[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
- Status
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Everything I've gotten off humble bundle has been a steam or origin code. Some of the games come with direct drm free downloads in addition to those.
Especially as Steam's "automatic refunds" are limited to just two hours of play, which is pretty pathetic.
Many of my spare keys come from HumbleBundle, in that I downloaded the DRM-free versions of things and let the Steam codes moulder for all I care.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Religion is more of a gloss for homophobia than an actual explanation. It's enough for it to be regarded as a challenge to traditional gender and family norms. Holy books, as is so often the case, simply provide a rationale for doing and thinking whatever you were going to do and think anyway.
If we would have a global democracy
Not the supranational "undemocratic" structure of the UN, but a "democratised" UN, perhaps a global referendum, how long would homosexualty stay legal ???
And that is where for me the fun starts about people accusing the EU from being "undemocratic".
If the EU would be fully "democratised", and we would have a vote from that EU parliament, or that even more "democratic" tool, a referendum, from all citizens living in member countries of the EU...
how much would be left of the legal protection of homosexuality in my country ???
Democratised without very solid plurality and regional self-determination is simply oppressive.
Not the supranational "undemocratic" structure of the UN, but a "democratised" UN, perhaps a global referendum, how long would homosexualty stay legal ???
And that is where for me the fun starts about people accusing the EU from being "undemocratic".
If the EU would be fully "democratised", and we would have a vote from that EU parliament, or that even more "democratic" tool, a referendum, from all citizens living in member countries of the EU...
how much would be left of the legal protection of homosexuality in my country ???
Democratised without very solid plurality and regional self-determination is simply oppressive.
Last edited:
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Don't understand the question. What does homosexuality being illegal mean exactly? Does it mean not allowing homosexual marriage or homosexual parenthood? Or simply jailing all homosexuals by being so? Because I can hardly believe anyone in western countries would seriously agree with the later.
There still exists conversion therapy, which is essentially torture to change people away from being gay. And while most people in the West oppose it, no small number of people support it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
Good question
A survey without precise definitions, the questions asked leaves room for interpretation.
I would guess on marriage, parentalhood etc.
Because people believing you should be punished will also tick that first box.
here PEW poll on Western Europe only, where the percentages shown for the general population match the colors of that graph on the question: favors gay marriage
http://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/
Last edited:
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Only a minority of Westerners supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality at the time. Acceptance of homosexuality mostly followed legalisation, as it became possible for people to openly identify as homosexual without incriminating themselves. The legislation which decriminalised homosexuality was passed because more people felt strongly in favour of it than felt strongly against it.
Democracy does not mean automatically imposing the aimless prejudices of the majority as iron-clad law. Not just in some idealistic sense about constitutional buttresses against the tyranny of the majority, but in the very practical sense that it's simply not how the legislative process works.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
What do they support exactly? Forcing conversion therapy on others, is very nazish and should be banned obviously. But if an adult wants to undergo such torture voluntarily it should be up to him. I don't see reason to ban that unless it causes serious physical or psychical damage. (Leaving aside i heavily doubt about the effectiveness of the "treatment")
I know that democracy is not automatically imposing
But that is "only" our current conviction on democracy, and in mostly our western cultures !
Plurality
Our democratic culture has always shifted regarding pluralities and minorities
Also depending on the power balance between the traditional governing elites, involved in the legislation, applying more general principles into consistency, and the people.
Good governing means a higher degree of consistencies.
Mob rule has "other" consistencies.
In the Netherlands gay sex was called traditionally, before the words gay and home existed as "herenliefde", LordsLove. Not something for or favored by the ordinary people.
The first time in NL that homosexuality was "legal" was during the Napoleontic occupation.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
If we treat LGBT conversion therapy like any other voluntary medical procedure, then it should be performed by properly trained and licensed professionals, within an official regulatory structure. Do such professionals and such a structure exist?
No, it isn't. The legislative in process is not a mechanism for determining the will of the majority: no such mechanisms exists, or has existed, in any human society. It is a process of negotiation between contending interest groups, directly and through the mediation of politicians. Even in the much-mystified "direct democracy" of the Athenian assembly, this was still the case.
The decriminalisation in the West was not brought about by some enlightened Western respect for pluralism, or for the rights of minorities, but because a small number of extremely brave gay and lesbian activists forced the issue, and managed to assemble a coalition capable of achieving the necesasry legislation.
Last edited:
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I don't think so. It all sounds to pseudo-science to me. I would treat it like homeopathy and similar.
IDK
But it is worth to think about. So thanks for putting that so sharp.
Not the way it happened in my country.
And we are front runner in most of this stuff.
The "brave activists" were mostly actors of theatre and TV in the 60ies and 70ies. Doing their normal job but not hiding their homosexuality. My generation incl many of our parents just accepted that as being different but no reason to want to suppress it. And my generation in the late 60ies and 70ies experimenting with everything related with identity and social-sexual relations. Not in fringe corners, but all over.
Matters of fact as it happened.
And it is on that societal base that groups formed, incl factions in poltical parties, that start pushing for legislation. With clear activists among them.
Do mind that the pressure on regulations and laws to accept that traditional hetero 1:1 relations, living together as partners, would get the same rights as marriage was very much the predecessor of taking the next legal step to take away the hetero 1:1 aspect.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The Netherlands is, like France and Belgium, an exception, because: Napoleon. It's not that the public were particularly enlightened, but that re-criminalisation was just never at the top of the agenda of anyone with the power to do anything about it. Public self-identification as a homosexual was not an act of self-incrimination, so the history develops slightly differently. In the rest of the West, it wasn't sufficient to simply demonstrate how normal and palatable you were, because that demonstration could easily lead to prosecution. Decriminalisation came earlier and with less fanfare in some places than others, and was broadly understood by the legislators in either anticlerical or paternal terms- as a middle finger to an overbearing Church hierarchy, or as a "recognition" of homosexuality as an unfortunate "pathology", rather than willful immorality- but outside of a handful of revolutionary situations were sweeping the slate clean was in fashion- and even, to some extent, including them- it assumed some degree of pressure being brought by gay and lesbian people upon potentially-receptive liberal or socialist legislators.
(Also, it seems dismissive to characterise that a public personality being openly gay in the 1960s as just going about their business, as if the act of publicly identifying as gay wasn't itself a very brave act. As if there isn't still at least some bravery in publicly identify as gay today.)
Was not intended as dismissive. Just as matter of fact. It happens for us in a time of rebels and provo's. All a bit of heroes for many (also that general societal middlefinger to too strict Church behaviour).
They were not really ostentatious with it in behaviour (except one), they did not identify (except that same one) as gay in public as "I am gay" until later on. But never did hide it as well.
The one most showing it was so much a darling of especially the female TV public that he was still untouchable for mainstream attacks or fierce Christian public attacks.
Over time everybody knew, first as that little secret, and they got no negatives, got no attacks from mainstream, until the short mentionings came in magazines up to interviews on everthing with in between the human interest stuff incl and friends. All lightly touched interest and no stupid questions (respect-sensitivity etc).
Napoleon yes... is why I mentioned Herenliefde LordsLove. Made it more acceptable for broader masses as something belonging to a fringe group anyway (those Lords/nobility). And the intellectual traditional liberal elite kept it alive until the civil society of culture, newspapers and TV broadcasting.
We had in the puritan wave of the end of the 19th century a small set back with a curious law from 1910 that had 4 years jail for having homosexual sex with youngsters of 16-21 years.
More symbol politics of that time. Just like changes on sexworkers in Amsterdam to avail of nothing.
It still took to 1971 before that law was repealed. But nobody was convicted for it since long anymore. Easy symbol victory back for the public movement that started as the Shakespeare Club directly after WW2 (from the start really LGBT range with intellectuals, authors, artists) and renamed to COC pretty soon to be more accessible for broader masses and became our main "Gay Union" to protect and cause many changes.
I understand your general story. Everywhere differing. Some elements the same. Wonder how it will develop in countries like Indonesia etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
