Homosexuality

135

Comments

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    If one of the aims of the surgery is to have the patient look of their gender, but fails to do so, is that not unsuccessful? The great tragedy of any operation at our present level of ability of course is that a trans-man can never father children nor a trans-woman bear them; with that limitation a trans person can never be fully of their gender.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Then celibate people are never fully their gender? Infertile people are never fully their gender? People who choose no to have children are never fully their gender?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Er what? Lots of non trans people either can't have children or don't want to reproduce. It doesn't mean anything about people being 'fully' of their gender, whether they are cis or trans.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Those celibate or who have chosen not to have children may well be able to have them. Those infertile whom we know speak of the feeling of emptiness, one even of not being fully a woman.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Yes, some women feel they are missing something because they cannot have children. Other women do not.
    Your logic is the same as the fools who say homosexuals are right with God as long as they do not have sex.
    Being ≠ doing.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    There are numbers available for the United States that are more recent and more reliable than Kinsey's. Gallup has polled this every year since 2012, and in 2017 they found that 4.5% of Americans identified as LGBT. The really interesting thing to me is the growth in the perceptage of Millennials identifying as LGBT: it was 5.8% in 2012 and 8.2% in 2017. So it's not unreasonable to think that the real number in the U.S. might be 10% of the population, given that some older people may remain closeted their whole lives and given that there are still plenty of places that are hostile environments.

    That poll is very interesting. The results show Hispanics (coming in first) and non-Hispanic African-Americans as most likely to identify as LGBT, and I would have expected non-Hispanic whites to be most likely.

    People with lower incomes and lower education levels are also more likely to identify as LGBT than people with higher incomes and education levels, respectively.

    This is all directly contrary to what I would have expected, and this perhaps reveals my inner biases and preconceptions. African-American and Latino cultures are stereotyped as being more characterized by machismo than white non-Hispanic culture. I see that women were more likely to identify as LGBT than men, but what is the gender breakdown for the different races and ethnicities?

    I also would have thought that socially liberal attitudes would be more common among the wealthy and especially among the more well educated, given the culture of college campuses. Maybe poorer and less educated people are more familiar with nontraditional families, given the higher rates of single parents, unmarried parents, children raised by grandparents, half-and step-siblings, etc, among them. Also, poorer and less educated people might be more willing to undergo the risk to their career, housing, and other prospects of coming out as LGBT (because of discrimination) because they feel they have less to lose.

    I wondered whether poverty and lack of education might be correlated with LGBT identity for the same reason that such a high proportion of homeless young people are LGBT - people rejected by their families for being who they are, missing out on educational opportunities and suffering the economic consequences.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I'd think that factors in. Also prejudicial hiring practises.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Gender has nothing to do with having children; biological sex does.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Sorry but are post-menopausal women somehow not fully women now either? Because being 'able' to have children is not in the picture. Generalising about gender in a way which essentialises reproductive capacities isn't helpful.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Well, to be fair, God could fix post-menopausal women, reverse hysterectomies, undue infertility; but omnipotence has its limits.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Well, to be fair, God could fix post-menopausal women, reverse hysterectomies, undue infertility; but omnipotence has its limits.

    I remember this was something that was argued about with ingoB -- that it was okay for a post menopausal woman to have sex because it was "open to pregnancy" -- but not okay to use a condom. Presumably God can make a post-menopausal woman ovulate, but can't rip a condom. Given the stories I've heard about ripped condoms, it makes him sound pretty wimpy.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Well, to be fair, God could fix post-menopausal women, reverse hysterectomies, undue infertility; but omnipotence has its limits.

    I remember this was something that was argued about with ingoB -- that it was okay for a post menopausal woman to have sex because it was "open to pregnancy" -- but not okay to use a condom. Presumably God can make a post-menopausal woman ovulate, but can't rip a condom. Given the stories I've heard about ripped condoms, it makes him sound pretty wimpy.

    Ah, but we know God HAS made post-menopausal women ovulate! Sarah, for starters. Whereas ripped condoms aren't Biblical.....
  • Ruth wrote: »
    There are numbers available for the United States that are more recent and more reliable than Kinsey's. Gallup has polled this every year since 2012, and in 2017 they found that 4.5% of Americans identified as LGBT. The really interesting thing to me is the growth in the perceptage of Millennials identifying as LGBT: it was 5.8% in 2012 and 8.2% in 2017. So it's not unreasonable to think that the real number in the U.S. might be 10% of the population, given that some older people may remain closeted their whole lives and given that there are still plenty of places that are hostile environments.

    As much as there are hostile environments, there are also a lot of environments, specially among millenials, where it is "cool" to be bi, gay, non-binary, etc. Even if, in practice, they are only atracted by the opposite sex, they´d have to state that they´re at least open to have a same-sex experience sporadically (even if they actually don´t). Among young celebrities, for example, it´s very normal that many of them will state they are sexually atracted to both men and women, even tough they only have public longstanding relationships with persons of the opposite sex. It´s cool. To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards. Answearing a poll is not the same as coming out to one´s family.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Well, to be fair, God could fix post-menopausal women, reverse hysterectomies, undue infertility; but omnipotence has its limits.

    I remember this was something that was argued about with ingoB -- that it was okay for a post menopausal woman to have sex because it was "open to pregnancy" -- but not okay to use a condom. Presumably God can make a post-menopausal woman ovulate, but can't rip a condom. Given the stories I've heard about ripped condoms, it makes him sound pretty wimpy.

    Ah, but we know God HAS made post-menopausal women ovulate! Sarah, for starters. Whereas ripped condoms aren't Biblical.....
    We know someone says that happened. The same someone¹ that says Abraham's father Tereh² lived to be 205 years old, that Jonah was swallowed by a fish and that the entire human race was descended from only two people, so...


    ¹Group of people
    ²Also Sarah's father. ewww
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    That's a very generous way of saying "a pile of steaming bullshit"
  • Louise wrote: »
    Sorry but are post-menopausal women somehow not fully women now either? Because being 'able' to have children is not in the picture. Generalising about gender in a way which essentialises reproductive capacities isn't helpful.

    Surely, if post-menopausal women and sterile women are still women, then biological men can be women too?
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    I'm sure you can find a lot of quotes about sexuality being fluid in this own forum. I'm not that old, just 33, and I live among teenagers all the time.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    That's a very generous way of saying "a pile of steaming bullshit"

    Or a better way of sayng "this is evident, but doesn't fit our narrative. So let's just ridicule everyone who dares say it and frame them like crazy extremists".
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Well, to be fair, God could fix post-menopausal women, reverse hysterectomies, undue infertility; but omnipotence has its limits.

    I remember this was something that was argued about with ingoB -- that it was okay for a post menopausal woman to have sex because it was "open to pregnancy" -- but not okay to use a condom. Presumably God can make a post-menopausal woman ovulate, but can't rip a condom. Given the stories I've heard about ripped condoms, it makes him sound pretty wimpy.

    Ah, but we know God HAS made post-menopausal women ovulate! Sarah, for starters. Whereas ripped condoms aren't Biblical.....
    We know someone says that happened. The same someone¹ that says Abraham's father Tereh² lived to be 205 years old, that Jonah was swallowed by a fish and that the entire human race was descended from only two people, so...


    ¹Group of people
    ²Also Sarah's father. ewww

    Yes, isn't that whole christianity thing a joke? I can't understand how anyone so progressive and inteligent would ever subscribe to that nonsense, unless that person receives a monthly pay check from the congregation!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    I'm sure you can find a lot of quotes about sexuality being fluid in this own forum. I'm not that old, just 33, and I live among teenagers all the time.

    Going from "sexuality is (or can be) fluid" to "OMG! Straight folk are a bunch of primitives" seems like quite the logical leap. Perhaps you can spell out the steps of reasoning in between more explicitly?

    This is one of the more common rhetorical attacks on the non-straight, that asserting the validity of any kind of non-straight attraction is a plot to criticize, suppress, or otherwise undermine straightness. Remember when we were all told that allowing same-sex couples the legal right to marry would somehow unmarry all the opposite-sex couples? Your claim seem to have the same general flavor of alarmism.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 25
    Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    He knows some teenagers. Apparently they tell him his views on sex are "backwards" and has generalized this to a rule about all teens and all straight people. It should be noted that @1986_overstaged actually attributed the views to "millennials", the youngest of whom will turn 23 this year, so teenagers don't really count as millennials any more. If @1986_overstaged's claim to be 33 years old is to be believed he is himself a millennial. Maybe this is a confession of the scorn he regularly heaps on straight people, generalized to all those of his generation? It's almost impossible to interpret his koan unambiguously.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    Like an idealogue actually cared for evidence.... But anyway:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7484576/millennials-bi-revolution-sexuality-katie-glass/

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    Like an idealogue actually cared for evidence.... But anyway:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7484576/millennials-bi-revolution-sexuality-katie-glass/

    Neither of these back up your assertion that Millennials regard straight people as "backwards" or with any kind of contempt.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    That's a very generous way of saying "a pile of steaming bullshit"

    Or a better way of sayng "this is evident, but doesn't fit our narrative. So let's just ridicule everyone who dares say it and frame them like crazy extremists".
    Science is my narrative, what is yours?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Well, to be fair, God could fix post-menopausal women, reverse hysterectomies, undue infertility; but omnipotence has its limits.

    I remember this was something that was argued about with ingoB -- that it was okay for a post menopausal woman to have sex because it was "open to pregnancy" -- but not okay to use a condom. Presumably God can make a post-menopausal woman ovulate, but can't rip a condom. Given the stories I've heard about ripped condoms, it makes him sound pretty wimpy.

    Ah, but we know God HAS made post-menopausal women ovulate! Sarah, for starters. Whereas ripped condoms aren't Biblical.....
    We know someone says that happened. The same someone¹ that says Abraham's father Tereh² lived to be 205 years old, that Jonah was swallowed by a fish and that the entire human race was descended from only two people, so...


    ¹Group of people
    ²Also Sarah's father. ewww

    Yes, isn't that whole christianity thing a joke? I can't understand how anyone so progressive and inteligent would ever subscribe to that nonsense, unless that person receives a monthly pay check from the congregation!
    Assuming you are actually serious,* only fools think religion is a joke. And that includes devout atheists.
    Incorrect, defying logic, etc.are reasonable views, but a joke is not. It suggests an extreme ignorance of history, not to mention a lack of understanding how the mind works and the dynamics of human interaction.

    *33 years old. Hmmm
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    Like an idealogue actually cared for evidence.... But anyway:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7484576/millennials-bi-revolution-sexuality-katie-glass/

    Neither of these back up your assertion that Millennials regard straight people as "backwards" or with any kind of contempt.

    That´s because I never made such an assertion. All I said is that the environment in where many millenials live perceives bissexuality or sexual fluidity as cool. Therefore, millenials are actually as likely to be straight but answear bi or gay in a poll, as the reverse situation.

    Think, for example, about lesbian feminism. Not the idea that women that happen to be lesbian should be respected, but actually the idea that lesbianism is a form of resistance against an opressive patriarchy.

    Of course, movements like that can seem fringe and with little cultural impact. But that´s probably the type of ideas that get preached in a humanities graduation in a university near you. And if people actually write a few articles about it, they start calling it "scientific".
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    Louise wrote: »
    Sorry but are post-menopausal women somehow not fully women now either? Because being 'able' to have children is not in the picture. Generalising about gender in a way which essentialises reproductive capacities isn't helpful.

    Surely, if post-menopausal women and sterile women are still women, then biological men can be women too?
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    I'm sure you can find a lot of quotes about sexuality being fluid in this own forum. I'm not that old, just 33, and I live among teenagers all the time.

    Age doesn't change the quality of the argument/observation. It's not a novel observation, so has little to do with the age of the person making it. The only difference this makes is weary confirmation that the argument persists for some years after the first heady conviction of youth. Encounter with experience could have been expected to modify the view. But no. As one was.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    That's a very generous way of saying "a pile of steaming bullshit"

    Or a better way of sayng "this is evident, but doesn't fit our narrative. So let's just ridicule everyone who dares say it and frame them like crazy extremists".

    Aha. No evidence for it. I thought as much.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    Like an idealogue actually cared for evidence.... But anyway:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7484576/millennials-bi-revolution-sexuality-katie-glass/

    Neither of these back up your assertion that Millennials regard straight people as "backwards" or with any kind of contempt.

    That´s because I never made such an assertion. All I said is that the environment in where many millenials live perceives bissexuality or sexual fluidity as cool. Therefore, millenials are actually as likely to be straight but answear bi or gay in a poll, as the reverse situation.
    Yeah, but no. Younger people are more likely to be aware of fluidity than older people are and more likely to be open to understanding it in themselves.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Neither of these back up your assertion that Millennials regard straight people as "backwards" or with any kind of contempt.

    That´s because I never made such an assertion.

    1986_overstaged, meet 1986_overstaged:
    As much as there are hostile environments, there are also a lot of environments, specially among millenials, where it is "cool" to be bi, gay, non-binary, etc. . . . To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    You do realize that we can read your past posts, right? Those were less than seven hours apart.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    Like an idealogue actually cared for evidence.... But anyway:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7484576/millennials-bi-revolution-sexuality-katie-glass/

    Neither of these back up your assertion that Millennials regard straight people as "backwards" or with any kind of contempt.

    That´s because I never made such an assertion. All I said is that the environment in where many millenials live perceives bissexuality or sexual fluidity as cool. Therefore, millenials are actually as likely to be straight but answear bi or gay in a poll, as the reverse situation.
    Yeah, but no. Younger people are more likely to be aware of fluidity than older people are and more likely to be open to understanding it in themselves.

    Cool, older people are as likely to be fluid as younger people, they just don´t admit it because of social constraints. Evidence for that?

    Plus, why would the human species be the only one among mammals where a huge part of the population is sexually fluid? Since animals don´t have social constraints like we do.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Neither of these back up your assertion that Millennials regard straight people as "backwards" or with any kind of contempt.

    That´s because I never made such an assertion.

    1986_overstaged, meet 1986_overstaged:
    As much as there are hostile environments, there are also a lot of environments, specially among millenials, where it is "cool" to be bi, gay, non-binary, etc. . . . To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    You do realize that we can read your past posts, right? Those were less than seven hours apart.

    I said in the environment where many millenials live, bissexuality and sexual fluidity are considered cool, and openly restraining yourself to only heterossexual relationships is a backwards attitude. You frame it as if I said "millenials think heterossexuals are backwards".

    In fact, I said most millenials live an heterossexual life. But the attitude of publicly denying any atraction for the opposite sex is something backwards. Not something the "cool" people woud do. Pretty much like decades ago people would check "christian" in a poll despite not even believing in God or caring about it.

    Social constraints affect people´s behaviour a lot, but they affect even more the way people say that they behave.

    If you live in a very religious environment and you go to church twice a month, you are very likely to respond in a poll that you go weekly.

    If you live in a "progressive" culture, among "woke" young people, you are more likely to check "bi" or "fluid" in a poll box even tough you´re straight then the reverse situation.

    Because being straight, male and "cis" are actually very ugly things among "progressive" people, and not something people would pretend to be for social constraints.
  • Louise wrote: »
    Sorry but are post-menopausal women somehow not fully women now either? Because being 'able' to have children is not in the picture. Generalising about gender in a way which essentialises reproductive capacities isn't helpful.

    Surely, if post-menopausal women and sterile women are still women, then biological men can be women too?
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds like one of those elusive bits of conventional wisdom about "kids these days" with their crazy [ Gen X / Millennial / Gen Z / what letter are we up to now? ] backwards morality based more on the prejudices of old people than any actual fact.

    I'm sure you can find a lot of quotes about sexuality being fluid in this own forum. I'm not that old, just 33, and I live among teenagers all the time.

    Age doesn't change the quality of the argument/observation.

    Tell that to the person who insinuated that my views were nothing more then "old people´s prejudice"... which was the only reason I mentioned my age here, and received a lot ot crap for it.

  • Guys, I´ve come across this movement of ELCA "lutherans" called Naked & Unashamed.

    The denomination is already very "inclusive", since it ordains trans and gay ministers, and celebrates same-sex weddings.

    Now that the remaining convervatives have already left, and that LGBTQ inclusion is the law of the church, what can pastors talk about? Maybe start preaching about Christ, repentance, forgiveness of sins, justification, and all those things that appear a lot in the Bible, christian (and specifically lutheran) tradition, etc? No!

    Now let´s make a movement for the church to admit pastors in poliamorous relationships, open relationships, and other forms of non-monogamical and non-committed sexuality. I´m serious, read the blog!

    It´s at the same time hilarious and sad to watch the downfall of a subset of christianity that decided to reject its foundational rock! It needs no outside enemies, it´s destroyed from within by the very people who are paid to nurture it!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 25
    I said in the environment where many millenials live, bissexuality and sexual fluidity are considered cool, and openly restraining yourself to only heterossexual relationships is a backwards attitude. You frame it as if I said "millenials think heterossexuals are backwards".

    In fact, I said most millenials live an heterossexual life. But the attitude of publicly denying any atraction for the opposite sex is something backwards. Not something the "cool" people woud do. Pretty much like decades ago people would check "christian" in a poll despite not even believing in God or caring about it.

    Lot of gaslighting here. Both claims that you never said things you did say and that you did say things you actually didn't. I'm trying to parse the difference between "heterosexuals" and those who "openly restrain[] [ them ]sel[ ves ] to only heterossexual relationships". Also you never claimed "most millenials live an heterossexual life". It's true, but it's not something you stated, at least not in the linked post.
    Because being straight, male and "cis" are actually very ugly things among "progressive" people, and not something people would pretend to be for social constraints.

    Why the scare quotes around "progressive"? Are you arguing that, like straights trying to pass as queer, people who claim to be progressive are really living a lie? BTW, like Millennials most progressives (or "progressives") actually "live an heterosexual life" so I'm not seeing your claims that they regard straights as backwards or ugly or otherwise horrible as any more credible than your earlier claim that Millennials regard heterosexuals (or those who openly restrain themselves to only heterosexual relationships) as "backwards". (See, those are quotation quotes, indicating something someone else actually said, rather than scare quotes, added to indicate incredulity about the accuracy of the word enclosed.)
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    Like an idealogue actually cared for evidence....
    Don't know why you've chosen to be rude to me, but just so you know for the future: the word is "ideologue."

    The Sun? As evidence? Lol.

    As for the YouGov poll: that younger people are more likely to identify themselves as something other than 100% heterosexual is not in question. What you claimed is that it's "considered backwards" to "state that you are only atracted [sic] by the opposite sex, and has [sic] no interest in even tryng [sic] anything else." So try backing up what you actually said, and cite evidence that millennials in general think it's backward to say you're straight.
    In fact, I said most millenials live an heterossexual life. But the attitude of publicly denying any atraction for the opposite sex is something backwards. Not something the "cool" people woud do. Pretty much like decades ago people would check "christian" in a poll despite not even believing in God or caring about it.

    Social constraints affect people´s behaviour a lot, but they affect even more the way people say that they behave.

    If you live in a very religious environment and you go to church twice a month, you are very likely to respond in a poll that you go weekly.

    If you live in a "progressive" culture, among "woke" young people, you are more likely to check "bi" or "fluid" in a poll box even tough you´re straight then the reverse situation.

    Because being straight, male and "cis" are actually very ugly things among "progressive" people, and not something people would pretend to be for social constraints.

    We don't live in a "woke" progressive culture where there is pressure to conform the way there was pressure to conform in, for example, the mid-20th century. I do live in a progressive sub-culture among a lot of woke young people -- a neighborhood in a working-class city in southern California -- and I don't know anyone who's checking the "bi," "fluid," or "straight/white/cis/male" box for any reason other than that they are actually those things, because that little subculture exists in the context of a much larger culture in which being any kind of non-straight minority is still a liability.

    In fact, I have two friends who only stopped checking the heterosexual box in their mid-50s, so pardon me if I think it's a good thing that people can openly be who they are because the culture has become more accepting.
    Guys, I´ve come across this movement of ELCA "lutherans" called Naked & Unashamed.

    ...

    It´s at the same time hilarious and sad to watch the downfall of a subset of christianity that decided to reject its foundational rock! It needs no outside enemies, it´s destroyed from within by the very people who are paid to nurture it!

    What do you see as the foundational rock of Lutheranism?
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate

    Think, for example, about lesbian feminism. Not the idea that women that happen to be lesbian should be respected, but actually the idea that lesbianism is a form of resistance against an opressive patriarchy.

    Of course, movements like that can seem fringe and with little cultural impact. But that´s probably the type of ideas that get preached in a humanities graduation in a university near you. And if people actually write a few articles about it, they start calling it "scientific".

    As someone in a graduate humanities program, I can assure you that political lesbianism is not particularly popular right now. In fact, the only person I’ve ever met who liked political lesbianism was my soon-to-be ex-wife. And she’s a distinct minority amongst gender theorists.

    Also, if you read some of their writings, it makes a certain degree of sense. That being said, as a Millenial in a progressive area attending graduate school, I’ve never encountered any hostility to heterosexuality. So, there’s that.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    To state that you are only atracted by the opposite sex, and has no interest in even tryng anything else, is considered backwards.

    Evidence for this assertion?

    Like an idealogue actually cared for evidence.... But anyway:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7484576/millennials-bi-revolution-sexuality-katie-glass/

    Neither of these back up your assertion that Millennials regard straight people as "backwards" or with any kind of contempt.

    That´s because I never made such an assertion. All I said is that the environment in where many millenials live perceives bissexuality or sexual fluidity as cool. Therefore, millenials are actually as likely to be straight but answear bi or gay in a poll, as the reverse situation.
    Yeah, but no. Younger people are more likely to be aware of fluidity than older people are and more likely to be open to understanding it in themselves.

    Cool, older people are as likely to be fluid as younger people, they just don´t admit it because of social constraints. Evidence for that?
    Right. Get your posts consistent and we'll talk.
    Oh, what the Hell. Did you even read your own link?
    When YouGov asked its respondents whether they were straight, gay, bisexual or something else, 89% identified as heterosexual and 6% as gay. But when asked to place themselves on the Kinsey scale, that fell to 72% straight and 4% gay. The more choices people are given, the more shades of grey they acknowledge.
    “This suggests that being attracted to more than one gender is becoming a majority, not a minority, position,” says Barker. “But wider culture is taking a long time to catch up to that fact, still tending to assume that people are either straight or gay, and presenting non-binary attraction as confused, a phase, or somehow suspicious.” The gradual easing of those assumptions, however, has implications for more than one generation.
    And if it is difficult for seemingly straight people to come out as bi, then it is perhaps even more controversial for gay people to do so. If sexuality really is fluid, then it might logically be expected to flow both ways; yet in practice it is not always easy for members of a historically oppressed group to admit to sleeping with the perceived enemy.
    There is more, if one actually reads what one links to.
    Plus, why would the human species be the only one among mammals where a huge part of the population is sexually fluid? Since animals don´t have social constraints like we do.
    But many do. Birds (especially ducks), bonobos, lions, various monkeys, penguins, dolphins, walrus...
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Oops, that last bit is wrong. What is should look like is this:
    Plus, why would the human species be the only one among mammals where a huge part of the population is sexually fluid? Since animals don´t have social constraints like we do.
    But many are gender fluid. Birds (especially ducks), bonobos, lions, various monkeys, penguins, dolphins, walrus...


  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited July 26
    Host Hat On

    1986_overstaged

    1. I recommend you go to page 1 of this thread and follow the link back to the old Ship. There you will find over 90 pages of serious discussion on this theme.
    2. Dead Horses is a serious discussion forum. What you are doing is derailing the discussion by your posts, which are characterized by unfounded assertions, contemptuous personal comments and a refusal to engage with the counter arguments of your Shipmates.
    3. I recommend you familiarise yourself with the way discussion is conducted here and try to engage seriously with other Shipmates.
    4. Failure to follow this guidance will lead to a report to Administration for further action.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory and Dead Horses Host

    Host Hat Off

    (edited for typos)
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I also read in that Grauniad article: "Meanwhile, even pointing out that having visible bi role models in public life can help teenagers to come to terms with their own bisexuality risks being twisted into an argument that kids are only choosing it because it is fashionable."

    Indeed it does.
  • Ruth wrote: »

    What do you see as the foundational rock of Lutheranism?

    "Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. " (Augsburg Confession, IV).
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Oops, that last bit is wrong. What is should look like is this:
    Plus, why would the human species be the only one among mammals where a huge part of the population is sexually fluid? Since animals don´t have social constraints like we do.
    But many are gender fluid. Birds (especially ducks), bonobos, lions, various monkeys, penguins, dolphins, walrus...


    If you think gender is a social construct, then animals don´t have gender, just sex. And many of these researches do point the fact that most of homossexual animal activity happens in situations when specially males don´t have an available female partner for copulation. Similar to what happen with men in prisons. Not that they are naturally inclined towards the same sex.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    The Sun? As evidence? Lol.
    You noticed they quote another source? And it was a quick google search, as I don´t think I should be able to link a scientific research for any single thing I say, while other posters get along with backing what they say with "I have a friend who..." type of evidence. Gosh, even my age you put into doubt (as if that was a relevant matter!). I don´t see any of the forum rules stating that you have to back it up every bit of opinion with a scientific research. Neither do I see other posters acting this way. Also, it is stated that the purgatory (to which Dead Horses is an extension) is to discuss social and cultural issues from a christian perspective. Not that you have to back all your opinions up in a secular, 100% scientific or religiously neutral perspective.

    Anyway, I´m sorry for sounding rude and for so many misspellings - english is not my first language.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Oops, that last bit is wrong. What is should look like is this:
    Plus, why would the human species be the only one among mammals where a huge part of the population is sexually fluid? Since animals don´t have social constraints like we do.
    But many are gender fluid. Birds (especially ducks), bonobos, lions, various monkeys, penguins, dolphins, walrus...

    If you think gender is a social construct, then animals don´t have gender, just sex.
    First, I have not said that. Second, it ignores that animals can have a complex social system, which many do.
    And many of these researches do point the fact that most of homossexual animal activity happens in situations when specially males don´t have an available female partner for copulation.
    Some might, bit some don't operate that way. Take Mallards. Males will pair-bond, mating with females to produce an egg but raise it themselves. Or they will form a triangle of Male-male-female. Bonobos will have sex for pleasure, indiscriminate of mating.
    Similar to what happen with men in prisons. Not that they are naturally inclined towards the same sex.
    Prison sex is often about power. Of the sexual activity beyond power, a more reasonable interpretation is that the participants are more fluid than they would admit do to social pressure. After all, most of them have hands.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Ruth wrote: »

    What do you see as the foundational rock of Lutheranism?

    "Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. " (Augsburg Confession, IV).


    So, nothing about sexuality or gender. Good!

    On the subject of backing up your claims:

    I didn't ask for scientific research for all your claims. I asked for evidence for one assertion. The Sun is not only a laughable "source" of information, what they do say and cite in that article doesn't support your claim.

    As you point out, this is the place to discuss things. Purgatory is our board for serious debate, and Dead Horses is an offshoot of that board. It is quite reasonable as a part of discussing to ask people to support the claims they make. If no one supports their claims, then we're all just making assertions. You could have cited things you've observed in your own life, if you have in fact observed things that support your claim. You're right that the rules don't require you to back up your opinion, but surely you can see that you won't be taken seriously if you make flat statements, especially if the views they reflect aren't widely shared.

    You blithely talk about how cool it is for young people to claim to be bi or gay or lesbian with no apparent regard for how hard our societies make it for all non-hetero people. I can give you actual facts about about how cool LGBTQ youth see their lives as being:

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth aged 15 to 24 and the third leading cause of death among youth aged 10 to 14 (CDC, 2010). Among youth who identify as sexual minorities, the likelihood of death by suicide has been estimated to be two to seven times greater than the likelihood of death by suicide among heterosexual youth (Haas et al., 2011). Haas et al. suggest that such a range exists because records of death rarely include a person’s sexual orientation. More precise data exist on the prevalence of suicidal ideation among sexual minority youth, however, with twice as many reporting a desire or intent to die when compared to heterosexual youth (King et al., 2008).

    You're saying it's cool for young people to say they're not heterosexual when the truth is that it's still so hard for them to be not heterosexual that they think about killing themselves twice as much as other kids. So don't trot out trash like The Sun when you're talking about people's lives. It's thoughtless and cruel.

    Anyway, I´m sorry for sounding rude and for so many misspellings - english is not my first language.
    Thank you.
  • If you're being asked to back up your claims while others are not, it may be a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    1986_overstaged

    If you want to dispute my ruling, the Styx is the place for that. Not on this thread.

    Barnabas62
    Dead Horses Host
Sign In or Register to comment.