News   Mar 28, 2024
 1.3K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 638     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 918     0 

Rob Ford and Pride

kkgg7:

True, you have not called for the direct persecution of gay people. But your broad lumping in of homosexuality with disease and tyranny is a hallmark of ideas that have been used to persecute gay people in recent history.

If you want to be more supportive, it'd be good to refine your terms.

I think you misread my posts. I have never lumped homosexuality with disease if you read carefully. On the other hand, I explicitly emphasized that AIDS has little to do with gayness but is more related with one's promiscuous sexual behavior. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then accuse me of it.
 
see? you showed obvious hostility toward someone who simply has a different view from yours. I fail to see how my previous argument is "ludicrous".

I have no hostility for you at all. Matter of fact, I'd love to meet you. I've a hunch you'd be a fascinating person to meet. I'm betting it would dispel a few sad unfortunate misconceptions on both sides. Want to take me up on it? I'd welcome it.

However, I am hostile to vacuous arguments using specious claims. Your contention that we're all being forced to parrot some homosexual agenda is just that - a silly, pitiful argument. I'm calling it as I see it. If you don't like being centred out for being silly or resorting to lame retorts and empty denials, then all you have to do is up your game; give me a better argument, one with a little meat on its bones. You might be surprised at my reaction then.

Your failure to see how your previous argument is ludicrous is your problem, not mine; again, I think you have trouble forming cogent points. You're good at making sweeping claims but you don't bother to back them up; rather, you act as if your words are self-evident. They're not.

Over to you.
 
And to repeat once again: I don't think it's just a matter of kkgg7 not understanding homosexuality, it's that he doesn't understand sexuality, period.

And come to think of it, there's a weird overall narcissistic antisociality about his posting that leaves me thinking of the Breivik trial (and I just read a FB thread post on said trial that said it all: "Or to put it in more modern terms, don't feed the trolls, people. Even when they are mass murderers.")
 
First off, I can't condone questioning the fellow's own sexual proclivities or own depth of sexual experience (or conjectured lack of it either). It's not germane to this board - and besides, it ain't nice.

Secondly, I don't agree that he's a troll. I don't know what he is, exactly, but he has as much right to post here as you or I do.

Back to Mr. Ford. Wonder what will happen in the weeks to come. It's a fair bet that somehow he will be obliged to take steps to defuse the situation. Certainly the media will continue to feed on the story until he blinks or somehow causes an even bigger controversy.
 
And to repeat once again: I don't think it's just a matter of kkgg7 not understanding homosexuality, it's that he doesn't understand sexuality, period.

And come to think of it, there's a weird overall narcissistic antisociality about his posting that leaves me thinking of the Breivik trial (and I just read a FB thread post on said trial that said it all: "Or to put it in more modern terms, don't feed the trolls, people. Even when they are mass murderers.")

You do this all the time. The simple fact that he does not agree with the consensus makes does not make him a troll.
 
I wasn't aware that there was a consensus.

But point taken. Just because he posts what he posts does not make him a troll. That's a word all too often used when people don't like the message. Ergo, brand the messenger something negative and hope it sticks.
 
I wasn't aware that there was a consensus.

But point taken. Just because he posts what he posts does not make him a troll. That's a word all too often used when people don't like the message. Ergo, brand the messenger something negative and hope it sticks.

I felt the consensus was that Ford should go to the parade, but now looking back that word was too strong.
 
I don't know. Seems to me the reception to Ford is very much dependent on relative geography. I live in the core. The majority here dislike Ford, yet think he should be attending at least a single pride event of some sort. Whereas most people outside of "old" Toronto feel otherwise - they like the man and want him to continue to fight the good fight, I suppose, and never kowtow to what they consider just another "special interest group." And then, what the media says is another matter entirely. People sometimes forget that mainstream media stives to influence public opinion constantly - through obvious items like editorials, but also via their front page and the content of their headlines. Compare the Sun to the Star... it's like they're reporting from different planets.
 
The simple fact that he does not agree with the consensus makes does not make him a troll.
True, but the fact the he so often comes to so many discussions to make a point of not agreeing with the consensus does indicate they are trolling.

You act like it's the first time they have pulled this stunt.
 
I am starting my reply with your final comment because at the end of the day this is what the Pride debate comes down to for me too, among other things.

You make it sound as if this is some academically unchallenged and tired old chestnut that's been floating around since the beginning of time. Not so. 'Mainstream' science (which I take to mean established and peer-reviewed), medicine and psychology have reached this understanding over time and only recently... and not necessarily that there's a 'gay gene' we can point to, per se, but that there isn't a 'straight' gene for that matter either.

Social taboos may prevent people from acting on desires/drives but this doesn't mean those desires and drives don't exist, which is sort of the point.

The flaws in your point above are:

1) You cannot prove that the number of people participating in same-sex relations in modern Greece is 5%. At best you can only identify how many people openly acknowledge doing so. These are very different things, and these are slippery problems for science which 'demands' quantifiable numbers to be acceptable as valid. Instead you have a 'hypothesis' which many would refute.

2) The 'serious research' into sexuality in Ancient Greece that you refer to is also not quantifiable. Never mind the lack of statistics and so on, how the Greeks defined same-sex relations may cover everything from man-on-man hot times to something akin to the modern-day version of a 'bromance'. In other words these things may have been 'idealized' and celebrated but we don't really know to what extent they reflect true numbers.

To be honest you still do not make a compelling 'scientific' case that would refute the 'mainstream' position of science on this issue. On the contrary, you are hanging on to dated ideas about these things that have been discredited for some time.

Your points above really only underscore the complicated diversity of human sexuality and the inadequacy of our limited labels to try to understand it. You're absolutely right that a prison inmate who engages in homosexual acts isn't necessarily a homosexual (in the 'Kinsey 6' sense of this term) but is also not strictly 'heterosexual' either if we are using an inadequate terminology that forces sexuality into a binary opposition, in which case we would have to assume that under no circumstances would a heterosexual engage in same-sex acts, and no matter what the context... or else they aren't 'heterosexual'.

... and as for whether homosexuals are 'formed' in utero or afterwards we simply just do not know, but we don't know this about the formation of sexuality in general either (straight or otherwise). Reproduction is an act, and it is a same-sex act but just like your prison inmate there is many a gay dude who can carry out that reproductive act, and has! In other words reproduction isn't limited to heterosexuals.

We already know that homosexuality isn't 'normal' in the sense you mean it, but so what? Albinos and red heads aren't normal either but this doesn't mean for one instant that they weren't genetically/biologically predetermined to be albinos or red heads. In other words, 'normal' (as you define it) isn't germane to the argument in any way.

In fact there have been many studies that demonstrate quite the opposite of what you argue. There are established statistics that seem to point to the genetic determinants of sexuality in differing contexts (twins, number of male children etc). 'Nurture' in this instance has been largely discredited.

Yes, sexuality is complicated and there are probably biological and social/cultural determinants at play for all, gay and straight and otherwise.

I would just ask you to reverse the role. Imagine that you are a statistic 'minority' in a largely homosexist world, and then imagine that homosexuals were constantly trying to tell you how you should understand your sexuality, and constantly telling you that your heterosexuality is a 'construct', the mere result of environmental factors. No matter how you look at it, or how innocuously you intend it, there is something reductive and dismissive in this viewpoint. Given the far longer and wider context of history and homophobia a little more sensitivity may be needed on your part, is all.

I never said homosexuality was a construct. But it'd be naive to say that many heterosexuals and homosexuals aren't letting constructs get in the way of reality. As a straight person who is incredibly attracted to women I can't convincingly say that if I'd been brought up in a social setting where certain homosexual acts were the norm I would be disgusted by them. On the contrary, from what I know I'd be inclined to bet I'd happily participate in this bisexual scenario. I'm honest about this with my friends, and you should see that puts ME in an awkward situation seeing as people tend to be horrible and judgmental - but I couldn't care less because I'm pursuing the truth and I'm very comfortable with how I carry myself out.

From what we know, homosexuals shouldn't torture themselves over their sexuality. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon, frequently in-utero, that shouldn't stop individuals from enjoying themselves sexually and socially. It also shouldn't stop them from assuming that many aspects of their sexuality may be plastic!

I am not making any 'arguments', I have limited myself to stating empirical verifiable facts. By 'mainstream' I obviously don't mean peer-reviewed articles, but rather stuff that makes it to the newspapers like The Star (which is my fav. newspaper anyway). Most peer-reviewed articles support that homosexuality doesn't appear to be caused by genetics judging by all the evidence we have available. If you are under the impression that scientific peer-reviewed articles support a genetic basis for homosexuality then you've been getting your information from the mainstream media as opposed to the journals themselves. Your accusation that my information is outdated is either downright defensive or ignorant. The greek example is valid in spite of your nit-picking, but if you so insist I can point you just as easily to the Etoro people, where homosexual acts are encouraged between youth and elders (young boys are encouraged to perform oral sex to elders to take in their 'force'). Homosexual behaviour in nearby tribes with genetically equivalent populations may be even more pronounced or completely non-existent - pointing to the lack of a genetic basis for the behaviours (they all do reproduce heterosexually however, pointing strongly to a genetic basis for that).

Twin studies prove that indeed there is a significant link between brothers who share a placenta to turn out gay. Studies also show that genetically identical twins who don't share a placenta show no such relationship. This supports that homosexuals can frequently be a product of in-utero environmental factors.

This is not a matter of what you want to believe, emotions are irrelevant. If an albino says 'my skin colour is normal' he is wrong. Just like if I were to personally state that my allergic reaction to alfalfa is normal would also be wrong. All of these things are of course natural and we shouldn't be treated differently for them. I must add there's a huge case to be made for bisexual behaviour being considered normal, though. There is an equally strong case to be made for bisexual behaviour to be considered 'genetic'.

When I was 15 I was diagnosed with a couple of hormonal disorders that have been running in my family for ages. I was told it wasn't my fault, that it was just genetics acting, and that all I had to do was to take a couple of pills every day for the rest of my life. I was 'normal' they said, to make me feel better. Luckily enough I incidentally wanted to study evolutionary biology, and before I knew it I got to understand what was causing these disorders with a precision that is not available to 99% of those who suffer them. I saw that apes in the wild very rarely suffered these same disorders, and determined that environmental and lifestyle factors must have been responsible for my body's malfunction. With this knowledge I drastically changed my diet and lifestyle in accordance to what evolutionary theory suggests should rid of these diseases, and in the span of a year I had stopped taking pills and my blood indicators were all optimal. Understanding without any prejudices the nature of what my body was going through allowed me to drastically improve my quality of life, and I encourage all sorts of people to use this approach to enhance their own life. If people were so convinced of the '100% genetic always for everyone' nonsense they wouldn't be so defensive about it.

Those who say 'I used to be with a woman but I'd kiss her and feel nothing, but I kissed a man and I felt something therefore I am clearly genetically gay' are missing the point completely and can't be taken any more seriously than straight people who say 'even if it was socially encouraged I would never let another man touch me with his dick ever'. I can't get any pleasure whatsoever from kissing a fat woman (in fact I'm positively sexually disgusted by them), but that doesn't mean I'm genetically predetermined to find them a terrible turn-off either. Sexuality is a complex subject but we surprisingly do know a lot about it. There are many methods you can use to learn a lot about yourself and experiment with what we think we like and don't. The conclusions you reach are irrelevant to me, and you may find that you are happiest having sex solely with leather-strapped indian males, but I do think approaching the issue with an open mind and critical thinking is key to building better and happier communities.

Currently in a place like Ontario a huge number of people let a list of convenient human constructs dictate their sex life. Christians and Muslims act like it's immoral to do anything outside of marriage with anyone other than a rather boring segment of the opposite sex. Asian/Indian immigrants harass their kids into not dating someone from an ethnicity other than their own (and more often than not succeed in drilling this in them). More liberal minded people settle for the myth that our sexual orientation is 100% genetically predetermined and eventually whatever we like can be justified with the magic 'genetics' card (I used to do this when I was younger, too).

For what it's worth, I'll preemptively state that I'm convinced most homosexuals didn't 'choose' to like members of the same sex. Please don't take my words out of context to imply I'm not.
 
First off, I can't condone questioning the fellow's own sexual proclivities or own depth of sexual experience (or conjectured lack of it either). It's not germane to this board - and besides, it ain't nice.

However, when a thread or discussion (like this one) actually addresses issues of sexuality, such issues are at least a little more germane. (And indeed, it may fit into a lot of his other "disgruntled outsider within our culture" stances on this board.)

It's also not entirely unlike certain religious-related discussions, i.e. why, in the Catholic Church, (apparently) celibate figureheads are viewed as sages on issues of love and marriage...

Secondly, I don't agree that he's a troll. I don't know what he is, exactly, but he has as much right to post here as you or I do.

Judging from a begging-for-sympathy post in the University Avenue thread, there might be a touch of Ralph-Wiggum-in-I-Love-Lisa pathos behind his serial posting...
 
For what it's worth, I'll preemptively state that I'm convinced most homosexuals didn't 'choose' to like members of the same sex. Please don't take my words out of context to imply I'm not.

I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm trying to understand your point of view. I confess I'm not sure I do...


I never said homosexuality was a construct. But it'd be naive to say that many heterosexuals and homosexuals aren't letting constructs get in the way of reality. As a straight person who is incredibly attracted to women I can't convincingly say that if I'd been brought up in a social setting where certain homosexual acts were the norm I would be disgusted by them. On the contrary, from what I know I'd be inclined to bet I'd happily participate in this bisexual scenario. I'm honest about this with my friends, and you should see that puts ME in an awkward situation seeing as people tend to be horrible and judgmental - but I couldn't care less because I'm pursuing the truth and I'm very comfortable with how I carry myself out.

From what we know, homosexuals shouldn't torture themselves over their sexuality. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon, frequently in-utero, that shouldn't stop individuals from enjoying themselves sexually and socially. It also shouldn't stop them from assuming that many aspects of their sexuality may be plastic!

From the above two points I get the feeling that you are saying that homosexuality is solely environmental (in-utero and social), whereas heterosexuality is genetic.

Based on this I still come back to a fundamental analytical flaw in your position:

The very exercise of trying to understand what 'causes homosexuality' is in and of itself heterosexist (and thereby subjective) because it takes for axiomatic the assumption that we do understand what causes heterosexuality (which we don't, even if we understand what causes reproductive acts). This assumption implicitly normalizes hetersexuality and marginalizes that which isn't, in that it links the biological imperative of reproduction to the social construct of the male-female pair bond.


I am not making any 'arguments', I have limited myself to stating empirical verifiable facts. By 'mainstream' I obviously don't mean peer-reviewed articles, but rather stuff that makes it to the newspapers like The Star (which is my fav. newspaper anyway). Most peer-reviewed articles support that homosexuality doesn't appear to be caused by genetics judging by all the evidence we have available. If you are under the impression that scientific peer-reviewed articles support a genetic basis for homosexuality then you've been getting your information from the mainstream media as opposed to the journals themselves. Your accusation that my information is outdated is either downright defensive or ignorant. The greek example is valid in spite of your nit-picking, but if you so insist I can point you just as easily to the Etoro people, where homosexual acts are encouraged between youth and elders (young boys are encouraged to perform oral sex to elders to take in their 'force'). Homosexual behaviour in nearby tribes with genetically equivalent populations may be even more pronounced or completely non-existent - pointing to the lack of a genetic basis for the behaviours (they all do reproduce heterosexually however, pointing strongly to a genetic basis for that).

I must cry foul here! On the one hand you claim to be citing 'verifiable' and 'empirical' facts yet criticize me for 'nit-picking' when I question the verifiability and empiricism of the conclusions you draw from ancient Greece... and this debate reaches stalemate unless you can actually cite a scientific and 'peer-reviewed' reference that claims to have discovered what causes homosexuality... heck, go ahead and cite one that claims to have discovered what causes heterosexuality for that matter. To my knowledge there are still only theories out there, a gene that determines 'sexuality' has yet to be identified.


This is not a matter of what you want to believe, emotions are irrelevant. If an albino says 'my skin colour is normal' he is wrong. Just like if I were to personally state that my allergic reaction to alfalfa is normal would also be wrong. All of these things are of course natural and we shouldn't be treated differently for them. I must add there's a huge case to be made for bisexual behaviour being considered normal, though. There is an equally strong case to be made for bisexual behaviour to be considered 'genetic'.

The problem here is that you stick to very inadequate terminology, which betrays you in the end:

As we know, the word 'normal' has two meanings in common usage (normal as natural or normal as most commonly occuring), and I can't help but feel you are being coy in playing around with these double entendres because you know very well what an albino means when they say 'their skin in normal', or by extension what a homosexual means when they say their sexuality is normal. To deliberately skew these things is disingenuous.

Also, you indicate that a 'particular' case for bisexuality could be made but isn't this really just to admit that the reality of human sexuality doesn't fit tidily into the accepted, socially constructed view of sexuality as a binary opposite of heterosexual-homosexual?... and really, isn't this just 'Kinsey' stuff that you are referring to??


If people were so convinced of the '100% genetic always for everyone' nonsense they wouldn't be so defensive about it.

Agreed. To be fair though, if gay people are touchy about this it is largely because the vast majority of society seeks to normalize heterosexuality (conferring genetics to it) and marginalize that which isn't. At the end of the day the jury may be out on whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but it's still also out when it comes to heterosexuality and it is this hypocrisy that is so frustrating.

Those who say 'I used to be with a woman but I'd kiss her and feel nothing, but I kissed a man and I felt something therefore I am clearly genetically gay' are missing the point completely and can't be taken any more seriously than straight people who say 'even if it was socially encouraged I would never let another man touch me with his dick ever'.

Yes and no. Again, if we get rid of the archaic terminology (gay/straight, hetero/homo) we may understand that sexuality lays on a spectrum (Kinsey) where at the polar ends some people may legitimately self-identify as 100% exclusively homo or exclusively hetero, no matter what the circumstances.
 
I disagree. The mayor has the right to go on a vacation with his family on a summer weekend. I have nothing against the LBGT community, but they already have every right a normal citizen possess including marriage, and I don't think it is the mayor's obligation to spend personal time on a parade of a particular community.

If the mayor is obligated to attend, otherwise, he is deems unfriendly to LGBT, then if there is a black people event, will he have to go too to show he has nothing against the black community? Will he have to attend the "because I am a girl" event for show he is not against women? Or all the sick kids programs to show he has nothing against sick kids? Or the Chinese New York parade to show he respects the Chinese community?

The gay parade is just one of the many cultural events in Toronto. We should not hold the mayor responsible for attending it every year even though he is not personally interested. Last year the same discussion happened too on major newspapers as if it is a big deal. Think about it, the gay community is well protected by our law and policies already, what's the big deal the mayor doesn't want to go?

Can someone tell me which event is the "black people event"...?
I'd like to go so I can show my support for the "black people".:confused:
 

Back
Top