[Soapbox] Being "naturally" gay

[warpus]

They're churches Warpus. It can be as ominiously "... for now" as they want forever, so long as they retain members and they act in the realm of churches. It's not a compromise. It is a secular society's rejection of zealotry and witch hunting from all camps, not just the ones the majority of the hour agrees with. Stamping them out with law would be the opposite of progress. But I think you know all that.

I just think eventually we are going to have a North America devoid of discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation - by all institutions here, whether they're restaurants or churches.

For now that's not possible, but I have hopes for a better tomorrow.

 

[Farm Boy]

We can work towards that goal. We can hope people grasp the love. It seems to have been working that direction to me, at least for the most part, at least locally, at least for a while. We can stand to keep going. I just don't see it getting to all. Enforced utopias have a habit of looking really bad when you cock your head though. More of the same old crap with the same old pitfalls. Progress seems to be in teasing out when the greater good is served by knowing when and where to tolerate the fact that people are suboptimal in very important ways.

 

[warpus]

Enforced utopias have a habit of looking really bad when you cock your head though.

Banning discrimination isn't really forcing utopia. It's just.. setting up the basic foundations of a non-discriminatory society.

I agree that we are headed in the right direction though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Banning discrimination in some ways definitely could be trying. It's one thing to ban it in how courthouses function. It's another to ban it in how a hospital functions. Yet another to try and ban it in how a grocery store hires, another yet in how a grocery store provides services. It is again different to try and ban it in how people worship, in how they choose to socialize. Another yet in who they decide to marry, or patronize, or like. If you only want like-minded individuals, in any possible way there is to be like minded(such as being free from discriminatory behavior however classified), you need methods for conversion, control, suppression, or expulsion of not-like-minded individuals. There's where that dystopia stuff comes in.

 

[warpus]

Well, wait, I don't want to control any of that. I just don't want anyone, anywhere, in a public setting, to be discriminated against based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnic background, etc.

That is not a vision of utopia - that is just a vision of a normal society. Utopia has much higher standards than just "equality".

 

[Farm Boy]

Are you certain about that? I'm not.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, wait, I don't want to control any of that. I just don't want anyone, anywhere, in a public setting, to be discriminated against based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnic background, etc.

That is not a vision of utopia - that is just a vision of a normal society. Utopia has much higher standards than just "equality".

It's not the vision, I think, but the belief that it can be achieved by banning things. To "ban" something always implies coercion, and when the state gets involved, the latent threat of violence against persons and property. Whether or not a given kind of discrimination should be addressed with coercion or through softer forms of encouragement- creating incentives to adopt egalitarian policies and disincentives to retain old ones- really does have to be considered.

I don't think that an over-abundance of progressively-minded bans will create a dystopia; more likely it will just create a lot of bureaucracy. But there's certainly a contradiction inherent in trying to force people to adopt a more pluralistic outlook, and at some point a political project containing such a fundamental contradiction is going to break down. If we want a society that operates according to progressive principles, we have to believe that people can behave well without the constant thread of the cudgel.

 

[warpus]

It's not the vision, I think, but the belief that it can be achieved by banning things. To "ban" something always implies coercion, and when the state gets involved, the latent threat of violence against persons and property.

Well yeah, sometimes you have to force bigots to accept equality. Look at how much resistance there was from the general population to the civil rights movement - especially with the integration of schools and so on.

Society had to be forced forward - for the benefit of a discriminated upon minority.

I'm not saying that this is what should be done in this case at all, or even that they are in some way equivalent, but when trying to get rid of discrimination and bigotism, sometimes a bit of coercion by the state is a must. Otherwise people are going to continue doing what they've been brought up to do.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I'd rather end discrimination the hard way, by slowly convincing everyone that it's a bad idea. That way takes a long time, but at least it works. The alternative, forcing people to grit their teeth and put on a happy face lest the man with his gun in your back be forced to take... drastic measures, just breeds more resentment and hurts the goal in the long run.

 

[Narz]

We don't have conclusive evidence on twin studies.
I linked to the best known study performed to date. The sample size is small (only 7,652 individuals).

Hmm. Counting partners does not make one straight or gay. Someone might let a guy suck him off if he's in jail or desperate enough (or if he's paid, shoot I've even thought about making extra money this way though never done it).

Instead of partner counting just ask "What is your sexual orientation?".

Also this study didn't use identical twins.

Still, I did my own research & even among identical twins orientation is not as correlated as I would have guessed. I'm surprised. Especially regarding males who's sexuality is general thought of as less fluid.

 

[Crackerbox]

Yep, see situational homosexuality. There's early sexual experimentation in adolescence that is often between the same sex as well as relatively tame kissing.

It's why I said that sexuality is not binary.

One of the first things I learned early in youth ministry was how shockingly high was the rate of suicide and suicidal ideation among teens but especially homosexual teens. If you couple this with the data we have on very high incidence of homosexual teen runaways, then it's crucial to find ways to be their advocate regardless of our preconcieved ideas about sexual identity.

Times have changed with far less stigma about coming out, but still it's an issue that people need to take with the utmost seriousness, for the realization of homosexual identity can be profoundly troubling for them. There is a good deal of drug abuse during this period as a common means of self-medicating to deal with condemnation. But also predatory behavior by budding adults who prey upon the young who are figuring out their sexual identity and who feel estranged from friends and family.

Then on top of this you have the coping of the parents and helping them process it and working with the teen in the most welcoming supportive way.

 

[Senethro]

Still, I did my own research & even among identical twins orientation is not as correlated as I would have guessed. I'm surprised. Especially regarding males who's sexuality is general thought of as less fluid.

Yes it is correlated. Its just not the simple correlation of 1 to 1 that you may have been expecting.

 

[warpus]

I'd rather end discrimination the hard way, by slowly convincing everyone that it's a bad idea. That way takes a long time, but at least it works.

Does it? Do you think the civil rights movement in the U.S. would have lead to the things it did if schools weren't forcibly integrated and if no laws were passed to make people equal?

The status quo would have continued, more or less, with very slow changes, IMO. Sometimes society just needs a kick in the butt.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, there is a huge space between "banning things is always the answer" and "banning things is never the answer". You can't wave a magic wand and change people's attitudes, but you can force institutions to reform such that they are not actively and openly discriminatory.