Gays/lesbians And Being Armenian

[vahan79]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

 

 

(1) Why do you ignore the arguments that answer your questions? I said EVEN IF it is behavior and they can control it, why should they not have equal rights to live their lives freely? You have not explained why homosexuality is only valid if it is NATURE and not NURTURE.

 

(2) You say you aren't defining culture by race/ethnicity, but only use it as a yardstick. That is the same thing! You are saying that homosexuality doesn't "measure up" (literally) to race/ethnicity and therefore is not a culture. You are assuing that cultures all have to be immutable characteristics, but we know this is not true, because as I have pointed out, religion forms cultural identity (Irish, Armenians, etc.) (I am still confused why homosexuality has to be proven to be a culture or not).

 

(3) Dude, I am not trying to be tolerant and hip by going to the club. My friend invited me. I went. I reported back on my (surprising) experience as I promised. Not everything is a political statement.

 

(4) You are the one pushing us toward a "banal utopia." You are the one seeking to surpress free speech. "Gays, stop having parades! Gays stop advertising! Conform to the heterosexual majority!" I am not telling you that you can't be intolerant. Be intolerant! As long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights or my friends'.

 

[vahan79]

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.

 

If nothing else, this is what you still have yet to explain:

 

(1) What is this so-called homosexual agenda? Who is organizing it?

 

(2) I am assuming you acknowledge that gays are oftentimes identifiable and singled out for discrimination by both the government (i.e., laws preventing same-sex marriage, etc.) and by private individuals (gay bashing, etc.). So, then you must acknowledge that they are a group of some sort that is targetable. Why shouldn't this group fight for their rights not to suffer this oppression? Why is whether or not they can control their behavior the touchtone? Are you advocating that instead of fighting to be who they want to be, they should instead alter their lifestyle to blend with what society wants of them? To what end?

[nairi]

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.

 

You make no sense. You say that there is no such thing as homosexuality, since it is primarily a social construct, but you do speak of homosexuals being the most promiscuous group. Make up your mind: either we're all heterosexuals with latent homosexuals desires, or some of us are inherently heterosexuals and some of us are inherently homosexuals when presented with a choice.

 

(And you never commented on how it is possible that homosexuality occurs even in the most oppressive cultures, if homosexuality is merely a learned behavior. Where would these people learn their behavior from if they have never heard about it or seen it?)

[DominO123]

I'm out of here, this discussion has drifted to homophobia and I don't want to become part in this. Under the current situation this thread is leading nowhere.

 

BTW Vahan, opposing to same sex marriage is not a discrimination. Marriage is not a right it is a privilage. If you want to discuss about those stuff with me personal message me.

 

 

[vahan79]

I'm out of here, this discussion has drifted to homophobia and I don't want to become part in this. Under the current situation this thread is leading nowhere.

 

BTW Vahan, opposing to same sex marriage is not a discrimination. Marriage is not a right it is a privilage. If you want to discuss about those stuff with me personal message me.

 

(1) I think this dialogue is interesting and helpful. I don't see why you are unwilling to discuss this all publicly if you are, as you suggest, willing to discuss it.

 

(2) I think I see your point, kinda, but let me point out one thing. Marriage, under American constitutional law, has been recognized not only as a right, but as a "fundamental right." It is not a mere "privilege." The denial by various governments (state and federal) of the right of same-sex couples to marry is grounded in a different analysis, which the Supreme Court has never directly expounded, but will probably go something like this, either: (a) your fundamental right to marry is not infringed because you can still marry, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex, i.e., the right is limited to opposite-sex unions; and ( the government can infringe your fundamental right because there are compelling government interests involved: preservation of the family unit and reproduction of a national populace. Neither is too compelling. In fact, the first was rejected by the Supreme Court when it held that disallowing marriage between races (in this case black man and white woman) is impermissible; it is not enough to say, "you can get married! just to someone of your own race!". The second is even weaker. Should we disallow sterile heterosexual couples to marry since they can't bear children?

 

(3) We need to stop dilly-dallying around the real issue. America disallows same-sex marriage because religious fanatics freak out at the idea. It is a blatant violation of this country's constitutional commitment to keep state and church separate.

[vahan79]

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

 

Կոպիտ էի... Sorry, Raffi.

 

հարգելի ֆորումի անդամ եմ ես?

[DominO123]

I am unwilling to discuss it because I know anonymouse and I know where this will lead.

 

But if you really want this here. Marriage is only a right in a religious perspective, but it is in fact a deguised privilage. Lets take the tax brakes, I personally oppose to tax brakes until a couple(hetero) expect to have kids and has kids. I also have a problem with gay couples adoption of children until serious replicated studies point that it has no influence on child developpement. On average gay couples have higher incomes than hetero couples, since income is one of the major factors taken in consideration a gay couple who get married under law being the same as a equal as hetero couple will have more chance to get their applications accepted on the factor of income while the consideration of factors such as "same sex" will be considered as prejudicial while I believe that a hetero environment is more healthy for a child psychological developpement while under the new predispositions this can not be considered.

 

Marriage is not only the union between two people, there are many privilages attached to it, I disagree with many of those privilages given to hetero couples unless they expect to have a child, because many of those privilages are meant to facilitate it. So many hetero couples already abuse the system. They have privilages that others don't have and they use those privilages regardless of the purpouses of their existance. Privilages not rights. Elderly pay here less for public transportations, why can't I have that too? Is this a prejudice? No, they have a privilage I don't have. There are more softwares on PC than MAC, those using PC have that privilage, it is not to say that had MAC users used PC they would have those privilages too, much like if someone being phyisically attracted to someone of the same sex could still marry the opposit sex, he won't want to do that but still he will have the same rights. Women were prevented from voting no matter what, Blacks were discriminated because they were Blacks. Gays are not prevented to get married because they are gays, there is nothing under law which they can not do because they are gay. This is the distinction between privilages and rights. This is why I always had trouble comparing Gay situation with Blacks, women etc.

 

It is true that gays are descriminated, but not by law, fanatics or prejudicial people descriminate them, but the law does not, there is nothing in law which gives one rule for gays and another for others like it was the cases when Women and Blacks were descriminated under law.

 

I do oppose same sex marriage, but not that strongly, I won't jump out of my chair if it is permitted, it is here in Canada permitted, and when voting in elections parties positions on that was not a factor, I still opposed the Conservative party because in most cases those oppositions are religious oriented, while mine has more to do with some privilages and their distinction with rights. Many here who are Atheists in this board have problem with that also. Anoushik, Stormig, Sip etc. are some exemple.

 

(1) I think this dialogue is interesting and helpful. I don't see why you are unwilling to discuss this all publicly if you are, as you suggest, willing to discuss it.

 

(2) I think I see your point, kinda, but let me point out one thing. Marriage, under American constitutional law, has been recognized not only as a right, but as a "fundamental right." It is not a mere "privilege." The denial by various governments (state and federal) of the right of same-sex couples to marry is grounded in a different analysis, which the Supreme Court has never directly expounded, but will probably go something like this, either: (a) your fundamental right to marry is not infringed because you can still marry, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex, i.e., the right is limited to opposite-sex unions; and ( the government can infringe your fundamental right because there are compelling government interests involved: preservation of the family unit and reproduction of a national populace. Neither is too compelling. In fact, the first was rejected by the Supreme Court when it held that disallowing marriage between races (in this case black man and white woman) is impermissible; it is not enough to say, "you can get married! just to someone of your own race!". The second is even weaker. Should we disallow sterile heterosexual couples to marry since they can't bear children?

 

(3) We need to stop dilly-dallying around the real issue. America disallows same-sex marriage because religious fanatics freak out at the idea. It is a blatant violation of this country's constitutional commitment to keep state and church separate.

[Anonymouse]

(1) Why do you ignore the arguments that answer your questions? I said EVEN IF it is behavior and they can control it, why should they not have equal rights to live their lives freely? You have not explained why homosexuality is only valid if it is NATURE and not NURTURE.

 

First, there is no such thing as 'equality'. 'Equality' is a chimera. There is nothing in this world that is equal. There are differences between races and individuals and in their temperaments, characters and capacities. And any legislation that is premised on such fallacious things as equality always creates unintended consequences as some are more equal than others. Have you not read Animal Farm?

 

The reason I have not explained why homosexuality is only valid if it is nature and not nurture, is because I never argued such a thing. This is yet another one of your presumptions. And no where have I argued about the validity or invalidity of homosexuality. Why do you assume so many things? Is your argument cursed without it?

 

(2) You say you aren't defining culture by race/ethnicity, but only use it as a yardstick. That is the same thing! You are saying that homosexuality doesn't "measure up" (literally) to race/ethnicity and therefore is not a culture. You are assuing that cultures all have to be immutable characteristics, but we know this is not true, because as I have pointed out, religion forms cultural identity (Irish, Armenians, etc.) (I am still confused why homosexuality has to be proven to be a culture or not).

 

As I already answered this question. I never defined culture by race or ethnicity. Although, since we are on the subject, all culture is an emanation and projection of the people that create that culture. I merely used it analogous to the claims brought up by those like you, when you compared homosexuality to fixed identities such as race, ethnicity or gender. And as I said, a nebulous concept like homosexuality and homosexuals which are premised on a behavioral phenomenon and unstable sexual preferences, cannot be compared to fixed identities and that somehow based on that, demand rights and things.

 

(3) Dude, I am not trying to be tolerant and hip by going to the club. My friend invited me. I went. I reported back on my (surprising) experience as I promised. Not everything is a political statement.

 

Okay. So why are you justifying yourself to me?

 

(4) You are the one pushing us toward a "banal utopia." You are the one seeking to surpress free speech. "Gays, stop having parades! Gays stop advertising! Conform to the heterosexual majority!" I am not telling you that you can't be intolerant. Be intolerant! As long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights or my friends'.

 

This is the last refuge of the illogical: when the must resort to emotional appeals. I have never sought to suppress free speech, nor can you find evidence of such. I have only expressed distaste for those parades, but I never said they shouldn't do it perhaps on their own streets or whatever, or at least it shouldn't be broadcast on mediums like television.

 

Nor have I said anything about homosexuals conforming to heterosexuals, nor can you offer any evidence of such. This is simply a childish appeal to emotions when all else fails.

 

And as far as your rights or your friends' rights, what rights are being infringed? Please, stop the emotional appeal as if homosexuals are the most persecuted minority in the world and are suffering a fate worst than poor Africans in Darfur. Get over yourselves.

[DominO123]

Vahan, any more evidences as to why I said we should continue somewhere else?

[Anonymouse]

If nothing else, this is what you still have yet to explain:

 

(1) What is this so-called homosexual agenda? Who is organizing it?

 

 

Beats me. Do you know?

 

(2) I am assuming you acknowledge that gays are oftentimes identifiable and singled out for discrimination by both the government (i.e., laws preventing same-sex marriage, etc.) and by private individuals (gay bashing, etc.). So, then you must acknowledge that they are a group of some sort that is targetable. Why shouldn't this group fight for their rights not to suffer this oppression? Why is whether or not they can control their behavior the touchtone? Are you advocating that instead of fighting to be who they want to be, they should instead alter their lifestyle to blend with what society wants of them? To what end?

 

Discrimination is a natural part of life. Humans, by the fact itself, discriminate everytime they act and make choices. Every form of law discriminates against something. Discrimination is the cognitive process of differentiation. Society cannot function without it. It used to be that discrimination in this society was more positive than pejorative. When someone would say "You have a discriminating mind", it was more of a compliment on a keen sense of judgment than a smear label meant to ostracize. Only in the inverted age of hippies and liberals have things changed.

 

Everytime I choose something over something else I am discriminating. If I choose dolma over hamburgers I am discriminating. If I choose to drive a Ford I am discriminating against a Toyota. If I prefer to hang around Armenians or marry an Armenian I am discriminating against all those that are not Armenian.

 

You can never stop or dictate what private individuals will feel or not. Earlier you said I could be intolerant, but here it seems you want to eliminate intolerance against homosexuals by putting in the framework of discrimination and implying that there 'oughtta be a law' against it.

 

Homosexuals can be homosexuals. No one has argued against anything else. I don't know where you get these assumptions. It's just when it's shoved down my throat, I have a problem with it.

 

[Anonymouse]

You make no sense. You say that there is no such thing as homosexuality, since it is primarily a social construct, but you do speak of homosexuals being the most promiscuous group. Make up your mind: either we're all heterosexuals with latent homosexuals desires, or some of us are inherently heterosexuals and some of us are inherently homosexuals when presented with a choice.

 

(And you never commented on how it is possible that homosexuality occurs even in the most oppressive cultures, if homosexuality is merely a learned behavior. Where would these people learn their behavior from if they have never heard about it or seen it?)

 

You suffer from the same thing most women suffer: selective reading. I never said homosexuality is a social construct. I said the idea we have of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' or that it is some 'fixed identity' in the age of identity power politics is a modern creation, as Foucault himself (even if you disagree with him) aptly pointed out. Otherwise, homosexual behavior is as real as a flat tire. You seem to propose an all-or-nothing deal, and sadly it doesn't work that way. It still does not put to rest the confused of the bunch, i.e. bisexuals.

 

When did I argue that homosexuality is entirely a learned behavior to comment on how it's possible for it to occur in the most oppressive cultures? In fact, I repeated several times there are situations of both nature and nurture. Why is this so difficult to understand? And why do you and vahan continue to attach arguments to me that I did not make?

[Anonymouse]

(1) I think this dialogue is interesting and helpful. I don't see why you are unwilling to discuss this all publicly if you are, as you suggest, willing to discuss it.

 

(2) I think I see your point, kinda, but let me point out one thing. Marriage, under American constitutional law, has been recognized not only as a right, but as a "fundamental right." It is not a mere "privilege." The denial by various governments (state and federal) of the right of same-sex couples to marry is grounded in a different analysis, which the Supreme Court has never directly expounded, but will probably go something like this, either: (a) your fundamental right to marry is not infringed because you can still marry, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex, i.e., the right is limited to opposite-sex unions; and ( the government can infringe your fundamental right because there are compelling government interests involved: preservation of the family unit and reproduction of a national populace. Neither is too compelling. In fact, the first was rejected by the Supreme Court when it held that disallowing marriage between races (in this case black man and white woman) is impermissible; it is not enough to say, "you can get married! just to someone of your own race!". The second is even weaker. Should we disallow sterile heterosexual couples to marry since they can't bear children?

 

(3) We need to stop dilly-dallying around the real issue. America disallows same-sex marriage because religious fanatics freak out at the idea. It is a blatant violation of this country's constitutional commitment to keep state and church separate.

 

This is all fine and dandy, but you are again making references to blacks. Blacks have no control over being black. Homosexuality is nebulous and often is hard to pinpoint or define since it is a behavior. Therefore, saying it's the same as "Blacks can marry so should we LOL1" is an error.

[phantom22]

WRONG!!!!!One can be homosexual or bisexual and NEVER conduct the BEHAVIOR.

 

I am a bisexual male but have only been intimate with women for the past 25 years. Homosexuals or bisexuals have no control of being of that orientation per se. It is a "genetic condition" or a "genetic disorder" depending upon one's view. The only choice for homosexuals is whether to remain celibate, or for bisexuals to limit thier sexual relations to members of the opposite sex. Two recent studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is geneticaly based. You are just expressing your personal biases here.

 

This is all fine and dandy, but you are again making references to blacks. Blacks have no control over being black. Homosexuality is nebulous and often is hard to pinpoint or define since it is a behavior. Therefore, saying it's the same as "Blacks can marry so should we LOL1" is an error.

Edited June 9, 2007 by phantom22

[ED]

Կոպիտ էի... Sorry, Raffi.

 

հարգելի ֆորումի անդամ եմ ես?

 

ches? qar@ nmanvume qu tvats hartsin, gtsoxnel du es, isk xeloqnernel chen karoxanum hanel

 

mite anhaskaneli ban ka sra mej?

 

yete 3 orum esqan energya e tsaxsvum mi anphut topici vra, apa mi patkeratsru nuynchap jamanak hatkatsver u gutse yev mi mitq tsaqer i0ogut mer Azgi, Hayastani, Genocide, u nmanorinak temaneri hamar, patkeratsru vor mi xeloq mi xelatsi mi ban kaser?!!! ches kartsum?

 

 

batsi anpitanutyunits, vor es topikne, urish inch ogut es tesnum Hayutyan hamar, azgi hamar nor amena verjum Hyeforumi hamar?

yes norits em asum qez Raffu xosker@, mi lav mtatsi u eli gri.

 

iharke hargeli es, amenq@ hargeli en mijev kortsnumen da.

 

[nairi]

You suffer from the same thing most women suffer: selective reading. I never said homosexuality is a social construct. I said the idea we have of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' or that it is some 'fixed identity' in the age of identity power politics is a modern creation, as Foucault himself (even if you disagree with him) aptly pointed out. Otherwise, homosexual behavior is as real as a flat tire. You seem to propose an all-or-nothing deal, and sadly it doesn't work that way. It still does not put to rest the confused of the bunch, i.e. bisexuals.

 

And this is where you make no sense, once again. Homosexuality is a different sexuality from heterosexuality and bisexuality. It's as simple as that: it's a sexuality, which neither you nor a homosexual can change. What you are talking about is a culture (call it lifestyle, identity, or whatever the heck you want) that has been created by certain homosexuals, particularly in San Francisco and the Los Angeles area. Homosexuality is not and cannot be an "alternative lifestyle," since it is merely a sexual preference for the same sex. As for Foucault, he is old. Very old. Start reading some Queer Theory and you might find that modern theorists are very well aware of the criticism against identity politics, since they criticize it themselves.

 

When did I argue that homosexuality is entirely a learned behavior to comment on how it's possible for it to occur in the most oppressive cultures? In fact, I repeated several times there are situations of both nature and nurture. Why is this so difficult to understand? And why do you and vahan continue to attach arguments to me that I did not make?

 

Since you lay the emphasis so strongly on behavior, I'm assuming that genes only play a very small role, in your analysis. In other words, homosexuality, in your terms, is something contagious if only we repeatedly hear about it long enough. Is that why you don't like homosexuals flaunting themselves in your face? Afraid that it might catch on? Now, since you are such a proponent of the "we all discriminate" argument, why don't you discriminate the articles you choose to read in your local newspaper, discriminate which webpages you want visit, and discriminate what shows you choose to watch on TV. No one is forcing you to go to Gay Pride Parades, catch ball at the Gay Olympics, or play a lead role in "Broke Back Mountain II." Snap out of your phalluscentric fantasy that you are being oppressed by gay identity politics.

[phantom22]

Are any of you here well-versed in genetics? Do you understand how green eyes are formed? Bisexuality is a unique condition different from heterosexuality or homosexuality, in the same way that green eyes are different form brown or blue eyes.

 

 

And this is where you make no sense, once again. Homosexuality is a different sexuality from heterosexuality and bisexuality. It's as simple as that: it's a sexuality, which neither you nor a homosexual can change. What you are talking about is a culture (call it lifestyle, identity, or whatever the heck you want) that has been created by certain homosexuals, particularly in San Francisco and the Los Angeles area. Homosexuality is not and cannot be an "alternative lifestyle," since it is merely a sexual preference for the same sex. As for Foucault, he is old. Very old. Start reading some Queer Theory and you might find that modern theorists are very well aware of the criticism against identity politics, since they criticize it themselves.

Since you lay the emphasis so strongly on behavior, I'm assuming that genes only play a very small role, in your analysis. In other words, homosexuality, in your terms, is something contagious if only we repeatedly hear about it long enough. Is that why you don't like homosexuals flaunting themselves in your face? Afraid that it might catch on? Now, since you are such a proponent of the "we all discriminate" argument, why don't you discriminate the articles you choose to read in your local newspaper, discriminate which webpages you want visit, and discriminate what shows you choose to watch on TV. No one is forcing you to go to Gay Pride Parades, catch ball at the Gay Olympics, or play a lead role in "Broke Back Mountain II." Snap out of your phalluscentric fantasy that you are being oppressed by gay identity politics.

 

[vahan79]

I am unwilling to discuss it because I know anonymouse and I know where this will lead.

 

But if you really want this here. Marriage is only a right in a religious perspective, but it is in fact a deguised privilage. Lets take the tax brakes, I personally oppose to tax brakes until a couple(hetero) expect to have kids and has kids. I also have a problem with gay couples adoption of children until serious replicated studies point that it has no influence on child developpement. On average gay couples have higher incomes than hetero couples, since income is one of the major factors taken in consideration a gay couple who get married under law being the same as a equal as hetero couple will have more chance to get their applications accepted on the factor of income while the consideration of factors such as "same sex" will be considered as prejudicial while I believe that a hetero environment is more healthy for a child psychological developpement while under the new predispositions this can not be considered.

 

Marriage is not only the union between two people, there are many privilages attached to it, I disagree with many of those privilages given to hetero couples unless they expect to have a child, because many of those privilages are meant to facilitate it. So many hetero couples already abuse the system. They have privilages that others don't have and they use those privilages regardless of the purpouses of their existance. Privilages not rights. Elderly pay here less for public transportations, why can't I have that too? Is this a prejudice? No, they have a privilage I don't have. There are more softwares on PC than MAC, those using PC have that privilage, it is not to say that had MAC users used PC they would have those privilages too, much like if someone being phyisically attracted to someone of the same sex could still marry the opposit sex, he won't want to do that but still he will have the same rights. Women were prevented from voting no matter what, Blacks were discriminated because they were Blacks. Gays are not prevented to get married because they are gays, there is nothing under law which they can not do because they are gay. This is the distinction between privilages and rights. This is why I always had trouble comparing Gay situation with Blacks, women etc.

 

It is true that gays are descriminated, but not by law, fanatics or prejudicial people descriminate them, but the law does not, there is nothing in law which gives one rule for gays and another for others like it was the cases when Women and Blacks were descriminated under law.

 

I do oppose same sex marriage, but not that strongly, I won't jump out of my chair if it is permitted, it is here in Canada permitted, and when voting in elections parties positions on that was not a factor, I still opposed the Conservative party because in most cases those oppositions are religious oriented, while mine has more to do with some privilages and their distinction with rights. Many here who are Atheists in this board have problem with that also. Anoushik, Stormig, Sip etc. are some exemple.

 

It is a misconception that gay couples on average have more income than straight couples. I think the reason this misconception has spread has to do with the fact that the most vociferous gay couples are those that are economically well-off and can afford to be so public. Also, poorer people from poorer areas struggle with coming out more because they can't afford to live in the ritzy areas like West Hollywood (or Toronto?) where they would be accepted. I mean, just think about it, why would gay people be richer?

 

I am still not sure I get your point. Are gays asking for special privileges?

[nairi]

Bisexuality is a unique condition different from heterosexuality or homosexuality

 

I never said otherwise.

[vahan79]

Homosexuals can be homosexuals. No one has argued against anything else. I don't know where you get these assumptions. It's just when it's shoved down my throat, I have a problem with it.

 

How is it shoved down your throat? If you are saying that having pride parades once a year or having gay people featured in some movies is shoving it down your throat, you are certainly paranoid!

 

Are you saying that you should be allowed to be intolerant, but gays should not be allowed to have parades? Why are you given free reign to act as you wish, but others shouldn't be, others are "shoving" things "down your throat" by expressing themselves?

 

I am trying to get to the heart of your point...

[vahan79]

Vahan, any more evidences as to why I said we should continue somewhere else?

 

հասկացա

[vahan79]

ches? qar@ nmanvume qu tvats hartsin, gtsoxnel du es, isk xeloqnernel chen karoxanum hanel

 

mite anhaskaneli ban ka sra mej?

 

yete 3 orum esqan energya e tsaxsvum mi anphut topici vra, apa mi patkeratsru nuynchap jamanak hatkatsver u gutse yev mi mitq tsaqer i0ogut mer Azgi, Hayastani, Genocide, u nmanorinak temaneri hamar, patkeratsru vor mi xeloq mi xelatsi mi ban kaser?!!! ches kartsum?

batsi anpitanutyunits, vor es topikne, urish inch ogut es tesnum Hayutyan hamar, azgi hamar nor amena verjum Hyeforumi hamar?

yes norits em asum qez Raffu xosker@, mi lav mtatsi u eli gri.

 

iharke hargeli es, amenq@ hargeli en mijev kortsnumen da.

 

Չեմ կարծում որ այս հպատակն անպիտան է... եւ ճիշտ ես որ ուրիշ կարեւոր ու օգուտ հպատակները կան, բայց հիմա այս թեման ինձ համար հետաքրքիր է...

[Anonymouse]

WRONG!!!!!One can be homosexual or bisexual and NEVER conduct the BEHAVIOR.

 

I am a bisexual male but have only been intimate with women for the past 25 years. Homosexuals or bisexuals have no control of being of that orientation per se. It is a "genetic condition" or a "genetic disorder" depending upon one's view. The only choice for homosexuals is whether to remain celibate, or for bisexuals to limit thier sexual relations to members of the opposite sex. Two recent studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is geneticaly based. You are just expressing your personal biases here.

 

So you're using yourself as the evidence for the entire subject eh? So even genetic studies have not reported conclusively that homosexuality is genetic, but you yourself in your high horse know the answer with absolute certainty and thus the debate should end here because phantom22 knows it all!

Edited June 9, 2007 by Anonymouse

[nairi]

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.'

 

I don't know why I didn't respond to this earlier. Well, I sort of did. Speaking of selective reading. Perhaps it's not such a typically female thing after all.

 

Foucault never acknowledged that homosexuality was just a behavior that is now acquiring a fixed identity. Foucault merely observes how homosexuals have been labeled by heterosexuals historically. Heterosexuals called homosexuality a behavioral aberration and in the nineteenth century they tried to categorize it under a fixed label. Foucault does neither. If anything, Foucault is advocating for homosexuality to be studied in its own right, rather than being studied as either an aberration or a fixed identity.

[Anonymouse]

And this is where you make no sense, once again. Homosexuality is a different sexuality from heterosexuality and bisexuality. It's as simple as that: it's a sexuality, which neither you nor a homosexual can change. What you are talking about is a culture (call it lifestyle, identity, or whatever the heck you want) that has been created by certain homosexuals, particularly in San Francisco and the Los Angeles area. Homosexuality is not and cannot be an "alternative lifestyle," since it is merely a sexual preference for the same sex. As for Foucault, he is old. Very old. Start reading some Queer Theory and you might find that modern theorists are very well aware of the criticism against identity politics, since they criticize it themselves.

 

 

But isn't that the problem? There are people go in and out of these sexual preferences like tic tacs. And so now you admit homosexuality is not an 'alternative lifestyle'? As much as you and other self-styled liberal egalitarians like to believe that homosexuality is some genetic thing that everyone is born with, there is nothing conclusive.

 

Since you lay the emphasis so strongly on behavior, I'm assuming that genes only play a very small role, in your analysis. In other words, homosexuality, in your terms, is something contagious if only we repeatedly hear about it long enough. Is that why you don't like homosexuals flaunting themselves in your face? Afraid that it might catch on? Now, since you are such a proponent of the "we all discriminate" argument, why don't you discriminate the articles you choose to read in your local newspaper, discriminate which webpages you want visit, and discriminate what shows you choose to watch on TV. No one is forcing you to go to Gay Pride Parades, catch ball at the Gay Olympics, or play a lead role in "Broke Back Mountain II." Snap out of your phalluscentric fantasy that you are being oppressed by gay identity politics.

 

When I say behavior, I mean it as it is manifested in our every day world. Is it not a certain behavior that homosexuals engage in? Homosexuality is not contagious per se, but it can have tendencies of such in modern society. For example, allowing homosexual parenting, as certain studies have indicated, can have an impact on the young. This is the whole point. You can name call me all you want and resort to every form of emotional appeal, but it remains that the only argument you have is one of emotion and nothing else.

 

[nairi]

But isn't that the problem? There are people go in and out of these sexual preferences like tic tacs.

 

No, there are not. The largest majority has never experimented, and of those that have, many have backed off from it. If you had made the argument of the metrosexual--the heterosexual man who cares about how he looks--as being influenced by homosexuals who also engage in this behavior, it would have made much more sense to me.

 

And so now you admit homosexuality is not an 'alternative lifestyle'? As much as you and other self-styled liberal egalitarians like to believe that homosexuality is some genetic thing that everyone is born with, there is nothing conclusive.

 

The pro-biology argument is simply more feasible than the behavioral one, which is made by your average homophobic American hick.

 

the only argument you have is one of emotion and nothing else.

 

If this is true, then we might as well stop talking now.