Re: Homosexualism
Foro, my beliefs are that Zare is completely misguided. However, he has a right to be misguided. I think he is utterly wrong in so many aspects of what he is saying.
However, and I have had this conversation fairly extensively with Perun, I do not believe that what Zare has written was written out of blind hatred - instead out of misguided science and ignorance, two of the chief contributors to bigotry that are out there.
It is my opinion, now and always, that misguided and ignorant opinions are better challenged than ignored, and that a dialogue is always better than ignorance of the "other side". For instance, I believe that Nazis should be allowed to march and KKK should be allowed to rally. It is the act that declaring that "Jews must be destroyed", or "Blacks must be lynched" that is both criminal and in violation of the clear and present danger litmus test of free speech to which I personally adhere.
One of the thing that has always amused me about many areas of Europe is their clutch to censorship around certain dictatorial groups of the past. Personally, I think this is wrong.
Forostar, let me assure you that in aspects like this, the moderators are constantly conversing. We are all friends and usually talk every day or so, either in the chat, on MSN, or on the mod forum, and we will do what we feel is best for the forum. If you feel otherwise, you're always welcome to say so to us, as you have done, and it is taken into consideration.
I suppose, to answer your question, if you replace the term "homosexuality" with "African" and "gay" with "black", then it remains a very questionable post that hovers on the line. However, personally, unlike some (especially a certain admin of times past), I prefer a clear violation of the line to one that walks it. I would expect everyone to react in the same way to that hypothetical post: a discussion of psuedoscience, a discussion of rhetoric, and utter disbelief that in 2007 someone can have such archaic views.
However, I think it makes us all a hint stronger to remember that even today there are great swathes of the world where homosexuals are repressed, women forced to the kitchen or worse, blacks, whites, asians, or whomever relegated to lesser citizens. We can exist in our more advanced, socially, societies, and forget that the civil liberties we take for granted do not extend as far as Croatia or Maine; or we can face reality and realize that those of us who extend what we consider basic human rights are in the minority, and it is up to us to set an example for the rest of the world to follow.
And if you ask anyone else on the forum, their opinions will be different. It is entirely possible that this entire topic will be gone tomorrow when any of us wake up. It's possible it will die a natural death.
But we always ask for member input - personally, I am not infallible, and if people are upset in general and think the post and poster shall be removed - let myself, Perun, and SinisterMinisterX know. Contrary to popular belief, we are quite reasonable.
Zare said:
Regardless of what you may think, you are not born as an homo/hetero/bi sexual. The sexuality change can appear in puberty years. It's directly linked to hormonal distortion. Much like women who consume anti-pregnancy pills (which can sometimes contain male human hormones) can sometimes have sideeffects, like more faster
growth of facial hair and such. Homosexual people have more similiar hormones to the people of opposite sex. The average size of INAH-3 of gays is more alike INAH-3 of women than INAH-3 of heterosexual men. Anterior commisure size goes by the same rule...more similiar to women size in gay men, than compared to heterosexual men. Medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus and right amygdala show a different pattern of activity in gay men. Gay people respond different to AND (male pheromone), and EST (female pheromone).
Xq28 genetic marker does not note an genetic illness...but it does note an genetic difference. So, no, gay people are not genetically normal.
You can take two men, one homosexual and one heterosexual, of the same race, same bloodtype, those can even be twin brothers. Researches state, that by preliminar increased activity of hormones in puberty era, something can go different with one brother...he can respond different to pheromones, he can have different hormonal levels and brain activity than his twin.
Therefore proving that it's indeed an condition...if you had an different neural activity level than your twin brother, and his activity is by-the-book, normal, then you have an medical condition. In essence, you may be operating normally, you don't need to experience any side-effects, illness and such...but you have a condition.
Zare, unfortunately your entire basis of argument is about 15 years too old. For instance, the study of the INAH series of neurons, originally done by Simon LeVay, has never been duplicated. That makes it scientifically unstable - an experiment must be repeatable many times to be considered viable. I would suggest that everything you have learned about this subject from the source citing LeVay is biased. A scientist by the name of William Byne attempted to recreate the experiment and found no statistical difference between neurons in either hetero or homosexuals of either gender. In addition, LeVay's original experiment was conducted on men who had contracted HIV/AIDS, which adds an additional, major play to the field of study. I humbly suggest that relying on such scientifically fractured evidence is fallible.
Again, studies of the Xq28 chromosome are preliminary, at best. While Hamer did locate the chromosome in one study, similar studies by Rice and later Mustanski failed to locate the Xq28 chromosome in any gay men at all, suggesting it is something to do with ethnic descent or regional bias instead of homosexuality. Again, the evidence of genetic linkage is somewhat sketchy at best, and relying entirely on it is scientifically fallible. In addition, no study has ever in any credible way located genetic evidence for homosexuality in women, which very much suggests that the genetic link is tenable, at the extreme best.
Finally, scientifically, among a species, 10% is not considered a mutation, an abnormality, or aberrant. It is, instead, considered a subsect. You suggest Mother Nature created men to act in a certain way? Well, I suggest that homosexuality was fostered through the course of evolution, and if it was "abnormal", it likely would not have survived in such a major portion of the population. In other words - it is perfectly normal for such a large percentage of the human race to be gay, similar as how it is normal for such a large percent to be white, or a large percent to have blue eyes.
Zare said:
We can all agree where church stands...it's a matter of the house. If i let anyone to live in my house, he is going to play by my rules. It's only up to them to accept or reject gay marriages. About state marriage, situation follows; Croatia has negative natality / mortality ratio, therefore the state must do everything to improve that ratio. There are a lot of broken marriages, people that get married in early twenties and end their marriage couple of years later, resulting in one child (best case), or no children (average case). Therefore, the state grants benefits like housing support, social support etc. to married couples. They want to do everything to ensure that couple will have enough conditions and prosperity to raise some children.
Last time i checked, an gay couple or an lesbian couple cannot give birth to a child.
That leaves us to child adoption. Say what you will, but it's more normal to have a mom and a dad, than to have two dads or two moms. Consult any child-raising book, and it's perfectly clear that both mom, as a women, and dad, as a man, have different roles in child raising. Those two roles, when combined, grant an sucessful raise.
That doesn't mean, that gay couple cannot raise a child better than hetero couple. Not in hell. There are idiotic parents everywhere. It's better for a kid to have two loving, good dads, than to have a dad and a mom that don't care for him.
But, the most important thing here; there are more normal child-unable hetero couples in Croatia, than abandoned children. Given what i've said two paragraphs above, i don't see why gay people should be allowed to adopt a child, when there are more than enough good and capable couples, and when it's scientifically proven that it's better to have a women and a man working in respective roles in childbringing, than any other combination.
Ugh. Sociologically, the idea that "a man and woman" make for the appropriate parenting couple is considered outdated nonsense by modern sociological texts and journals. The American Psychological Association is resolved that:
American Psychological Association said:
there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.
That's from the largest and one of the most respected groups of psychologists on the planet - certainly the scholarly group with the access to the most resources. Canada's Department of Justice has reached a similar conclusion when authoring a report for the government that was actually asked for by the Conservative government as a method of publicly fighting gay marriage, then promptly buried until the press dug it out.
You say that "any child-rearing book" may be consulted to find that "straight parents are better than single parents which is better than gay parents which is equal to man fucking a turtle" (Jon Stewart,
The Daily Show). I choose scientific journals, primarily because child-rearing books are not backed by any evidence other than the author's personal conviction or experience.
When it comes to what should be done in Croatia regarding adoption, let me suggest this: make a test that isn't biased to a couple's sexuality. Base it on their education, their finances, their location, their likelihood to have natural children (which in a gay couple is actually quite low, but not impossible, as I shall shortly address), and their, I don't know, put in a skill testing question.
Gay people can have children. It's more than possible. How?
Method 1 - artificial insemination. Homosexual women can choose from a sperm bank or a series of sperm donors, or whoever they want to get the semen from. I understand that financially, in Croatia, this is not currently a big thing, but wait until you get more and more developed. Over here, it's growing more and more common for women and lesbian couples.
Method 2 - surrogate mothers. Similar to artificial insemination, except in this case a woman carries a child that was originally fertilized in a lab. Method of choice for male homosexuals, as well as any plethora of couples that are incapable of carrying a child to term. Again, costly, but not too far out of sight in Croatia. Hell, 10 years ago in Canada it was something out of Philip Dick.
Method 3 - sex. OH MY GOD! Not all gay people are exclusively gay! Especially when it comes to having children. There are many documented cases of gay people actually having sex with a person of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of reproducing. This is usually accompanied by legal documents stating who will have custody of the child. Sometimes happens with close friends. I don't think this is so bad, especially if the relationship between the biological parents remain cordial. Mind you, like Method 2, it can have some negative consequences if people don't go by their legal obligations. However, these things occur quite often nowadays in more Western nations.
So there you have it. Gay people can have children, and there is no scientifically proven reason why they can't adopt and raise them.
And while we're at it...let's debunk what's going on in good ol' Croatia.
You discuss (I think)having a negative birth/death ratio - that is to say, there are more people dying in Croatia than being born. This is true. However, Croatia has a rather minor negative net population gain, according to the CIA World Factbook, of -0.035 %, or, roughly, you lose 1600 people a year in population. Hmm. Sounds like a crisis to me, especially when compared to other European nations.
The real crime here is in infant mortality rates - 6.6 per 1000, compared to under 3 per 1000 in most western nations like Sweden and Canada. Infant mortality is the amount of infants who die within their first year of life - something that could be prevented if poor parents gave up their children to couples who were better off, regardless of sexuality.
Now, you also discuss marriage benefits for couples, and in your first post you suggested that those benefits were there to encourage lasting marriage and thus reproduction and therefore marriage shouldn't be extended to homosexual couples.
Well, why not? If, as postulated above, homosexuals are equally capable as raising a child, their own biologically or adopted, why shouldn't they be eligible for the same benefits as a married heterosexual couple who have children, again, biological or adopted? Maybe what Croatia should consider doing is rewarding a couple who raise a child by child-targeted benefits, instead of having them marriage based. Similarly, a stable gay relationship that would result in a marriage would be quite likely to seek adoption of a child to alleviate Croatia's infant mortality and population loss woes. Sounds good to me.
Zare said:
Combined with the full rights in law for gay people, full protection of law for gay people. If they're protected, that means that local police won't be "eyes wide shut" when somebody beats the hell out of them, that means that any lawsuit against an employer that refused to hire or fired somebody based on his sexualism results in quick judicial process and adequate penality.
Given the current situation in Croatia, that's the optimum of rights they can enjoy. I've already elaborated why they shoudn't be able to get married and why they shouldn't be able (in most cases) to adopt a child.
In the end, parades should be brought down to minimal levels. If they are protected by the law and enjoy the optimum rights, then parades cannot bring anything to their situation...they can only induce riots and stupidity attacks of homophobic, closeminded population, which in essence, only degrades their situation and brings bad reputation points.
Contrary of what you've all have said, they are a minority. Like an national minority, only in different domain. Minorities, by democratic law, need to have all law-protection rights, and all human rights to practice their tradition. But they don't have the same benefits and other stuff as native population of that country. National minorities can vote for their minority representative, they don't vote for national parties in the parliament.
When you discuss "full rights of law", you exclude marriage and adoption. Thus, there are no full and equal rights of law. While it is nice to have everything protected, it's still not the same. Separate MUST not be considered equal, even though similarities are offered. This is why, personally, I do not accept the idea of marriage vs. civil union, and why I can never accept that a liberal democratic government cannot offer marriage to all consenting adults who wish a marriage contract.
I don't know if you understand the purpose of gay pride parades, Zare. Yes, they are a symbol of being proud and such. However, they are also a message to many other homosexuals, who are still "in the closet" - that it's okay. Strength in numbers. There are people who know and understand. That homosexuals have a community should be of no surprise to any of us. And so gay pride parades should continue.
Now, to suggest that simply by holding a gay pride parade, that it will draw out bigots and homophobes? True. Such things do happen. But to suggest that homosexuals should shut up and bear it, because the last thing we want is for a riot to happen? That's fucking bullshit. If gay people stop acting gay, and being proud of it, then those who want them silenced and gone have won. Homosexuality should never have to be ashamed of what it is to avoid being attacked. You want full protection? Have the riot police protect gay pride parades as they're happening. Don't stop them from happening.
I know what you mean, too. I have been known to roll my eyes and go, "I know, you're gay, and that's super, but goddamn, do you have to keep reminding me?" Well, the answer? Yes. Not me, in particular, but those out there who think homosexuality is aberrant, who think it is wrong, and who want it to go away. It's similar to the US civil rights actions of the 60s, and the fact that those actions are still celebrated today.
For future reference, I have no problems with a straight pride parade, too. I just don't think it's necessary, on account of very few people have ever been beaten for being straight (it happens, but it's exceedingly rare). But in my life over the last 6 years in a town of 9000 there have been THREE vicious homophobic attacks. Think about it this way: in my town, if you are a homosexual, of which statistically there should be around 900, over the last 6 years you have had a 1:450 chance of being attacked.
And if you think these events, these vicious beatings and clashes, denigrates the gay pride movement, then you are sorely wrong, or you think in a terrible way - you should emphasize with those who are attacked for being who they are, not believe they deserve it for being loudmouthed. I am proud to say I marched in gay pride parades after these attacks, because I know that if I saw such a thing I'd go for help, or try to help. Regardless of who was on the ground, having their teeth knocked out, elbows broken, eyes blinded, and genitalia stomped to the point where it needed reconstructive surgery.
Homosexuals are a minority, and that entitles them to protection under the law for their chosen lifestyle, just like it would a Muslim or a Jew or a Christian, or an African, European, or Asian. However, I don't know how it works in Croatia, but in Canada, we don't have "minority" representatives. We have regional ones, and we have many openly gay politicians like Nova Scotia's own Scott Brison. Here, a gay person can go as far as a straight person (Scott Brison was in the running to be leader of a major political party), or at least, the hurdles are much, much smaller than they seem to be in Croatia. But that doesn't mean they should go away. They should be proud of who they are, and I see no problem with them being vocal about that.
Zare said:
Look at it this way; we're in a club, where we all play Maiden. A lad comes in and want's to put on Britney Spears. OK, he's a good lad, let him have one song, sit down laddy and have a drink. But we wouldn't tolreate couple of hours of Britney Spears daily just because 5% of the total club population likes BS (heh, same acronym as bullshit
), right?
Your argument is specious, and here is why:
Your club is not representative of a population. Yes, in such a situation, the club would be pretty pissed. But overall, we are dealing with a larger percentage than you suggest.
First of all, many Croatians might wish homosexuality to go away. Here, we have a little thing called "freedom of assembly". It is something we borrowed from the greatest political document of the last 500 years, the Amended Constitution of the United States. That means that people have the right to gather however they wish, as long as their gathering has no violent aims, be they Nazis, gays, or what have you. So, in your club, it's more like, 10% get up and suddenly start singing Britney Spears, instead of wanting to listen to it.
Now, the police have the obligation in Canada to protect freedom of assembly, which means that although you might not like Britney Spears, you have to allow those people singing it to go ahead and do it. If you don't like it...well, you've got some Maiden on your iPod, right? Don't listen to the Britney Spears!
And now, let's look at it further. Sure, it's annoying when some drunk blokes get up and start belting out "Hit Me Baby One More Time" and the bouncers won't let you do anything about it. But gay pride parades only happen once or twice a year, which means that this event only takes place once or twice a year. So really, these drunk Spears fans only get vocal about it every now and then, not every night.
Finally, you're forgetting one major point: most of us can tolerate Britney Spears. We might not be the biggest fans, but every now and then, whatever. Some of us might even like Britney Spears on occasion. Only a base few of us hate her so much that the iPod automatically comes out and we blast Powerslave into our ears.
I think that club is a more adequate representation of what might happen. In Croatia, there might be more iPod listeners than not, but maybe one or two of them will stop and give Ms. Spears a chance and listen to what she has to say.
Finally, I would suggest this: let's not call this type of music "Britney Spears". Instead, let's call it "Metallica". Because a lot of metal fans might not care for thrash and want to hear only Maiden. But in reality, it's not so different to what Maiden plays, and some people might learn to tolerate it.
