Persecution of Gays

[Zethor]

People who use the term 'progress' as if they are describing something linear are evidently ignorant of history. In a hundred years time, homosexuality could be illegal throughout the West once more. No social change is made in isolation, and no social change is guaranteed to last from one generation to the next.

Much of the 'progress' made in the last 20 years has been thanks to our living in a time of plenty since the end of the Cold War. When there is an excess of wealth, societies do tend to become more 'progressive'. But there is no guarantee that this time of plenty will continue.

Have you not noted the upsurge in Right Wing politics throughout Europe due to the financial crisis of 2008? Any more systemic shocks to the economy and you could see much that you hold as 'progress' wiped away. Then new narrative will be that we lived in a corrupt and decadent society and that we need to progress to a more... [insert ideology]

20 years? Try 400+ years since the Enlightment that consist of linear, sometimes exponential, progress in everything from rights to health, productivity or science.

Doomsday could very well be around the corner but considering that even two world wars failed to wipe that progress away, it's going to take something much bigger than nationalism or xenophobia to change the current narrative.

 

[pitchfork]

I think the point was that nobody calls it a "straight marriage".

Marriage in general is a joke.

Unless you're actually going to get some livestock for marrying someone, why bother?

 

[MikeTheNative]

I don't like using the term traditional because of that very incorrect argument that you used. This is why i prefer using the term natural because it is more accurate.

Biologically the natural family is between a male and a female. Any variation on that is unnatural. Even a single mom and her sister for example raising children is an unnatural family. Not only is it not possible to have children any other way naturally. But in terms of the family environment the natural family is a father and a mother.

The "threat" is not gay people, but the deterioration of the natural family.

I see the point that you are making but why is having a Natural family superior than two men raising a child? As said many times just because something is natural it doesn't mean that it is the best.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Biologically the natural family is between a male and a female. Any variation on that is unnatural. Even a single mom and her sister for example raising children is an unnatural family. Not only is it not possible to have children any other way naturally. But in terms of the family environment the natural family is a father and a mother

Not trying to wind you up but I don't think I agree with this either. Not all creatures are monogamous and animal fathers certainly don't all stick around to help mum and child, particularly in mammals.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Divorce rates going up (and then down again) happening at the same time as a more accepting attitude towards homosexuals doesn't show any sort of link though. You might as well graph it next to climate change and claim the two are linked somehow.

My point was that the problem is the deterioration of the natural family and how I don't see how the acceptability of homosexuality helps that problem. If anything it contributes towards the problem.

 

[Caged]

I see the point that you are making but why is having a Natural family superior than two men raising a child? As said many times just because something is natural it doesn't mean that it is the best.

And on the flipside are a couple that are unable to produce offspring less fit to be parents because science had to get involved?

My point was that the problem is the deterioration of the natural family and how I don't see how the acceptability of homosexuality helps that problem. If anything it contributes towards the problem.

I can read what you're writing, you just aren't convincing me that what you're saying is grounded in reality. How is not persecuting homosexuals breaking up the traditional/natural family?

 

[anything I don't mind]

I see the point that you are making but why is having a Natural family superior than two men raising a child? As said many times just because something is natural it doesn't mean that it is the best.

Not trying to wind you up but I don't think I agree with this either. Not all creatures are monogamous and animal fathers certainly don't all stick around to help mum and child, particularly in mammals.

That is fine we can disagree on the importance of the natural family. There is more than enough research in this regard that has been done that from my research is enough to convince me of the importance of a natural family. Raising a child as a single parent should be avoided at all costs, not only is it not avoided but these days it is encourage by the welfare state and not only that but feminism takes a step further by making it about empowering women by saying that women don't need a men to raise a child etc. This is what they teach children these days. The same with same sex marriage, by ignoring the importance of natural family they are creating a new problem of a children being brought up with one sex parenting.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

That is fine we can disagree on the importance of the natural family. There is more than enough research in this regard that has been done that from my research is enough to convince me of the importance of a natural family. Raising a child as a single parent should be avoided at all costs, not only is it not avoided but these days it is encourage by the welfare state and not only that but feminism takes a step further by making it about empowering women by saying that women don't need a men to raise a child etc. This is what they teach children these days. The same with same sex marriage, by ignoring the importance of natural family they are creating a new problem of a children being brought up with one sex parenting.

I haven't offered an opinion of the importance, it is your definition that I am uncomfortable with. Your 'natural family' doesn't fit Islamic families (multiple wives). Your version is the received wisdom in the west from years of social engineering by the state and religion. And it isn't prevalent in real nature.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

20 years? Try 400+ years since the Enlightment that consists of linar, sometimes exponential, progress in everything from rights to health or productivity.

Doomsday could very well be around the corner but considering that even two world wars failed to wipe that progress away, it's going to take something much bigger than nationanlism or xenophobia to change the current narrative.

This is all a matter of definition. If by progress you mean something is increasing, then by all means you'd be right. But then, HIV rates are also 'progressing', so should we be celebrating that?

In the context of this conversation, progress implies something positive. Whether it is positive or not is dependant on the morals and ethics of the day. Those can change very rapidly. Most major social changes DO occur very rapidly.

 

[anything I don't mind]

And on the flipside are a couple that are unable to produce offspring less fit to be parents because science had to get involved?



I can read what you're writing, you just aren't convincing me that what you're saying is grounded in reality. How is not persecuting homosexuals breaking up the traditional/natural family?

No, not less fit to be parents, just not capable. Biologically they will be an unnatural family but they will still be a natural family in the sense that it will be a male and a female raising the child.

Persecuting homosexuals is not breaking up the natural family, it is the social acceptability of same sex marriage/family is contributing to an already deteriorating natural family.

Like i said, i don't support any persecution but I can sympathise with arguments that do not advocate homosexuality. But i do not under any circumstances advocate government or anyone else do anything about it. The only exception to this is the right of the child to a natural family, where the child is not capable of defending himself and i think there should be some kind of protection against this. But ultimately if a child is without a family then any parenting willing to help is better than none.

 

[oulton]

why is the world so obsessed with shouting about how gay friendly everyone should be? Jeez, give it a break!

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

why is the world so obsessed with shouting about how gay friendly everyone should be? Jeez, give it a break!

To try and prevent further persecution ?

 

[Sliver]

why is the world so obsessed with shouting about how gay friendly everyone should be? Jeez, give it a break!

Are you serious ?

In case you are, the core issue here is that not all people are born equal but in western societies we have come to realise that all people should be treated equally under the law.

This is not specific to gays either. Take any minority and the same applies.

Might does not make right !

 

[Woden]

So you want to force gay people to marry the opposite sex and procreate?

 

[Schlong&Stable]

To try and prevent further persecution ?

Then why not shout about far more common forms of persecution, instead of something that affects a trivial number of the worlds population?

 

[anything I don't mind]

I haven't offered an opinion of the importance, it is your definition that I am uncomfortable with. Your 'natural family' doesn't fit Islamic families (multiple wives). Your version is the received wisdom in the west from years of social engineering by the state and religion. And it isn't prevalent in real nature.

The natural family is about a male and a female having a child and being the mother and father to that child. If another religion wants to allow additional wives, then biologically it is still a natural family because only one man and women can naturally have a child. In the environment sense it is still a natural family as the mother and father are present but there just exists multiple mothers. Its same as a step mother, say the real mother died at birth. The step mother takes the role on and it remains a natural family because the mother is present.

If there is a man and a women have a child and the women is never present because she works in another country for all the child's live for example, then biologically its a natural family but environment wise it is not.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Then why not shout about far more common forms of persecution, instead of something that affects a trivial number of the worlds population?

But people do Environmentalists, women's rights campaigners, political activists, etc.

 

[Shocky-FM]

So you want to force gay people to marry the opposite sex and procreate?

It's probably better if gay people don't procreate.

 

[oulton]

Are you serious ?

In case you are, the core issue here is that not all people are born equal but in western societies we have come to realise that all people should be treated equally under the law.

This is not specific to gays either. Take any minority and the same applies.

Might does not make right !

I am serious. I'm ok with gays and homosexuality. Its upto them if thats what floats their boat. But I don't like this new fashion for pushing homosexuality everywhere in the media. I don't like the idea of schoolchildren and impressionable teenagers constantly being told how cool it is to be gay. Its like an assault on conventional sexuality/normal heterosexual relationships.

I also don't like how many gay people feel the need to shout it from the roof tops and act like dogs on heat. Be gay, whatever, just stop shouting about it.

 

[BD10NNF]

Isn't 'Straight' a label ?

People don't go saying 'he/she is straight', more like 'he/she is gay'. Why does it matter?

That was my point.