188 replies to this topic

[DominO]

My last paragraph, Domino, was meant as a response to your claim that gays segragate themselves and that that can't possibly be good. Do Armenians not do the same? Armenians do not share the same language, they do not share the same religion, they do not share the same sexuality, they do not share the same cuisine, they do not share the same culture, they do not share the same ideals, they don't even share the same history, and they certainly do not share the same territory. The only thing we share is that we were all brought up to believe that we belong to this larger group who call themselves Armenians. In the same way, the only thing gays share is the fact that they think of themselves as gay.

This is exactly the point, being fixed to sexual attraction as identity is bogus. Thinking themselves as being gay. In normal circumstance this behavior would be qualified as fanatism. Worst is that some group even attempt to present this as more than a behavior or a lifestyle but also of right, human rights. Human right has no business on lifestyles, no business on regulating privilages.

[vahan79]

This is a silly line of reasoning. How many times are we going to here these illogical and erroneous analogies between homosexuality and races and ethnics. Suggesting that gay "subculture" is the same as the Armenian culture in that they "invent it" lacks any and all morsel of reason. Just what "culture" do gays invent? The culture of hairstylists? That's silly. The error in such reasoning and judgment is only attributable to emotional liberals and egalitarians who, in the haze of things, do not pause and reflect on the absurdity of such a proposition. They do not stop to think that homosexuality is primarily defined as a behavior, or an act of engaging in sexual behaviors with someone of the same sex. There is no reason to compare what it is at its root, a ehavior, on par with racial or ethnic identity. This reasoning ignores the fact that homosexuality is a phenonemon that has occurred for time immemorial across different boundaries and it is a behavior that is found across races, peoples and ethnicities, not as an unalterable identity that is fixed, such as someone's racial or ethnic identity. In other words, there are homosexuals who are Armenian, French, Mexican, white, black, Oriental. Homosexual behavior on the other hand is very vague and nebulous by those who engage in it. One minute they are gay, another minute they are bisexual. There is no reason to attribute it as some sort of a fixed identity when it is merely a behavior preference.
I would imagine you could have squeezed that melon of a head of yours to produce a better insult than this. This is patently obvious to anyone who watches television or reads newspapers, and hence it goes back to what I was saying about homosexuality being promoted from every orifice of communication. What this reminds me of is that adage homosexuals like to throw out, namely how everyone is gay but they just 'dont know it'.

Be that as it may, in The History of Sexuality Foucault, himself a homosexual, identified homosexuality as a modern invention, i.e. the idea of homosexuality as a group in itself that is somehow distinct and conscious of itself. Prior to that there was never a question of whether homosexuality is a function of genetics or choice, etc. It was simply not seen as being a fundamental part of the person, but instead as an action, a tendency, a behavior, something the person engaged in. Only in modernity has it become part of identity politics. Even among the Greeks, where modern supporters of homosexual rights like to point, society was not what they make it out to be. In Greece men were fully allowed to engage in relationships with other men, provided that they eventually married. The Greeks understood a distinction between something one did as in a behavior, and an institution of civilization as in marriage. In Foucault's words:

"Homosexuality appears as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species."

So the same post-modernists who were not hesitant to have created the politics of the left's identity politics to class homosexuality as a distinct identity, i.e. an alternative lifestyle, are also many of the vaunted experts who say how anyone can be a homosexual depending on who you ask and how you float on the Kinsey scale, and the very word itself is as elastic as a rubber band.

I don't know if you realize this, but you use a lot of words to say very, very little. If we tease out some semblance of an argument from your post, we can pare it down to this: Gay culture is no culture at all, because rahter than being based on an immutable characteristic, it is based on a behavior, which is, by definition, a matter of choice.

Okay, now let's address this:

(1) You are assuming that cultures have to be defined fundamentally by ethnicity or race. This is false. Anthropologists/ethnographers study a range of cultures. One that comes to mind is the "deaf culture." Deaf people have their own "subculture" within the predominantly hearing mainstream. The culture is defined not solely by language, but also by sense of humor, values, and traditions, just like any other culture.

(2) You assume that because people can't pinpoint their own specific group (bisexual, gay, etc.) that this means that it is all a big hoax, or somehow less real than heterosexuality. First, I am not sure that people who are "changing" are doing so because their sexuality is really changing, but instead, because they aren't sure of what they are. Second, not being sure of what you are is not unique to this situation. What about a half-Armenian, half-Black kid? Would you say that because he/she can't pinpoint one race to stick with, he/she has none?

(3) That gays exist across cultures from time and memorial does not mean anything. Again, you are limiting culture and/or minority status to culture. It is called "begging the question." You define culture as "ethnicity/race" and then say, see, it's not like "ethnicity/race", it is not a culture! You forget that women are a group that exists in every culture, but this does not make their struggles in a male-dominated global structure any less real; it surely doesn't lessen the need for female activism for the protection of women's rights.

(4) Foucault tries too hard. I think we all know that. His statement makes no sense at all. First, it doesn't account for lesbians in any way. Second, it assumes that being gay always involves sodomy. Lots of gay people don't even do that. So then what?

This is the basic thing: Gays/Lesbians/etc. are a group that has been marginalized by society and persecuted from their behavior, a behavior which they cannot control (and even if they can, I don't see why they should have to...no one has explained why it has to be "nature" not "nurture" to be right! I mean, it is by nurture, not nature that I speak Armenian, does taht mean it is not okay and I must reject the language?!?). In order to fight for their rights, to find acceptance, to feel a sense of community and strength against the mainstream oppression, they (sometimes) group together. Any subgroup creates a subculture. Voila, culture. Why do you care anyway?

By the way, I went to the Club Nur. It was actually really fun. The music was awesome and there were like 100 super hot (straight) girls there, too. Everyone just seemed to have fun, there wasn't that weird pressured feeling you get at the straight clubs. Also, girls would dance with me thinking I was gay. It's actually a girl-magnet!

[nairi]

How then do you explain bisexuals? Or how about prisons where people engage in homosexuality? Are all these felons in the prison system somehow gay or does something else trigger it? Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Bisexuality: same as any other sexuality.

Sex in prison? Often it's rape, and we all know rape is about power relations, intimidation, and humiliation, and not about sexual pleasure for either of the parties involved. Besides, prison is a very closed system. Things are bound to go haywire somewhere. That still doesn't explain why in regular society (and particularly in societies where homosexuality is not even discussed) homosexuals pop up left and right.

You do somewhat surprise me, since you are normally an essentialist when it comes to Armenian kids abusing drugs, blacks being inherently inferior to our superior white race, Mexicans being by nature lazy and incompetent, and women having a natural inclination to serve as birth machines. But when it comes to homosexuals, all of a sudden, you lean on nurture?

[nairi]

This is irrelevant and purely an illusory statement. Whether or not one "invented" the other has no bearing and furthermore, misses the point. Regardless of that, you are just admitting to the concept homosexuality as an invention.

No, I'm not admitting that homosexuality is an invention. I think it has always been there, naturally. In the nineteenth century, however, your hero Darwin began an entire movement for so-called scientists to classify anything that they considered to be abnormal and label it. What Foucault is showing in the part that you took his quote from is how this came about and how it developed. If anything, he is criticizing heterosexuals for creating the image of the homosexual as being abnormal, deviant, a monster, and a psychopath. No wonder that homosexuals used his writings for their gay rights agenda.

And regardless of what Foucault's philosophy helped usher, it is irrelevant. The relevant point from that is Foucault himself acknowledged that homosexuality was just a behavior, or a tendency that was now acquiring proportions of a 'fixed identity.'

Yes, but he is not criticizing homosexuals for this "fixed identity." He is criticizing heterosexuals for creating and trying to impose this fixed identity on homosexuals. As protest, contemporary homosexuals have created their own identity, speaking for themselves, rather than being spoken for, as has been done in the past, and as is apparently still happening now.

You are again missing the point and you have not yet addressed how homosexuality, which is a behavior is on the same plane as race and ethnicity.

From your own essentialist perspective: because they are all three inherent.

Edited by nairi, 08 June 2007 - 06:54 PM.

[DominO]

I don't know if you realize this, but you use a lot of words to say very, very little. If we tease out some semblance of an argument from your post, we can pare it down to this: Gay culture is no culture at all, because rahter than being based on an immutable characteristic, it is based on a behavior, which is, by definition, a matter of choice.

Okay, now let's address this:

(1) You are assuming that cultures have to be defined fundamentally by ethnicity or race. This is false. Anthropologists/ethnographers study a range of cultures. One that comes to mind is the "deaf culture." Deaf people have their own "subculture" within the predominantly hearing mainstream. The culture is defined not solely by language, but also by sense of humor, values, and traditions, just like any other culture.

(2) You assume that because people can't pinpoint their own specific group (bisexual, gay, etc.) that this means that it is all a big hoax, or somehow less real than heterosexuality. First, I am not sure that people who are "changing" are doing so because their sexuality is really changing, but instead, because they aren't sure of what they are. Second, not being sure of what you are is not unique to this situation. What about a half-Armenian, half-Black kid? Would you say that because he/she can't pinpoint one race to stick with, he/she has none?

(3) That gays exist across cultures from time and memorial does not mean anything. Again, you are limiting culture and/or minority status to culture. It is called "begging the question." You define culture as "ethnicity/race" and then say, see, it's not like "ethnicity/race", it is not a culture! You forget that women are a group that exists in every culture, but this does not make their struggles in a male-dominated global structure any less real; it surely doesn't lessen the need for female activism for the protection of women's rights.

(4) Foucault tries too hard. I think we all know that. His statement makes no sense at all. First, it doesn't account for lesbians in any way. Second, it assumes that being gay always involves sodomy. Lots of gay people don't even do that. So then what?

This is the basic thing: Gays/Lesbians/etc. are a group that has been marginalized by society and persecuted from their behavior, a behavior which they cannot control (and even if they can, I don't see why they should have to...no one has explained why it has to be "nature" not "nurture" to be right! I mean, it is by nurture, not nature that I speak Armenian, does taht mean it is not okay and I must reject the language?!?). In order to fight for their rights, to find acceptance, to feel a sense of community and strength against the mainstream oppression, they (sometimes) group together. Any subgroup creates a subculture. Voila, culture. Why do you care anyway?

By the way, I went to the Club Nur. It was actually really fun. The music was awesome and there were like 100 super hot (straight) girls there, too. Everyone just seemed to have fun, there wasn't that weird pressured feeling you get at the straight clubs. Also, girls would dance with me thinking I was gay. It's actually a girl-magnet!

You have some strong arguments there, I agree that people should not be descriminated, but your comparaison with women is weak. Just a question, define me "Gay culture."

[Anonymouse]

I don't know if you realize this, but you use a lot of words to say very, very little. If we tease out some semblance of an argument from your post, we can pare it down to this: Gay culture is no culture at all, because rahter than being based on an immutable characteristic, it is based on a behavior, which is, by definition, a matter of choice.

Okay, now let's address this:

(1) You are assuming that cultures have to be defined fundamentally by ethnicity or race. This is false. Anthropologists/ethnographers study a range of cultures. One that comes to mind is the "deaf culture." Deaf people have their own "subculture" within the predominantly hearing mainstream. The culture is defined not solely by language, but also by sense of humor, values, and traditions, just like any other culture.

We are not assuming cultures must be fundamentally defined by race and ethnicity. I think you are making that assumption that I am assuming such a thing. However, I don't know whether you are intentionally being obtuse to have something to argue with or it's attributable your ignroance. What cultural anthropologists and others say about culture is irrelevant, after all, the field lacks any and all credibility anyway since it is the product of none other than an egalitarian Jew by the name of Franz Boas. In the pliable and relative way of all things cultural, anything can be "culture", from picking the nose culture, to feet fetishists culture, to dog walking culture, to the god damned AIDS walk culture. But I ask, so what? And who cares? That is not the point. The point here is that you along with other emotional egalitarians like to make spurious analogies between homosexuality and fixed identities such as race or ethnicity. That is where the logical error falls and which you choose to accept but rather dodge and evade.

(2) You assume that because people can't pinpoint their own specific group (bisexual, gay, etc.) that this means that it is all a big hoax, or somehow less real than heterosexuality. First, I am not sure that people who are "changing" are doing so because their sexuality is really changing, but instead, because they aren't sure of what they are. Second, not being sure of what you are is not unique to this situation. What about a half-Armenian, half-Black kid? Would you say that because he/she can't pinpoint one race to stick with, he/she has none?

Who said anything about a "big hoax" and homosexuality being "somehow less real than heterosexuality"? And where do you get these supposed positions which you attribute to me? You are not familiar with logical arguments it seems and must compensate for that gap by making things up. It seems in your crusade of trying to point out my assumptions, you yourself have created your own web of assumptions and are thus now guilty of the same thing you accuse of others.

Half-white, half-black, half-Asian, it doesn't matter. Homosexuality revolves around behavioral issues. These are mixed races, and that is their category. That is the way it goes I cannot change it, nor can they. The same cannot be said about a sexual behavior.

(3) That gays exist across cultures from time and memorial does not mean anything. Again, you are limiting culture and/or minority status to culture. It is called "begging the question." You define culture as "ethnicity/race" and then say, see, it's not like "ethnicity/race", it is not a culture! You forget that women are a group that exists in every culture, but this does not make their struggles in a male-dominated global structure any less real; it surely doesn't lessen the need for female activism for the protection of women's rights.

I never defined culture as 'ethnicity/race'. You just did that. I merely used it as a yardstick of measure because it was homosexual proponents such as yourself and nairi, and many other emotional egalitarians who have repeated the same silly nonsense of comparing homosexual behavior to fixed identities that people cannot change, such as their race. And while we are on the topic of race, all races produce different cultures, and that is the way it goes. Cultures cannot produce races, contrary to post-modern think. In order for there to be any culture, there must first be an individual and a people, and individuals and peoples vary across the board over the world in different races (Oh no! Someone mentioned race! The horror!).

Last I checked, women have no control over being women. Therefore again, this goes back to the point about how you cannot compare a behavioral phenomenan and impulse to fixed identities that cannot be altered and then argue for rights for people who engage in a certain behavior on the basis that they are "oppressed". This is the eternal thorn on the hairy back of the homosexual agenda.

(4) Foucault tries too hard. I think we all know that. His statement makes no sense at all. First, it doesn't account for lesbians in any way. Second, it assumes that being gay always involves sodomy. Lots of gay people don't even do that. So then what?

Maybe because man's inclination is to naturally attribute homosexuality with male driven impulses, is why he would address it that way, than refer to lesbians. Lesbians have never really been a thorny issue in the male dominated cultures, whom I reckon got off on a case of a few ravishing chicks getting it on. Again, a behavioral phenomenon at play. This was before the time of the "butch", which is entirely a modern concoction.

This is the basic thing: Gays/Lesbians/etc. are a group that has been marginalized by society and persecuted from their behavior, a behavior which they cannot control (and even if they can, I don't see why they should have to...no one has explained why it has to be "nature" not "nurture" to be right! I mean, it is by nurture, not nature that I speak Armenian, does taht mean it is not okay and I must reject the language?!?). In order to fight for their rights, to find acceptance, to feel a sense of community and strength against the mainstream oppression, they (sometimes) group together. Any subgroup creates a subculture. Voila, culture. Why do you care anyway?

Wow, thank you for putting it in such a nutshell for us ignorant folk to understand. If you had not stated, "This is the basic thing" I certainly would not have understand any of this.

Gays/lesbians/etc., have not been any more or any less marginalized in society than 2000 years ago. If it were up to people like you, you would create nothing more and nothing less than a boring and banal liberal utopia of tolerance full of tolerant automatons where every form of absurdity and oddity is 'tolerated'.

You keep spouting unsubstantiated assertions about "rights" and about behavior people cannot control as if we are slaves to our impulses and nevermind that the case of genetic predisposition of homosexuality is anything but full proof. Nor have the issues of people who continuously experiment, change around, or play with different sexual partners and sexualities, i.e. bisexuals, have been put to rest, nor how in prisons homosexuality is rampant, for surely not all these poor ole felons did not come to prison as homosexuals.

Emotional liberals such as yourself and nairi would make it seem as if homosexuals are in their very own Darfur here in America. Get over it and yourselves.

By the way, I went to the Club Nur. It was actually really fun. The music was awesome and there were like 100 super hot (straight) girls there, too. Everyone just seemed to have fun, there wasn't that weird pressured feeling you get at the straight clubs. Also, girls would dance with me thinking I was gay. It's actually a girl-magnet!

Wooooow, you are like soooo cultured, tolerant, understanding and sensitive. A truly progressive thinker! The new Egalitarian man! The envy of women and men all over! Woe is me and those like me!

Edited by Anonymouse, 08 June 2007 - 07:45 PM.

[Anonymouse]

Bisexuality: same as any other sexuality.

Sex in prison? Often it's rape, and we all know rape is about power relations, intimidation, and humiliation, and not about sexual pleasure for either of the parties involved. Besides, prison is a very closed system. Things are bound to go haywire somewhere. That still doesn't explain why in regular society (and particularly in societies where homosexuality is not even discussed) homosexuals pop up left and right.

You do somewhat surprise me, since you are normally an essentialist when it comes to Armenian kids abusing drugs, blacks being inherently inferior to our superior white race, Mexicans being by nature lazy and incompetent, and women having a natural inclination to serve as birth machines. But when it comes to homosexuals, all of a sudden, you lean on nurture?

You just proved my own points. By acknowledging that homosexuality occurs in prison, regardless of the reasons, you just admitted that homosexuality can occur based on social circumstances. And how do you know that homosexuals in prison do not "get off"? After years of no women, I would imagine some of these felons would become pretty desperate for a blowjob for gods sake.

And you also admit that there is no full proof explanation of homosexuality, aside from the fact that it is a behavioral tendency and phenomenon which does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. Nowhere have I stated I lean on nurture entirely. I have admitted that there may be a genetic basis for certain people who have a predisposition for homosexuality. However, what I have said is that it does not account for a full ranging explanation. On the contrary, it has been proponents on your side, such as Vahan, that have been making bold yet unsubstantiated assertions that homosexuals "have no control", thus implying that somehow it is an all or nothing deal.

[nairi]

Emotional liberals such as yourself and nairi

[DominO]

OK guys, please cool down. Talk about the content not the person.

[nairi]

You just proved my own points. By acknowledging that homosexuality occurs in prison, regardless of the reasons, you just admitted that homosexuality can occur based on social circumstances. And how do you know that homosexuals in prison do not "get off"? After years of no women, I would imagine some of these felons would become pretty desperate for a blowjob for gods sake.

Just because a felon needs sex does not make him a homosexual. When he is back out on the streets, the chance is much bigger that he'll be looking for women than men.

So no, fundamentally I believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior. Even if we grew up in a society where we would be encouraged to go for the same sex, most of us would only be able to enjoy it up to a certain point. As Arpa pointed out somewhere: it is the natural inclination for most penises to find a vagina. If therefore heterosexuality is natural, then in what way is homosexuality not, especially taking into account that homosexuality occurs even under the most oppressive regimes?

[AlexV]

You know, I think it's not really worth spending so much time and energy talking about this. We only have one life to live, so we should make the most of it, enjoy ourselves, be happy, love one another. I think we should just live and let live. I always find it annoying when people talk about homosexuality. There are more important things to spend time talking about, like the environment, human rights, pauverty, war, oppression, etc.

And you know, the funny thing is that I'm (half) Armenian, I'm gay, I'm married to a man who's not Armenian (I live in Canada so the marriage is legal), I don't look, dress or act gay, I don't go to gay bars, I don't flaunt myself half naked in gay parades (I don't watch them either), and none of the gay people I know do those things. I consider myself a relatively normal person, just a person who happens to love a man instead of a woman. And it's not just the "sex" -- I really "love" him. I know who I am and what I'm worth. I don't care what others think of my being gay. I don't advertise it, I never say "Hi, my name is Alex and I'm gay", but if people ask me if I'm married, I simply say yes, and if they ask me about my wife, I tell them it's actually a husband. No advertisement, but no lies, no shame, no hiding.

Enjoy your lives, for it's short and we only have one to live.

Peace.

[Anonymouse]

Just because a felon needs sex does not make him a homosexual. When he is back out on the streets, the chance is much bigger that he'll be looking for women than men.

So now the very act that defines homosexuality, when it occurs in prison, is not homosexuality? Jesus. It seems there is nothing that you folks will not make elastic to have something to argue with. Next you will be telling me that we are all gay and we just don't know it! Strangely enough, the study published in The American Sociological Review in April of 2001 I believe, titled "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" by USC professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz claimed that homosexual parents do have an impact on children.

[Anonymouse]

I don't advertise it, I never say "Hi, my name is Alex and I'm gay"

What do you call your post?

[AlexV]

What do you call your post?

An advertisement, you're right. I think it's appropriate since the subject is about homosexual armenians. I don't do this in a normal social occasion, that's what I meant. I think you understand that.

[nairi]

So now the very act that defines homosexuality, when it occurs in prison, is not homosexuality? Jesus. It seems there is nothing that you folks will not make elastic to have something to argue with.

A homosexual act does not necessarily equate homosexual desire. The heterosexual felon is not looking to have sex with a man. He has no choice. If he was presented with a choice, he would go for a woman, because he is naturally heterosexual.

Next you will be telling me that we are all gay and we just don't know it!

That makes no sense. I've been arguing that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is in great part biologically determined. How can I all of a sudden claim that we are all potentially closet gay? What I have also been saying, perhaps more implicitly, is that heterosexuals will always be in the majority. Since you are arguing that homosexuality (not heterosexuality, interestingly) is primarily a social construct, you would be much more likely than me to think that we could all potentially turn gay, depending on the social circumstances. In your words, "we're all gay, but don't know it, since most of us do not have the opportunity to be in the right social circumstance that would trigger our sexual desire for the same sex."

As for gay parents raising gay children, have they ever considered that the children might be carrying the "deviant" (to use your nineteenth century vocabulary) gene?

[Anonymouse]

A homosexual act does not necessarily equate homosexual desire. The heterosexual felon is not looking to have sex with a man. He has no choice. If he was presented with a choice, he would go for a woman, because he is naturally heterosexual.

Precisely, and which is why this point is irrelevant since we are not mind readers to be able to quantify who did or did not have these desires or drives. The fact is, the phenomenon occurs and that was the point.

That makes no sense. I've been arguing that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is in great part biologically determined. How can I all of a sudden claim that we are all potentially closet gay? What I have also been saying, perhaps more implicitly, is that heterosexuals will always be in the majority. Since you are arguing that homosexuality (not heterosexuality, interestingly) is primarily a social construct, you would be much more likely than me to think that we could all potentially turn gay, depending on the social circumstances. In your words, "we're all gay, but don't know it, since most of us do not have the opportunity to be in the right social circumstance that would trigger our sexual desire for the same sex."

If by homosexuality we are talking about the idea of an 'alternative lifestyle' and a 'gay culture' and all that comes with the modern identity politics, then yes, that is a modern invention. However, the act of homosexuality is certainly not an invention, no more and no less than heterosexuality.

As for gay parents raising gay children, have they ever considered that the children might be carrying the "deviant" (to use your nineteenth century vocabulary) gene?

Who knows? The point is, it matters.

[nairi]

Precisely, and which is why this point is irrelevant since we are not mind readers to be able to quantify who did or did not have these desires or drives. The fact is, the phenomenon occurs and that was the point.

You're missing something that Alex rightfully brought up: the love factor. I wonder how many of those heterosexual felons "make love" to their fellow inmates. Getting your dick sucked off by a prostitute (male or female) is not the same as making love to someone.

If by homosexuality we are talking about the idea of an 'alternative lifestyle' and a 'gay culture' and all that comes with the modern identity politics, then yes, that is a modern invention. However, the act of homosexuality is certainly not an invention, no more and no less than heterosexuality.

From the beginning I have separated lifestyle and culture from sexuality. Lifestyle and culture are social constructs. Sexuality is not. In other words: homosexuality is not a construct, but "gay culture" is. "Gay culture," whatever this may be, just doesn't bother me enough for me to budge from my lazy bottom and write an entire tirade against it.

[Anonymouse]

You're missing something that Alex rightfully brought up: the love factor. I wonder how many of those heterosexual felons "make love" to their fellow inmates. Getting your dick sucked off by a prostitute (male or female) is not the same as making love to someone.

This isn't the gay and lesbians and whether they feel love or not thread. In fact, one can make an argument that it is precisely love that is absent from homosexual relationships. Not to pounce on Alex and his love and stuff, but homosexuals are the most promiscuous group engaging in the most random and copious amounts of sex, hence higher rates of HIV. The point it is, this isn't the point.

From the beginning I have separated lifestyle and culture from sexuality. Lifestyle and culture are social constructs. Sexuality is not. In other words: homosexuality is not a construct, but "gay culture" is. "Gay culture," whatever this may be, just doesn't bother me enough for me to budge from my lazy bottom and write an entire tirade against it.

Well, nothing much bothers you except your libertine preferences.

[ED]

Hargeli forumi antamner duk Raffi-i "KHENT" kartatseleq?

Naxabanum asvume espes

" MI XELT MI QAR GLORETS POSI MEJ, 1000 XELOQ CHKAROXATSAN HANEL"

now vahan79 opened this topik

[vahan79]

This isn't the gay and lesbians and whether they feel love or not thread. In fact, one can make an argument that it is precisely love that is absent from homosexual relationships. Not to pounce on Alex and his love and stuff, but homosexuals are the most promiscuous group engaging in the most random and copious amounts of sex, hence higher rates of HIV. The point it is, this isn't the point.
Well, nothing much bothers you except your libertine preferences.

Okay, so your problem is that you spout all these statements as if they are facts, but they are just unsubstantiated rumors. First of all, gays do NOT have the highest rates of HIV, Black Africans do. Second, there is no evidence that they are "more promiscuous", you are basing that solely on stereotype and perception, even if you had statistics, you have to account for male tendency to exagerate and female tendency to underexagerate, which is driven by societal norms; HIV is more likely to spread between unprotected gay sex because of the blood/semen contact in anal sex. Third, your argument proves to much and fails to apply AT ALL to lesbians, who have probably the lowest rate of HIV transmital.

You have yet to respond to the most essential of essential issues. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF GAY PEOPLE CLAIM TO HAVE THEIR OWN CULTURE OR NOT? They are not demanding superior rights, they are only asking for EQUAL rights.

You make no sense when you say that gays have suffered no more marginalization than 2000 years ago. First, I am not sure that that is true. As you have stated, homosexuality was an accepted practice in Ancient Greece and Rome. Second, WHO CARES? That's like saying women shouldn't get to vote today; they traditionally weren't allowed to vote and by not allowing them to vote they are no less oppressed than they were 2000 years ago.

Also, anthropology has come a long way since Boaz, my friend. Fundamentally, anthropologists are by definition experts on cultures and human interaction.

Your prison point is such a red herring. You are saying that because prisoners can (and do) participate in homosexual acts that being gay is "behavioral." Therefore, there is not such thing as gay culture. I can learn sign Turkish and immerse myself in Turkish culture. I can act Turkish and eat Turkish food. Everyone will think I am Turkish by my look (Armenian/olive) and my BEHAVIOR. Does that mean that Turkish culture is non-existant? Is not really a culture?

Pedophilia is most common with men molesting female children. Priests are not the most widespread child molestors and most of even THEIR victims are female. You (maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was Domino) are confusing what gets media coverage for statistically sound data.

The problem with your argumentation is this:

(1) You set up all these points based on assumptions that my counterexamples and Nairi's points disprove. Then you say that you aren't making those assumptions, but you don't realize that without them your argument rests on nothing. Instead of explaining how your argument is still relevant, you then go off about liberals and how everything is about being PC (going way off the subject into ad hominem territory). THEN, you conclude without ever bringing us there with logical steps that are both valid and sound.

(2) It is apparent that you fancy yourself a logician, maybe even go to law school or something. But, a word of advice, try to be clearer in your arguments. Direct your attention to the actual point and be explicit about what you are trying to say. You keep on repeating the same things over and over, but you don't really say what your point is. Let me help you: "Homosexuality is not immutable, but rather a behavior that can be altered/suppressed/etc., so it is not a true culture, and THUS WHAT??????" WHAT is your point??!?!?!??! That gays shouldn't get to have a parade? I can have a parade for left-handed cat lovers that don't eat meat on Tuesdays if I want. That they should stop gathering together in groups? My cat lovers group can do that, too. That they are not oppressed/marginalized? Even if that is true, so what? Are you suggesting they should just accept whatever is handed to them and not fight for their rights, even as individuals?