual tension hanging in the air, brought along by the nakedness. That tension is for the adults, but doesn’t affect children.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

If it’s actual sexual activity, then I agree: children are not yet geared to process and understand that, and it’s better to just keep it away from them until they are. But simply not wearing clothes is not sexual activity. To a child, it’s just someone without clothes on; they don’t get the sexual tension hanging in the air, brought along by the nakedness. That tension is for the adults, but doesn’t affect children.

I agree, but the majority of Americans would find it inappropriate behavior. United States has a real problem with anything remotely sex related, even if it's just a naked body.

Gore, blood, and violence are OK, but not naked people. Funny side story: I was watching Return of the Living Dead on TV the other day. It's an old 80s zombie parody of Night of the Living Dead. There's a scene where half a zombie is pulled through a window, with black gore and blood squirting everywhere as it bites a man. The zombie is subdued and placed on an examination table, the spine wiggling, entrails flayed out on the table, blood pooling... and the foam rubber boobs on the zombie are blurred out.

[andi*pandi]

Perhaps as the gay community matures and wants to bring their own kids to the party, the parties will self-regulate into "adults only" and "family" versions. I would have no problem bringing my kids to the family pride parade with our gay friends and their kids.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I have a substantial amount of tolerance for people with cerebral palsy, they're allowed to walk funny with support and take all the good parking spots, so long as they don't violate each others' rights. I know it's genetic, but I strongly disapprove especially of males with cerebral palsy, finding it highly disgusting, but I dont have a say to what other people do in their private lives.

Are you calling homosexuality a disease or disorder? Your metaphor doesn't even make much sense. You're comparing a physical disease to a sexual preference (notwithstanding whether it's acquired genetically or environmentally).

The point was made on South Park that tolerance is different from open acceptance and appreciation. When people speak of having tolerance, they're generally talking about tolerance by one camp for aspects of another that the first does not like. By definition that which you tolerate is also something you dislike; you just recognize its existence without projecting undue negativity over it toward them. I have what I would characterize as a lot of tolerance for homosexuals, but I don't accept their orientation as normal or positive.

With that said, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the lipstick lesbians.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you calling homosexuality a disease or disorder? Your metaphor doesn't even make much sense. You're comparing a physical disease to a sexual preference (notwithstanding whether it's acquired genetically or environmentally).

Cerebral palsy isn't a disease. It is a condition that babies are born with. It isn't a choice or a preference. Maybe I should have used left-handed people, but I wanted to the gravity of your ignorance to be shown.

While cerebral palsy isn't genetic, it is largely understood that homosexuality is (even down to which chromosome is the most likely cause.) Someone could choose to be homosexual, just like a left handed person could choose to be right handed, but that doesn't change their genetic predisposition.

You tolerating homosexuals is the exact same thing as tolerating left handed people or any other genetic variation.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have a lot of tolerance for homosexuals, but I don't accept their orientation as normal or positive.

It is normal, but you choose to ignore it and continue with your prejudice. Homosexuality happens in all manner of species of animals, even the human animal. Homosexuality becomes more prevalent when a single gender of one species outnumbers the other. As the gender gap increases, so do the number of homosexuals in that species. It is likely that most animals (especially mammals) introduce homosexual offspring of one gender or the other to slow down reproduction of the dominant gender; this helps keep an optimal number for sexual pairing.

I don't know why I even bother, honestly, it won't change your mind no matter what evidence I present.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Cerebral palsy isn't a disease. It is a condition that babies are born with. It isn't a choice or a preference. Maybe I should have used left-handed people, but I wanted to the gravity of your ignorance to be shown.

Okay, it's a condition, a condition caused by permanent brain damage at birth that prevents the brain from properly controlling muscular coordination. It's damage. It's disorder. It's not a normal or in any way optimal condition for an organism to suffer from, now is it? You're equating that with homosexuality?

While cerebral palsy isn't genetic, it is largely understood that homosexuality is (even down to which chromosome is the most likely cause.) Someone could choose to be homosexual, just like a left handed person could choose to be right handed, but that doesn't change their genetic predisposition.

So you agree that there's at least some level of volition involved, at least for some people. I agree with you, which is why I have been saying that environment can conceivably have an impact on orientation.

You tolerating homosexuals is the exact same thing as tolerating left handed people or any other genetic variation.

Are all forms of genetic variation equally desirable? Are they all equally normal? Is cerebral palsy a positive thing to have? Left handedness or having blue eyes are in a very different qualitative class of genetic variation versus homosexuality, cerebral palsy or down syndrome. Furthermore, even if a trait is driven by genetics, that doesn't mean it's necessary or appropriate for society to accept it as good or normal.

Let me draw the following parallel: Let's say that scientists discover a genetic variable that if present has a large factor in a person being, oh take your pick: A murderer, a rapist, a kleptomaniac, a pedophile, etc. Would finding a genetic link for any of those anti-social disorders suddenly make those disorders normal or acceptable? Would it be appropriate to have pride parades for those orientations and speak of rights for those groups if it were demonstrated that the people suffering from those disorders did not have control over their desires? I don't think so. Just because there's a genetic factor for a trait, that doesn't make it normal or good and doesn't imply that society in general should approve of it. And just because a person has a propensity to act out in some negative way doesn't mean that a person should embrace that negative trait and treat it as normal and acceptable.

I know that you won't care about this, but I'd just like to state the following: My religion teaches that souls are put on earth for specific purposes, often to correct for internal deficiencies (to repair themselves). They are given challenges in this world to overcome. Those challenges can present themselves in many different ways. If a person has a desire to act in a negative or prohibited way, it's likely that the person is being given that challenge in order to make the right choice in rejecting that which is wrong and doing what is right. If instead the soul decides to give into the desire, and not only that but to glorify and almost deify that desire, the soul is failing one of the key tests for which it was put on earth to pass in the first place. Souls that don't get it right may have to be reincarnated a number of times until they do. You can mock that belief if you wish, but I just wanted to offer it.

It is normal, but you choose to ignore it and continue with your prejudice. Homosexuality happens in all manner of species of animals, even the human animal. Homosexuality becomes more prevalent when a single gender of one species outnumbers the other. As the gender gap increases, so do the number of homosexuals in that species. It is likely that most animals (especially mammals) introduce homosexual offspring of one gender or the other to slow down reproduction of the dominant gender; this helps keep an optimal number for sexual pairing.

Citations? That sounds like a good theory, but it's the first I've heard of it and I'm skeptical. I'd like to see how that's accounted for based on naturalistic assumptions. (How could one given member of a species unconsciously know what the proper balance of the species happens to be and then unconsciously be capable of introducing the genetic factors that cause or inhibit homosexuality in offspring?)

For the sake of clarity, I want you to know that I understand homosexuality most likely has a genetic component. If I seemed to indicate otherwise that was not my intention. But just because something has a genetic component does not necessarily mean it's normal or good.

I don't know why I even bother, honestly, it won't change your mind no matter what evidence I present.

Not necessarily true. I'm not coming from a position of absolutes or doctrinaire ideology on this particular matter. My position on the subject is somewhat different from where it was 10 or 15 years prior.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

With that said, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the lipstick lesbians.

This one sentence right here makes your entire point of view completely twisted and irrational.

What you are saying is that you strongly disapprove of the actions of people with whom you are not physically attracted too. Do you condone relationships between ugly people, or does some 3,000 year old law tell you that's wrong too?

[olePigeon]

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While wikipedia is very much fallible, there is an extensive list of citations at the bottom linking to all sorts of medical studies regarding homosexuality, including the one theory I just talked about regarding gender diversity in evolution.

You'll have to go to an actual library to look up the source material, as most of the websites want to charge money.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Do you condone relationships between ugly people, or does some 3,000 year old law tell you that's wrong too?

Only if they work on Sundays.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ort888 

This one sentence right here makes your entire point of view completely twisted and irrational.

Not really. I won't claim it's entirely intellectually consistent, but it's not irrational.

What you are saying is that you strongly disapprove of the actions of people with whom you are not physically attracted too.

I disapprove of male homosexual sexual activity, based on religious grounds, notions about what's good and bad for society, and a level of strong personal abhorrence of the activity.

Do you condone relationships between ugly people, or does some 3,000 year old law tell you that's wrong too?

Nothing in Torah prohibits relations between ugly people. And nothing in Written Torah directly prohibits lesbianism, although it's disapproved of by our sages.

[OAW]

Homosexuality. Nature vs nurture?

I'd say the jury is still out on that question. Though the evidence seems to be leaning towards the former. I've encountered a variety of homosexuals over the years. Some very effeminate men and some very masculine women whose family and friends would swear to you that they've been like that from day one. So you are not surprised that they are homosexual as adults. Then there are gay men who are not the stereotypical "flamer" and lesbian women who are not the stereotypical "butch" type. But they too say they've been oriented to the same sex all their lives. Then I've encountered some previously straight women ... now lesbian ... who have confided that they were sexually abused by men as a child or an adult. Women who have told me that nearly all of their lesbian friends can tell a similar story ... but would deny having said that publicly because it's not PC in their circles to say that they weren't "born that way". You see the B.U.G. phenomenon among some college females ... "Bi-sexual until graduation". You see married men with children who are on the "down low" and secretly have sex with other men. Were they "born that way"? Who's to say? I think human sexuality is a lot more complicated than we like to think. Perhaps everybody simply doesn't fit nice and neatly into a single little sexual orientation box?

In the end my attitude is if you like it I love it. Live and let live. But I'd prefer not to see PDA between two guys ... thank you very much.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Homosexuality. Nature vs nurture?

Does the question even matter? In the land of the free, should people not have the *right* to live how they wish, so long as it doesn't harm others?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Does the question even matter? In the land of the free, should people not have the *right* to live how they wish, so long as it doesn't harm others?

Wow, someone has been paying attention! Agreed BTW.

Mardi Gras and even some tailgating I've been to would be inappropriate for children. Gross, overt sexuality is inappropriate for children, whether they don't care in Europe OR NOT. Straight or gay isn't important either really. All of it gives the wrong context - either that sex is supposed to be casual or objectification is normal, etc.

[Shaddim]

I'm pretty open about such things, doesn't bother me at all. I'd say 16-17, depending on the kid's maturity level. Most Pride Parades I've witnessed, actually all of them now that I think of about it, have been pretty over the top sexually. Exposure, fondling, licking, etc.. I don't care what they do, they're adults, I even had sex with my wife at one (Key West a couple years ago). But I would have issues with a young teen attending.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olepigeon 

I was watching Return of the Living Dead on TV the other day.

BRAINS! and... WHITE SPACE!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It is normal, but you choose to ignore it and continue with your prejudice.

It's not "normal" unless you choose to use a definition of "normal" designed specifically to provide inclusion of things which are abnormal, but a certain segment of society wishes to protect because that thing carries potentially moral connotations which that certain segment disagrees with.

Homosexuality does not conform "to the standard or the common type" and is not the "norm" in human beings. You can debate whether or not it's "wrong" or "sinful" or a "disease" but you really can't logically define it as normal when it effects only a tiny fraction of the human population. That is of course unless you are redefining the term so that you can be more politically correct.

Homosexuality happens in all manner of species of animals, even the human animal.

So does being born without limbs on occasion. Would one tell a new mother that their child was born "normal" when it never developed a second leg? Of course not. Your definition is absurd.

[OldManMac]

^^^

As is your homophobia.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So does being born without limbs on occasion. Would one tell a new mother that their child was born "normal" when it never developed a second leg? Of course not. Your definition is absurd.

Are you suggesting that humans born without limbs shouldn't be allowed to marry other humans born without limbs?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

^^^

As is your homophobia.

Your response is highly ironic.

When I point out that by definition, what was claimed was wrong, and it required changing definitions to suit a political purpose, in response I got name calling using a word invented pretty much for the purpose of smearing people who take a politically incorrect view with the stigma of an irrational fear.

Nice.

That sort of thing really isn't helpful. In fact, I'm betting that it will normally backfire and further hurt the goals of those who use that kind of rhetoric.

[The Final Dakar]

I knew this thread was missing something.

[Doofy]

You know, back in the day (in the ultra-macho world of metal) nobody bothered over much with regard to yer flamboyants. Dudes would hang around and be gay... ...and nobody cared. Equality.

Nowadays, due to political interference by the likes of OldManMac, most of the flamboyants have become militant and a lot of the former "he's gay, so what" crowd are now in the "kill all flamboyants" camp. This is what happens when you let lefties fight for your cause - they poison everything.

As for gay pride parades? Why is anyone proud to be gay? Ever met anyone who's proud to be hetero? Do heteros have hetero pride parades? No. So if you want equality, STFU and don't have a parade... ...like heteros don't.
There ya go, Final, that's what this thread is missing - someone telling it like it is.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ever met anyone who's proud to be hetero?

I can't say I've met you, but I have read your posts.