New Fallacy - Solving the Wrong Problem

[CaptJodan]

Just a question...will same sex couple influence their child's interest in the same gender?

From all psychological evidence I've seen, no.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just a question...will same sex couple influence their child's interest in the same gender?

Not one bit. The female children of lesbians show a higher incidence of same-sex experimentation, but there is no statistically significant difference in this, or overall same sex attraction. It is pretty much accounted for by the little fact that females have a much more fluid sexuality in general

[Darth Wong]

I suspect that what we call "fluid female sexuality" is just a greater tolerance for things that don't really turn them on. Rebecca doesn't have a problem with lesbian porn for example, but that doesn't mean she's partially amenable to lesbianism. As it turns out, she's explained that it doesn't turn her on at all, but it doesn't repulse her either.

I think heterosexual men are just very strongly repulsed by homosexual men or any imagery to that effect, and since heterosexual women don't react the same way to homosexual woman or lesbian imagery, we tend to assume that this means they're amenable to lesbianism. But there's a really big gap between "I don't mind" and "that turns me on".

[Ted C]

I think heterosexual men are just very strongly repulsed by homosexual men or any imagery to that effect, and since heterosexual women don't react the same way to homosexual woman or lesbian imagery, we tend to assume that this means they're amenable to lesbianism. But there's a really big gap between "I don't mind" and "that turns me on".

I think there's also a stronger social stigma attached to male homosexuality than to female homosexuality. Consequently, males are more likely to vehemently reject homosexual material. Females, simply by being less likely to object to a girl-girl scene than men are to a guy-guy scene, could be described as "more sexually fluid".

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow. That's crazy. You didn't even say you were gay. Honestly, if you'd been my bud, I'd of cracked some skulls for you now and then, before and after coming out.

It just so happens that my friends Russell and Nick did come to class some days with black eyes they refused to talk about. Found out years later that was indeed the case. I probably owe those two my life... Not that they would ever come to collect (OK... well, Nick might)

Fortunately, in contemporary society, the same actions that took place in the past against minorities are not socially acceptable (for the most part) and safe nets such as hate crimes (yes you can get prosecuted for an anti-gay hate crime, as rare as it may be it exists) to prosecute abusers and violent individuals.

Not in most states. In the majority of US states there are no hate crime laws that provide me with additional legal protectuion. They protect everyone else. They protect on the basis of race, sex, religion etc. But not sexual orientation or gender identity. Additionally, anti-discrimination does not exist in most states either, or at the federal level, bear in mind for every other conceivable sub-group of humanity they exist. Just not for us.

They didn't HAVE the option of hiding the fact that they were a minority, nor was there in place the legal scaffolding, as wobbly as it may bit, for them to defend themselves, which does exists for homosexuals.

Time for a history lesson.

Alright, we all know that homosexuality has existed at least as long as social mammals have existed. But lets get into more contemporary stuff.

From the medieval period on, homosexuality has been viewed in western cultures as a death-worthy offense. Kings, (Edward II) have been executed for it. During the Inquisition, gay people would be tortured using the Pear of Anguish and burning at the stake (that is actually where the term Fagot comes from)

In the somewhat more modern period, the torturing and burning became less common in Europe and the US, instead, it just became illegal to exist.

Sodomy Laws were passed starting pretty much dfrom the founding of the US, many were eventually repealed in the legislature, and Lawrence V. Texas ended the rest in 2004. However, those were actually the least of the legal problems facing gay people.

In the era where people of color were subjected to segregation and technically illegal lynching, we were subjected to arrest simply for the crime of existing. Police would raid bars under the vaguely worded "Lewdness and Vagrancy" laws that existed at the time and arrest anyone who sat too close to each other. These people would be fined, imprisoned, and their names and addresses published in the paper so they would lose their jobs and find themselves evicted from their homes or harassed/assaulted. We couldn't organize because were were legally prohibited from assembly. You had the KKK and other racist groups, some of which claimed racist cops as members, state law demanded that our right to peaceably assemble be violated.

Finally, in 1969 the gay rights movement was born. There were gay rights groups before this, specifically the Matachine group (which was blacklisted as a communist organization by the McCarthyites) however these were mostly behind the curtain.

What happened in 1969? The death of Judy Garland and the resulting stonewall riots. During a wake for Judy Garland in a gay bar called The Stonewall, the police decided to raid. The residents of the bar were understandably pissed and refused to be arrested. They (along with a bunch of pissed off drag queens) barricaded themselves in the bar. Soon gay people came out of the woodwork and rioted for a few days.

That served as the springboard for the gay rights movement, and why we have Pride on the anniversary of Stonewall every year. Pride marches are not celebrations or parades in the typical western sense. They are literally a scaled down reenactment of a big riot by angry gay people and drag queens.

Emmit Till was killed for speaking to a white woman.

And Harvey Milk was assassinated for being a gay politicians. Cue Twinkie Defense

I don't entirely understand this part. I know it's a combo of I didn't really pay attention to gay issues then and only am starting to be concerned about it. But if you are saying that politicians get elected off the gay vote, I'm going to tentatively raise the bs flag. As shitty as it sounds I think that the Christian right has waaay more sway than the gay vote.

No. I said that they get elected by victimizing us. Even the democrats. The republicans use the fundie vote, and the democrats use OUR vote then throw us under a bus.

Eh don't necessarily agree. A dichotomy isn't inherent, it just has an easier time being created. You don't say, "I'm better or your better" by segregating. It doesn't just, poof!, get established. If that's the societal trait which causes segregation, then yes. But if it were a religious one or people just said "Hey! Why don't we try this?" I wouldn't think it would automatically just appear.

It is a product of human ingroup/outgroup thinking. I will use a different instance.

Civil Unions vs Marriage

If the two were really equal, shouldn't they be called the same thing? If the answer is no, why should the two be separate? Lets leave out the fact that civil unions offer inferior legal protection.

The same can be said with Segregation.

"If group X is the same as Group Y, why do they need to be separate?"

The implications are pretty obvious there I think.

I'd say that while the basis of morality is empathy it still doesn't account for lots of complex morality, which is largely societal. Even empathy is variable from person to person. You couldn't definitely have someone say "Sure I think killing is bad. But if that bastard tries to steal from me or hurts my family I have a right to kill him. And if I did the same, he'd have the right to kill me" not stemming from any religious background.

Actually, outside of a religious context, there is pretty universal condemnation of that mode of thought, outside of defense of your, or anothers life.

The fact remains that essentially every existing ethical system is built in some way, from evolved empathy.

Well no fucking duh. In this country at least PCism has become so utterly stupid in the realm of racial relations it ends up creating what it's essentially trying to prevent. "OO criticize the black man, he might think it's a hate crime. OOO don't not hire the black man because he's under skilled and interviewed poorly. It'll look like a hate crime. Ahhh!!! Don't reject the black kid from a college, it'll look like racial discrimination!"

No, that's just fear of being sued. The problem with the perm "Politically Correct" is that it is so nebulous people cannot or will not define it properly.

Second, black people as a group have a tendency to think that they can still use ghetto speech when they interview for jobs, can wear there grillz n shit to interviews and generally carry themselves poorly when looking for work. Subsequently, they don't get good jobs and cry out the "O that person was racists". Fortunately for the college bound Negro you have a degree and skills under your belt, but if you can't carry yourself properly at an interview or meeting, your skills mean jack, diddly shit.

Indeed

early failed every semester till he finally failed out. School was paid for by the ole US of A and NYS, not because he was poor, but because he was black). I would much rather see the economically disadvantaged get into a school because they can't afford it and have lower grades than a higher income counterpart than someone who's black getting into a school because they are black or receiving excessive amounts of financial aid because of their blackness.

I agree. I would much rather have something like affirmative action based upon income instead of race.

Eh, disagree here too. One, people in the past in generally were less pussies than people now. Two, there irish blood makes you as tough as nails Wink . Third I honestly don't think it's just a coping mechanism. Some people just don't utterly fail and crumble under pressure and discrimination. Some folks take it say "Fuck you" and punch the bastard in the nose and walk away. Saying it's just a coping mechanism to rationalize something seems ersatz and shitty to me. You didn't really become a stronger person and improve who you are, your brain is just telling you that so you don't brake down.

Look at it this way, the person who says "fuck you" and punches the asshole in the face is probably the guy that does not actually need to be "built up" by the pressure. In fact, they do that, and no one will mess with them again. However, because they dont know where that came from, they will attribute it to the shite that they received.

A person who does not handle that stuff well, will crack under the strain. What happens when they do that depends on other personality triats. Some kill themselves, some develop social anxiety disorder, others continue the cycle of abuse.

Then there are people like me, somewhere in the middle, they get depressed and develop nervous ticks for the duration of the time the stimulus is there, then return to normal when HS ends. And of course, there are gradiations in here as well

Then there are people

[Lagmonster]

I remember once as a very young teenager I accidentally ended up colliding with another boy while playing sports and ended up in an embarrassing position which brought on a barrage of gay jokes and prods, to which I responded with what I assumed was a manly a tirade about not being no pansy ass queer. I'm not proud of it, but I was an insecure male kid who didn't even know anyone who WAS gay and relied on dirty jokes and schoolyard insults for my education into the matter.

It took an actual homosexual guy hitting on me a few years later to really help me grow up; he was an usher at the theater and a remarkably well-adjusted young man who'd managed to avoid a lot of pain in coming out and who was very self-assured. He asked me out a few times while I was working there, flirted with me, and generally behaved like any number of girls I've known who've done precisely the same thing. Seeing that there was nothing different or smarmy about gay men just made it a hell of a lot easier to get over the childishness of sexual insecurity.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I suspect that what we call "fluid female sexuality" is just a greater tolerance for things that don't really turn them on. Rebecca doesn't have a problem with lesbian porn for example, but that doesn't mean she's partially amenable to lesbianism. As it turns out, she's explained that it doesn't turn her on at all, but it doesn't repulse her either.

I think heterosexual men are just very strongly repulsed by homosexual men or any imagery to that effect, and since heterosexual women don't react the same way to homosexual woman or lesbian imagery, we tend to assume that this means they're amenable to lesbianism. But there's a really big gap between "I don't mind" and "that turns me on".

Actually there have been studies done that used physiological measures to detect arousal rates, that showed higher rates of bisexuality in females than men. I will have to find the papers though.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I remember once as a very young teenager I accidentally ended up colliding with another boy while playing sports and ended up in an embarrassing position which brought on a barrage of gay jokes and prods, to which I responded with what I assumed was a manly a tirade about not being no pansy ass queer. I'm not proud of it, but I was an insecure male kid who didn't even know anyone who WAS gay and relied on dirty jokes and schoolyard insults for my education into the matter.

It took an actual homosexual guy hitting on me a few years later to really help me grow up; he was an usher at the theater and a remarkably well-adjusted young man who'd managed to avoid a lot of pain in coming out and who was very self-assured. He asked me out a few times while I was working there, flirted with me, and generally behaved like any number of girls I've known who've done precisely the same thing. Seeing that there was nothing different or smarmy about gay men just made it a hell of a lot easier to get over the childishness of sexual insecurity.

A lot of homophobia come from accepted social attitudes. Simply knowing an openly gay person can frequently dispel a lot of these attitudes so it's no surprise that the act of simply coming out is seen as an effective way of combating homophobia.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Not in most states. In the majority of US states there are no hate crime laws that provide me with additional legal protectuion. They protect everyone else. They protect on the basis of race, sex, religion etc. But not sexual orientation or gender identity. Additionally, anti-discrimination does not exist in most states either, or at the federal level, bear in mind for every other conceivable sub-group of humanity they exist. Just not for us.

Yet again not too familiar with the gay rights movement or gay "history".

Time for a history lesson.

Alright, we all know that homosexuality has existed at least as long as social mammals have existed. But lets get into more contemporary stuff.

From the medieval period on, homosexuality has been viewed in western cultures as a death-worthy offense. Kings, (Edward II) have been executed for it. During the Inquisition, gay people would be tortured using the Pear of Anguish and burning at the stake (that is actually where the term Fagot comes from)

In the somewhat more modern period, the torturing and burning became less common in Europe and the US, instead, it just became illegal to exist.

Sodomy Laws were passed starting pretty much dfrom the founding of the US, many were eventually repealed in the legislature, and Lawrence V. Texas ended the rest in 2004. However, those were actually the least of the legal problems facing gay people.

In the era where people of color were subjected to segregation and technically illegal lynching, we were subjected to arrest simply for the crime of existing. Police would raid bars under the vaguely worded "Lewdness and Vagrancy" laws that existed at the time and arrest anyone who sat too close to each other. These people would be fined, imprisoned, and their names and addresses published in the paper so they would lose their jobs and find themselves evicted from their homes or harassed/assaulted. We couldn't organize because were were legally prohibited from assembly. You had the KKK and other racist groups, some of which claimed racist cops as members, state law demanded that our right to peaceably assemble be violated.

Finally, in 1969 the gay rights movement was born. There were gay rights groups before this, specifically the Matachine group (which was blacklisted as a communist organization by the McCarthyites) however these were mostly behind the curtain.

What happened in 1969? The death of Judy Garland and the resulting stonewall riots. During a wake for Judy Garland in a gay bar called The Stonewall, the police decided to raid. The residents of the bar were understandably pissed and refused to be arrested. They (along with a bunch of pissed off drag queens) barricaded themselves in the bar. Soon gay people came out of the woodwork and rioted for a few days.

That served as the springboard for the gay rights movement, and why we have Pride on the anniversary of Stonewall every year. Pride marches are not celebrations or parades in the typical western sense. They are literally a scaled down reenactment of a big riot by angry gay people and drag queens.

The Mattachine Society was founded by a member of the US communist party. So while the red scare might have been loopy McCarthyites had more reason to label them as commies considering that their leader and many of their members were members or at least affiliated with the US communist party and for some time. Their black listing due to communism seems a little less ridiculous than some other peoples, like Adrian Scott, Irving Pichel particularly Lucille Ball (I've always found it funny that she was married to a Cuban and they thought she was the commy when only a decade later, he would have been one).

On Edward II, his homosexual behavior most likely was a motivator, not the only reason he was killed and no doubt added legitimacy to his killing. But had he been in favor with the pope and more popular (ie a better kind), he probably wouldn't have been killed.

As for sodomy laws, I highly highly doubt they were as numerous as jim crow laws and they all applied to behavior. Yes they sucked (as did jim crow laws) but hell there were ways you could hide what you were doing or not do it at all (not trying to back peddle to the "hide sexual identity bit"). You can't exactly escape a policeman club by turning white or not being japanese or hispanic. You were what you were. That's it, no hiding it. If a gay man wanted to be open about it. Fine, more power to him. He knew the risk he was running. That opening was not available for minorities.

O and that pear is fucked up. I described it my friends this yesterday evening and most of them told me to stop. Pretty messed up, if ornately designed, if you ask me.

And Harvey Milk was assassinated for being a gay politicians. Cue Twinkie Defense

From what I've read about the case other than the ridiculous sentencing was that Milk was killed more for opposing Whites re-appointment than just being gay since he wasn't the only victim the straight mayor Moscone was too. However I'm sure there are other lesser profile deaths that need not be cited that would essentially chalk up to someone being killed for their sexual orientation.

No. I said that they get elected by victimizing us. Even the democrats. The republicans use the fundie vote, and the democrats use OUR vote then throw us under a bus.

Gotcha.

It is a product of human ingroup/outgroup thinking. I will use a different instance.

Civil Unions vs Marriage

If the two were really equal, shouldn't they be called the same thing? If the answer is no, why should the two be separate? Lets leave out the fact that civil unions offer inferior legal protection.

The same can be said with Segregation.

"If group X is the same as Group Y, why do they need to be separate?"

The implications are pretty obvious there I think.

Right. Bit better. I still don't agree entirely, but I think that stems from me giving too much credit to our species in not coming up with retarded divisive thinking.

Actually, outside of a religious context, there is pretty universal condemnation of that mode of thought, outside of defense of your, or another's life.

The fact remains that essentially every existing ethical system is built in some way, from evolved empathy.

I think I'll do some more research on morality since I don't still don't agree. I'm not going to come up with a rebuttal though because I don't think I have enough knowledge to back it up.

Look at it this way, the person who says "fuck you" and punches the asshole in the face is probably the guy that does not actually need to be "built up" by the pressure. In fact, they do that, and no one will mess with them again. However, because they dont know where that came from, they will attribute it to the shite that they received.

A person who does not handle that stuff well, will crack under the strain. What happens when they do that depends on other personality triats. Some kill themselves, some develop social anxiety disorder, others continue the cycle of abuse.

Then there are people like me, somewhere in the middle, they get depressed and develop nervous ticks for the duration of the time the stimulus is there, then return to normal when HS ends. And of course, there are gradiations in here as well

Than this has got to be familial thing then. Pretty much everyone is a punch you in the face person in my family. And if you can't punch someone in the face, you just put up with it and move on. Rarely to people collapse. If shit falls out from under you, you dust yourself off and keep moving.