[besson3c]

I believe you don't have to look any further than our language usage to see that there is still a dominantly negative stigma towards homosexuality, particularly man on man. I know that one that calls out people who say that something is "just so gay" in a negative connotation or calling somebody a "faggot" often get attacked as being overly PC. Maybe these sorts of terms are acceptable now, but still, jaws would drop if you were to interchange these terms with some other derogatory term that singled out another group.

Does the stigma exist? Does it need to be combated, or are these sorts of terms harmless? Is the stigma comparable to any other in our history? What do you do when people around you use language such as the above, or the like? Do you feel the need to defend gays because you feel protective of some, or because you feel like this is an attack on our culture, or both? If you feel a stigma exists, what needs to be done to make this go away, or at least make it less apparent?

[subego]

Yes.
Yes.
Not harmless.
Probably.
Very rarely in that situation.
Both.
Time.

[nonhuman]

Yes it exists. Yes it needs to be combated. Yes it's comparable to others in history.

For myself, I do feel compelled to speak up when I hear people using those sorts of terms. Even if I didn't have a large number of gay friends, even if here weren't children being bullied into committing suicide for being gay (even when they sometimes aren't), even if there weren't parents trying to beat or pray away the gay, I would still say that it is wrong and we need to do something about it.

The same goes for any and all other groups that might be oppress, persecuted, or otherwise marginalized.

I don't know for sure what can/should be done about it, but one thing that I think helps is to encourage people who are members of unpopular minorities to not be afraid to 'come out' about it. We all have the same rights and freedoms, and we shouldn't be afraid to claim them simply because it might be unpopular for us to do so.

[stupendousman]

I think we are dealing with two separate things here.

A. Name calling and cruelty.

B. Stigma

Someone can have a "mark of disgrace" due to something they've done or who they are, but as civilized people, we should have the decency to treat others humanely regardless. Crude name calling or abusive behavior doesn't help anything.

So, name calling and cruelty? I don't think it should be tolerated.

Stigmas based on what we do? I don't think that needs to be "combated". People should be free to judge what others do based on their own moral values. That's the case whether they support things that aren't traditionally acceptable or they do not.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think we are dealing with two separate things here.

A. Name calling and cruelty.

B. Stigma

Someone can have a "mark of disgrace" due to something they've done or who they are, but as civilized people, we should have the decency to treat others humanely regardless. Crude name calling or abusive behavior doesn't help anything.

So, name calling and cruelty? I don't think it should be tolerated.

Stigmas based on what we do? I don't think that needs to be "combated". People should be free to judge what others do based on their own moral values. That's the case whether they support things that aren't traditionally acceptable or they do not.

I'll never understand your obsession with "traditionally acceptable", and the implication I get from this that these alleged traditions are worth hanging on to.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Stigmas based on what we do? I don't think that needs to be "combated". People should be free to judge what others do based on their own moral values. That's the case whether they support things that aren't traditionally acceptable or they do not.

What kind of "combat" are you envisioning wherein the end result is one is not free to judge what others do based on their own moral values?

[beorning]

Traditions are _always_ worth holding on to.

The idea that cruelty and name calling are wrong is also a tradition, one linked to the same culture that also fosters a harsh stigma against homosexuality. Though not the only source of the Golden Rule - Do unto others - Christianity calls both for the civil tongue and the rejection of the lifestyle/choice/nature.

The problem is finding a good balance in our traditions to move us forward as a civilization. The trick is finding how to manage relationships (which must maintain civility) without compromising the moral compass.

[nonhuman]

Yeah, I sure am glad that we held onto the tradition of stoning disobedient children to death, and requiring women who are raped to marry the man who raped them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by beorning 

Traditions are _always_ worth holding on to.

This strikes me as a dangerous absolute, likely out of a misguided concept of what tradition is.

[besson3c]

I really don't get why people feel the need to generalize about our traditions. Some are moronic, some are worth maintaining. Some are not traditions so much as they are common sense or forms of biological preservation, and some (such as why we feel the need to not be cruel to one another in general) are just unexplained facets of humanity.

[pooka]

I personally don't see the problem in calling someone a "faggot" if they are actually acting like a faggot.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I personally don't see the problem in calling someone a "faggot" if they are actually acting like a faggot.

Pretending to be a bundle of sticks?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I personally don't see the problem in calling someone a "faggot" if they are actually acting like a faggot.

Sure, but how often do you see someone acting like a bundle of sticks?

[The Final Dakar]

Apparently that was too easy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I personally don't see the problem in calling someone a "faggot" if they are actually acting like a faggot.

I personally see a problem if you can wrap your head around the idea that all gay people act the same way and can and should be assigned a label, even if "faggot" was not derogatory.

Sometimes stupidity is not bested with more stupidity.

[Doofy]

Faggot: ORIGIN early 20th cent.: perhaps from the obsolete sense of fagot ‘contemptible woman.’

Gay: lighthearted and carefree : Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face.
• characterized by cheerfulness or pleasure : we had a gay old time.
• brightly colored; showy; brilliant : a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas.

Isn't it about time the LGBT community invented some of its own words instead of nicking others?

[Dork.]

Who called you a faggot, besson3c? You can tell us, we're all friends here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Who called you a faggot, besson3c? You can tell us, we're all friends here.

Nobody since grade school, but I did have a pretty distressing dream recently that Patrick Stewart called me that. Distressing because it made me admire him much less, and hurtful that he would want to attack me. Then I woke up in a sweat and realized that it was just a dream, so I grabbed the cat, danced a little bit with him, then went back to bed.

[Dork.]

Did you ever see the episode of Frasier where Patrick Stewart played a gay man who kept hitting on Frasier? That was funny.

[besson3c]

Season 4, Episode 17?

[Shaddim]

It's rare, but some people have called my wife a dyke. She usually ignores them or flips them off. One guy was really abusive once and followed her around a flea market making the same types of comments, she flashed her .380 that was under her jacket and he left her alone.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'll never understand your obsession with "traditionally acceptable", and the implication I get from this that these alleged traditions are worth hanging on to.

It does not surprise me that after thousands of years of civilization, that you don't understand why some things have been traditionally encouraged, and some things haven't. It gets back to "human nature". It does not change. Wishing it to do so, and hoping with best intentions that it will doesn't have much effect either.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by beorning 

Traditions are _always_ worth holding on to.

The idea that cruelty and name calling are wrong is also a tradition, one linked to the same culture that also fosters a harsh stigma against homosexuality. Though not the only source of the Golden Rule - Do unto others - Christianity calls both for the civil tongue and the rejection of the lifestyle/choice/nature.

The problem is finding a good balance in our traditions to move us forward as a civilization. The trick is finding how to manage relationships (which must maintain civility) without compromising the moral compass.

While I'm not sure that ALL traditions are always worth holding on to, excellent reply!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It does not surprise me that after thousands of years of civilization, that you don't understand why some things have been traditionally encouraged, and some things haven't. It gets back to "human nature". It does not change. Wishing it to do so, and hoping with best intentions that it will doesn't have much effect either.

And the dance begins of us trying to convince you that your dumb ass points are flawed... Will this thread get into birth certificates is the question!

The only way I can comprehend what you've written here in context with this thread is your beliefs of reproduction being a part of human nature biologically speaking, or something like that? Do you not see that we do many things that go against our biological instincts, and that these low level aspects of human nature do not define us?

Leaving aside all of these sorts of half baked pseudo scientific beliefs and just being purely pragmatic about things, in this modern reality there are other ways to have offspring and/or raise kids other than pairing men and women together, and there is no guarantee that pairing will produce offspring.

Do we have to get into these ridiculous arguments again?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do we have to get into these ridiculous arguments again?

Well, you kind of ask for them by starting these threads. I mean, you wouldn't start these if you believed that 100% of the people around here agreed with you, would you?

I think that human biology is changing and a higher percentage of people are gay because of increased population density, but that's just my theory.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think that human biology is changing and a higher percentage of people are gay because of increased population density, but that's just my theory.

My guess is the environment for this kicked in a good 5,000-10,000 years ago and hasn't really changed since.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It gets back to "human nature". It does not change.

Perhaps not, but the way societies deal with it has, and will (and should) continue to do so.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, you kind of ask for them by starting these threads. I mean, you wouldn't start these if you believed that 100% of the people around here agreed with you, would you?

No, but he's made his viewpoints clear in another thread, he's not changing his mind, and they don't really relate to the cultural stigma of homosexuality anyway. Making a pseudo-scientific argument like this as justification for a fairly meaningless word "traditional", in this context, is a stretch at best.

I think that human biology is changing and a higher percentage of people are gay because of increased population density, but that's just my theory.

That is interesting

I never thought the term "That is so gay!" stemmed from the homosexual term, but the traditional term. i.e. taking "happy and carefree" to a nauseating extreme.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think that human biology is changing and a higher percentage of people are gay because of increased population density, but that's just my theory.

I would have figured that if there's any perceived increase, it's because society has become more accepting and more people are willing to be open about it, rather than due to any changes in biology or human nature.

[nonhuman]

This view of homosexuality fails to take into account modern genetics. There's another entirely conceivable reason for there to be homosexuality, and for homosexuality to increase: it is related to a heritable, competitive advantage that causes increased reproductive fitness.

Now, clearly homosexuality itself does not lead to increased reproductive fitness. But it's entirely possible that the genetic mutation(s) that cause homosexuality might also cause, or be very closely related to other mutation(s) that cause, a real advantage. If the advantage gained by that change outweighs the disadvantage caused by homosexuality (advantage and disadvantage to individual reproductive fitness, that is), then that change will pass the test of natural selection and the genes that cause homosexuality will continue to be passed on from generation to generation and even have a tendency to become more common.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This view of homosexuality fails to take into account modern genetics. There's another entirely conceivable reason for there to be homosexuality, and for homosexuality to increase: it is related to a heritable, competitive advantage that causes increased reproductive fitness.

Now, clearly homosexuality itself does not lead to increased reproductive fitness. But it's entirely possible that the genetic mutation(s) that cause homosexuality might also cause, or be very closely related to other mutation(s) that cause, a real advantage. If the advantage gained by that change outweighs the disadvantage caused by homosexuality (advantage and disadvantage to individual reproductive fitness, that is), then that change will pass the test of natural selection and the genes that cause homosexuality will continue to be passed on from generation to generation and even have a tendency to become more common.

I'm not saying that's not possible, just that we have observed changes in societal acceptance, and that seems to me to be more likely. Obviously, any biological/genetic theory would need to take that into account as well.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I'm not saying that's not possible, just that we have observed changes in societal acceptance, and that seems to me to be more likely. Obviously, any biological/genetic theory would need to take that into account as well.

Not really. Just because homosexuality might be more accepted doesn't mean that we're going to suddenly start breeding for it. Just doesn't make sense, not to mention being impossible as the fact that being gay is suddenly popular isn't going to cause gay people to suddenly start reproducing.

The effect that I'm describing, however, is a known phenomenon in evolutionary biology (though so far as I know no one's ever demonstrated that it causes or is related to homosexuality).

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not really. Just because homosexuality might be more accepted doesn't mean that we're going to suddenly start breeding for it. Just doesn't make sense, not to mention being impossible as the fact that being gay is suddenly popular isn't going to cause gay people to suddenly start reproducing.

The effect that I'm describing, however, is a known phenomenon in evolutionary biology (though so far as I know no one's ever demonstrated that it causes or is related to homosexuality).

Right, and isn't that kind of the point? We'd have to tie homosexuality to a specific genetic property in order to make that link. If we don't have that, then all we have is an observation that there's a higher instance of people who identify themselves as homosexual. We don't have any evidence that we're 'breeding for it' (at least that I'm aware of).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This view of homosexuality fails to take into account modern genetics. There's another entirely conceivable reason for there to be homosexuality, and for homosexuality to increase: it is related to a heritable, competitive advantage that causes increased reproductive fitness.

Now, clearly homosexuality itself does not lead to increased reproductive fitness. But it's entirely possible that the genetic mutation(s) that cause homosexuality might also cause, or be very closely related to other mutation(s) that cause, a real advantage. If the advantage gained by that change outweighs the disadvantage caused by homosexuality (advantage and disadvantage to individual reproductive fitness, that is), then that change will pass the test of natural selection and the genes that cause homosexuality will continue to be passed on from generation to generation and even have a tendency to become more common.

If testing could detect these genetic mutations, and repair them in utero, would you do it to prevent the child from having to live with the stigma of homosexuality? Should this be tested for, as is done for Downs and other birth defects now, giving the parents the option of terminating?

[subego]

No.
If desired.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

I never thought the term "That is so gay!" stemmed from the homosexual term, but the traditional term. i.e. taking "happy and carefree" to a nauseating extreme.

I've never thought of it that way, but you're probably right.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does the stigma exist?

Does it need to be combated,

or are these sorts of terms harmless?

Is the stigma comparable to any other in our history?

What do you do when people around you use language such as the above, or the like?

Do you feel the need to defend gays because you feel protective of some, or because you feel like this is an attack on our culture, or both?

If you feel a stigma exists, what needs to be done to make this go away, or at least make it less apparent?

Of course there is. Many people feel its rightfully so.

No, the cause is doing more than fine on its own

Yes, in most cases its harmless. Its blatant political correctness to deride the use of the words since the context of how its used determines if it is harmful. Telling your buddy he is being a "faggot" for being too cowardly to ask a girl out that he's liked for weeks is not going to scar them. He isn't going to jump off a bridge over it.

Probably. It depends how broad we consider "our" history.

Nothing. As I said its usually perfectly harmless and people who do get upset are more disturbed than the person who uses it. I'd rather attack the idiot getting defensive as its more entertaining. I also find use of the word "retard" acceptable.

Defend them for what purpose?
Defend that who they are is not a choice? Sure, why not.
Defend that their way of life needs to be accepted by everyone? Hell no. This position is championed far too often. Its self-righteous as well as hypocritical by those who do it.

The stigma will become less acceptable. Its just the direction things are headed. What I also feel is inevitable (and I have said this a lot) is that the genetic causes of homosexuality will be discovered. Once that happens and gene manipulation in utero becomes commonplace for various things a huge chunk of those were all about gay rights will opt to make sure their kids aren't gay. What PC people say they believe and what they would do behind closed doors are often contradictory.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, but he's made his viewpoints clear in another thread, he's not changing his mind, and they don't really relate to the cultural stigma of homosexuality anyway. Making a pseudo-scientific argument like this as justification for a fairly meaningless word "traditional", in this context, is a stretch at best. )

How is "traditional" meaningless? You can look to any of the major organized religions that have existed over the past several thousand of years and see a fairly consistent stand by all of them concerning issues regarding sexuality. Given that the majority of the planet practices one of these religions, it really doesn't make sense to pretend that you don't understand that there are moral reasons why homosexuality traditionally has a sort of a "stigma."

"Science" really has little to do with morality. When people espouse science to try and force moral change on people, they do so with no real logical authority. It's like a doctor trying to tell construction workers how to build a bridge. It's an area outside their expertise.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If testing could detect these genetic mutations, and repair them in utero, would you do it to prevent the child from having to live with the stigma of homosexuality? Should this be tested for, as is done for Downs and other birth defects now, giving the parents the option of terminating?

That's an interesting question. I don't personally understand what impulse would drive someone to terminate a pregnancy because they discovered that their child would be gay. Especially as the people who are so vehemently opposed to homosexuality usually also (claim to) oppose abortion equally as vehemently.

My general position is that more information is always better, and I see no problem with tinkering with the human genome to improve the species. I would dispute that there's any harm caused by homosexuality and that it makes no sense to tinker with that little bit of genetics, but it's not for me to tell other people which conditions are acceptable criteria for terminating a pregnancy or which bits of their future child's genome are open for modification.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is "traditional" meaningless? You can look to any of the major organized religions that have existed over the past several thousand of years and see a fairly consistent stand by all of them concerning issues regarding sexuality. Given that the majority of the planet practices one of these religions, it really doesn't make sense to pretend that you don't understand that there are moral reasons why homosexuality traditionally has a sort of a "stigma."

"Science" really has little to do with morality. When people espouse science to try and force moral change on people, they do so with no real logical authority. It's like a doctor trying to tell construction workers how to build a bridge. It's an area outside their expertise.

Moral reasons? There are no moral reasons to take a position against homosexuality. It is not, in any way, a moral wrong.

As far as science having anything to do with morality: Amazon.com: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (9781439171219): Sam Harris: Books

If not through investigation of the world and of humans and human relations how can we possibly determine what is and is not moral? What is that if not science? It is through science (specifically economics) that we can determine if abortion, or prostitution, or alcohol, or marijuana, or cocaine, or meth cause a net benefit or net detriment to society. In what way does that not provide at least the beginnings of a scientific basis for morality?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is "traditional" meaningless? You can look to any of the major organized religions that have existed over the past several thousand of years and see a fairly consistent stand by all of them concerning issues regarding sexuality.

That doesn't mean they're right; it just means that a lot of people believe in things, often with no sound underlying reasons.

Given that the majority of the planet practices one of these religions, it really doesn't make sense to pretend that you don't understand that there are moral reasons why homosexuality traditionally has a sort of a "stigma."

That doesn't mean they're right; it just means that a lot of people believe in things, often with no sound underlying reasons.

"Science" really has little to do with morality. When people espouse science to try and force moral change on people, they do so with no real logical authority. It's like a doctor trying to tell construction workers how to build a bridge. It's an area outside their expertise.

Failed analogy. A doctor is one who has studied his craft, as is a bridge builder. To use that to buttress your argument shows how fallacious it is. People who believe in issues just because they were handed down to them have little, if any, authority on the issues. We don't believe in Zeus or Thor anymore, and although we don't have all the answers, we have vastly more knowledge than even two centuries ago. There can be no "expertise" in flatly stating some mystical and mythical deity exists, because it can't be proven that one exists. Relying on the words of people who knew nothing of any of a number of sciences that exist today, and who made up explanations, based on ignorance, is hardly a recipe for success.

An interesting conundrum that people put themselves into is that they preach one is responsible for one's own success, yet they pray to a deity that's never been proven to exist, to save them from something they've never been able to prove either.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Once that happens and gene manipulation in utero becomes commonplace for various things a huge chunk of those were all about gay rights will opt to make sure their kids aren't gay. What PC people say they believe and what they would do behind closed doors are often contradictory.

The problem is that there is a huge segment of the populace in denial.

It's more than reasonable to say that a person who was "born gay" should be shown respect and be allowed to live their life as they chose as long as they are not effecting others, and acknowledge that they could be happy the way they are.

However, that's really not what is being communicated by a large segment of the "pro-gay" populace. They are in denial that being "born gay" has any negative effects on one's self satisfaction other than the "stigma" others put on them. It's not enough to show people who are born with some kind of handicap respect - you have to pretend that the differentiating factor is irrelevant to general life experience. You have to ignore the fact that they are different in a major way than most of their other human peers. That if they act based on their natural instincts, they will be denied certain benefits that normally provide a lot of fulfillment to their non-gay peers.

If people could choose pre-birth to ensure that their children where not gay, most would. Just as they would, say, a birth defect causing someone to be born without a limb. People can be happy and lead a well adjusted life without being born with that limb - and shouldn't be , but don't try and fool anyone into thinking that's something that a rational person would chose if given the choice.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Moral reasons? There are no moral reasons to take a position against homosexuality. It is not, in any way, a moral wrong.

A state of being is not a moral choice. How you choose to react based on that state of being can be judged morally. No one expects that standards for "moral" is the same as your peers. However, a standard for morality has existed for at least the last couple thousands of years that a majority of the people on this planet has adhered to, which deems certain types of sexual behaviors immoral. Science can't really answer to that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That doesn't mean they're right; it just means that a lot of people believe in things, often with no sound underlying reasons.

Morals are very personal. If people choose not to follow any of the major religious faiths and decide on their own, using their own intellect, what is moral - that is their right. However, they have no right to force that standard on the majority who do not hold such views.

Failed analogy. A doctor is one who has studied his craft, as is a bridge builder. To use that to buttress your argument shows how fallacious it is.

But the Doctor's "craft" or area of expertise is not building bridges. He can not tell the pile of steel to take an aspirin, and then expect it to rise into a water covering span, anymore than a scientist can tell us what is moral or immoral. It's simply not their area of expertise.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If testing could detect these genetic mutations, and repair them in utero, would you do it to prevent the child from having to live with the stigma of homosexuality? Should this be tested for, as is done for Downs and other birth defects now, giving the parents the option of terminating?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's an interesting question. I don't personally understand what impulse would drive someone to terminate a pregnancy because they discovered that their child would be gay. Especially as the people who are so vehemently opposed to homosexuality usually also (claim to) oppose abortion equally as vehemently.

Those are the same people who still, despite having discovered their child has Downs, will still have the child.
I was referring to those who after testing, find their child had trisomy 21, terminated the pregnancy. Down syndrome abortion rate

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

realized that it was just a dream, so I grabbed the cat, danced a little bit with him, then went back to bed.

Well, sorry, but that's just gay.
[/all kidding aside]
-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that there is a huge segment of the populace in denial.

You lose me here.

What are these non-social downsides to being homosexual?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You lose me here.

What are these non-social downsides to being homosexual?

For one, the whole "reproduction" thing. That's pretty important to a lot of people, and it's not something that homosexuals can actually do. I understand that there are artificial ways around that - but there simply is no way same sex couples can join together and get the fulfillment heterosexuals get from creating and raising children.

Homosexuality is the one thing you can possibly be born with, that if everyone was born with, would end civilization as we know it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Homosexuality is the one thing you can possibly be born with, that if everyone was born with, would end civilization as we know it.

What an impossibly broad, irrelevant, overdramatic generalization.