I'm back...
-
I'm not going to talk about religion here - there are thousands of resources out there that cover all of it in depth. Stan Shannon wrote: What is the difference? A lot. Are you familiar with section 28 that was created by the Thatcher government to stop local governments from supporting GLBT individuals and groups? This was passed by a govenment, and at the time it very much put into words the beliefs of a large porition of this country. It's aim was to stop gays from "recruiting" heterosexuals. Most of the people who believed that was actually possible still do so today. If you educate people properly so they can make their own minds up than that is all that can be asked of them. The reason each generation is getting more and more tollerant (in astounding proportions) is because each generation is faced and educated with these issues more and more. Everybody out there knows at least one GLBT person - even if they don't realise that person is GLBT. Not everyone has the courage, or indeeds wants to, take their true selfs public (whether to their friends and family, or in her case all of her peers and us lot), but even from the limited number of CodeProject members I know more than just the name of I know for a fact we have three gay, one lesbian and one transexual in the top one hundred most active members alone - and you could probably name every one of them if I told you just their message sigs. The state should not have any differing views for GLBTs than heterosexuals - it shouldn't have anything to be intollerant (or more tollerant) towards.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: If you educate people properly so they can make their own minds up than that is all that can be asked of them Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". A society which teaches that homosexuality is immoral and anti-homosexuality is the preferred norm is no less "moral" than one which teaches that homosexuality is normal and anti-homosexuality is perverse. In either case, people are being indoctrinated into a particular world view based on religious, faith based, sentiments. What really is at issue here is a self proclaimed intellectual elite deciding for the rest of us what is moral and what is not, and using the power of the state to force their views on society at large. Personnally, I don't like having morality forced upon me or my children by anyone, includeing well meaning, liberated new-agers. I am under no moral obligation to be tolerant of gays or anyone else who's behavior I find objectionable. I'll decide these issues for myself, thank you very much all the same. :rose: "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
While I do not agree with your life decision, I respect you as a fellow programmer. Welcome to CP Anna. Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone Mon (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
Thank you Brad. :) Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
David Wulff wrote: If you educate people properly so they can make their own minds up than that is all that can be asked of them Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". A society which teaches that homosexuality is immoral and anti-homosexuality is the preferred norm is no less "moral" than one which teaches that homosexuality is normal and anti-homosexuality is perverse. In either case, people are being indoctrinated into a particular world view based on religious, faith based, sentiments. What really is at issue here is a self proclaimed intellectual elite deciding for the rest of us what is moral and what is not, and using the power of the state to force their views on society at large. Personnally, I don't like having morality forced upon me or my children by anyone, includeing well meaning, liberated new-agers. I am under no moral obligation to be tolerant of gays or anyone else who's behavior I find objectionable. I'll decide these issues for myself, thank you very much all the same. :rose: "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". Isn't that true of everything though? Even learning to read or write? When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. -- If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? Can you control your emotional, afectionate or sexual attraction? It's not a conscious descision you make - it's no different from a persons race in terms of the individual. And it is no different to what is commonly associated with apartheid and South Africa - a sizable proportion of your own community are being segregated through political, legal, social, and economic discrimination against nonheterosexuals rather than nonwhites. We're not talking fox hunting here, we are talking about how people are empowered to express their views and themselves - you don't have to agree with it itself to agree with the cause. Isn't that what freedom of speech and equality for all is about? :~ The suicide rated amongst even questioning teenagers is unaceptable for any society that bases itself on those two key principles, let alone the hundreds of thousands of others who have take their lives to escape the apartheid. Take a look at Marcus Wayman's death - and he wasn't even gay. (http://www.marcuswayman.org[^]). Then give me a :rose:. :(
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
Personally, anyone that has enough conviction to take on what Anna did deserves alot of credit. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it, but you should atleast recognize the strength that it took to achieve what she did. With all the potential losses that could have come from this (job/familly/freinds/etc...) she stuck with it and followed through. Cheers, and good luck is all I have to say. And to think that I still can't decide what kind of a tatoo I would want...
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Thanks Ray. I can honestly say that everyone I know has accepted that this is something I need to sort out for myself, and been understanding and supportive. I'm not particularly surprised that guys seem to have a harder time comprehending it. Maybe that's partly due to upbringing and the "macho" ehos, and maybe its because I'm leaving the "team"...I really don't know. One thing I do know though is that guys I don't know make me very nervous. There's a very real threat of violence and abuse out there for people in my position, and most of it comes from guys. What makes it worse is that threat would still be there even if I hadn't transitioned...all it takes is for someone to know. I have absolutely no time for bigots and if I ever meet one face to face he'll be in no doubt what I think of him. I'm not doing this for fun, but because I couldn't carry on living another way. I'm sick of hiding and anyone who can't accept what I need to do...well it's their problem. Thanks again. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Yes, but if you make a religion of being "tolerant" than what have you achieved? You can't be intolerant of intolerance and still be tolerant. You end up with a world just as intolerant as what you started with. Its just that the targets of intolerance have changed. Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? Forbidding intolerance doesn't mean to force to be tolerant, it's not boolean. There's also the "it's not your business" attitude.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". Isn't that true of everything though? Even learning to read or write? When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. -- If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? Can you control your emotional, afectionate or sexual attraction? It's not a conscious descision you make - it's no different from a persons race in terms of the individual. And it is no different to what is commonly associated with apartheid and South Africa - a sizable proportion of your own community are being segregated through political, legal, social, and economic discrimination against nonheterosexuals rather than nonwhites. We're not talking fox hunting here, we are talking about how people are empowered to express their views and themselves - you don't have to agree with it itself to agree with the cause. Isn't that what freedom of speech and equality for all is about? :~ The suicide rated amongst even questioning teenagers is unaceptable for any society that bases itself on those two key principles, let alone the hundreds of thousands of others who have take their lives to escape the apartheid. Take a look at Marcus Wayman's death - and he wasn't even gay. (http://www.marcuswayman.org[^]). Then give me a :rose:. :(
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sorry, Dave, but I pretty much reject your arguments out of hand. David Wulff wrote: When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? David Wulff wrote: If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? I have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject of apartheid one way or the other. If what you were talking about is disallowing the state from acting in such a way, than I heartily concur. That is, I have no problem with the state's right to discriminate being infringed. It is a legal, not a moral issue. There is a big difference. However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. Teen suicide? I nearly did it once, over a girl. In the final analysis, I simply did not have a suicidal personality. Some people do. Marcus Wayman was at risk, and would have been at risk regardless of being accused of homosexuality. How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? It is a complex issue that needs real science and not political posturing. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Yes, but if you make a religion of being "tolerant" than what have you achieved? You can't be intolerant of intolerance and still be tolerant. You end up with a world just as intolerant as what you started with. Its just that the targets of intolerance have changed. Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan, I don't expect others to agree with what I know I have to do..or pretend it's anything "normal". I'm me, and no one else. I just ask for the freedom to live my life my way and not be persecuted or abused for doing so. Tolerance (at a personal level) makes this more likely. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Sorry, Dave, but I pretty much reject your arguments out of hand. David Wulff wrote: When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? David Wulff wrote: If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? I have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject of apartheid one way or the other. If what you were talking about is disallowing the state from acting in such a way, than I heartily concur. That is, I have no problem with the state's right to discriminate being infringed. It is a legal, not a moral issue. There is a big difference. However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. Teen suicide? I nearly did it once, over a girl. In the final analysis, I simply did not have a suicidal personality. Some people do. Marcus Wayman was at risk, and would have been at risk regardless of being accused of homosexuality. How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? It is a complex issue that needs real science and not political posturing. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? I should have added to the end of that sentace "and if not it is your duty to yourself to change them". I don't agree with the cutting off of one's hand for stealing, but unless I am willing to contest it it will go on. As you say, there is no authorative guide, only what people choose form themselves. Stan Shannon wrote: However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. No, I am arguing that people should be given the *chance* to get all the information before deciding on a topic, and moreso in the smaller more traditional communities where ignorance breeds intollerance like a sewer. Whether on sexuality, race, class - it doesn't matter. Stan Shannon wrote: How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? Firstly, homosexuality has not been considered a mental or emotional disorder by the top medical and mental authorities in America since the seventies. I don't *think* you were hinting at that, but I'll state it for the record. Secondly, the cause of the problems is intollerance - moreso the subtle form than in-you-face. The cause is fear the like of which you will hopefully never know, no self esteem at all because you are constantly faced with the realisation that the people you know and love would hate you for something you cannot change, shame and a dispairation bred through a persons view that they are not worth the life they occupy, and in many cases severe physical harm through violence and and in some cases torture. You say you almost commited suicide over a girl - a laughably minor problem if you look at it in the third person - but doing so over yourself is a totally different thing altogether: you don't want to end it all to get away from the despair, you want to end it all to end yourself to stop the despair. I doubt even now you can put yourself into that mindset and truely understand it. I know this for an undisputable fact because I've met, have talked w
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? Forbidding intolerance doesn't mean to force to be tolerant, it's not boolean. There's also the "it's not your business" attitude.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? I should have added to the end of that sentace "and if not it is your duty to yourself to change them". I don't agree with the cutting off of one's hand for stealing, but unless I am willing to contest it it will go on. As you say, there is no authorative guide, only what people choose form themselves. Stan Shannon wrote: However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. No, I am arguing that people should be given the *chance* to get all the information before deciding on a topic, and moreso in the smaller more traditional communities where ignorance breeds intollerance like a sewer. Whether on sexuality, race, class - it doesn't matter. Stan Shannon wrote: How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? Firstly, homosexuality has not been considered a mental or emotional disorder by the top medical and mental authorities in America since the seventies. I don't *think* you were hinting at that, but I'll state it for the record. Secondly, the cause of the problems is intollerance - moreso the subtle form than in-you-face. The cause is fear the like of which you will hopefully never know, no self esteem at all because you are constantly faced with the realisation that the people you know and love would hate you for something you cannot change, shame and a dispairation bred through a persons view that they are not worth the life they occupy, and in many cases severe physical harm through violence and and in some cases torture. You say you almost commited suicide over a girl - a laughably minor problem if you look at it in the third person - but doing so over yourself is a totally different thing altogether: you don't want to end it all to get away from the despair, you want to end it all to end yourself to stop the despair. I doubt even now you can put yourself into that mindset and truely understand it. I know this for an undisputable fact because I've met, have talked w
David Wulff wrote: Care if I ask how you base your descision? Is it on experience, 'the law of the land', your religious beliefs? I'm only curious, I can't argue to change them. I am an instinctive heretic. Growing up in a small town on the Southern great plains - the buckle of the bible belt - I argued with one and all that humans were evolved from apes, and other heresies. I didn't beleive a word of the bible and still don't - although I now appreciate the importance of religion to human culture. I am also fairly well educated on issues which pertain to this discussion. I know, for example, that a gene, recessive or not, which minimizes the probability of a viable off spring will not last long in a gene pool. The fact that the "science" surrounding this issues ignores this basic, irrefutable, fact makes me highly suspicious of all of it. I think it is science in the service of a moral agenda and not in the service of furthering our understanding of anything. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
David Wulff wrote: Care if I ask how you base your descision? Is it on experience, 'the law of the land', your religious beliefs? I'm only curious, I can't argue to change them. I am an instinctive heretic. Growing up in a small town on the Southern great plains - the buckle of the bible belt - I argued with one and all that humans were evolved from apes, and other heresies. I didn't beleive a word of the bible and still don't - although I now appreciate the importance of religion to human culture. I am also fairly well educated on issues which pertain to this discussion. I know, for example, that a gene, recessive or not, which minimizes the probability of a viable off spring will not last long in a gene pool. The fact that the "science" surrounding this issues ignores this basic, irrefutable, fact makes me highly suspicious of all of it. I think it is science in the service of a moral agenda and not in the service of furthering our understanding of anything. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: I know, for example, that a gene, recessive or not, which minimizes the probability of a viable off spring will not last long in a gene pool There is a huge difference between sexual attraction and fertile viability - even a gay man and a lesbian woman can parent a child - the parental drives that cause straight people to want offspring are no different. Studies done have found almost every species of animal has some degree of same sex behaviour within their groups and yet this is not being bred out as you suggest. It appears to be more of a stagnant derivision (w?) than something actively afecting a species' survival. One thing it is important to remember is that as a biological entity you "have faith" in 100% of your genes, whether they are ultimately good or bad for your species. You don't make the choice to continue a line further. Sicence makes no attempt to ignore that, in fact quite the opposite. It is widely considered that homosexuality is "caused" by a variation on the instinctal (and hence biological) attraction centre of the brain (a slight hic-up in the system if you like), which is then either enhanced or stemed by both environmental and interpersonal affectors. This is believed both by scientists and theologians alike. This would back up the belief that human sexuality is sliding scale - everybody has experienced same sex attraction to some degree (sometimes emotional, sometimes purely physical). Some people moreso than others. Some people lessso than others. (Side note: the UK has a proportionally higher rate of self-identifying GLB people than America (which is believed to take into account the wide difference in social views and tollerance between our countries) of about 2 people to every one hundred. The average in America is 4 people out of every one hundred, the average in the UK is 6. This certainly points towards a likelyhood that an individuals place on the sexuality scale is at least in part dependant on biological factors present in the available gene pool, and that nonheteros do breed to return the genes back to the pool) Transexuality is something totally different - that is a physical condition (a birth defect) where a person develops with an alter-sexed self image, but we're not talking about that anymore.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I know, for example, that a gene, recessive or not, which minimizes the probability of a viable off spring will not last long in a gene pool There is a huge difference between sexual attraction and fertile viability - even a gay man and a lesbian woman can parent a child - the parental drives that cause straight people to want offspring are no different. Studies done have found almost every species of animal has some degree of same sex behaviour within their groups and yet this is not being bred out as you suggest. It appears to be more of a stagnant derivision (w?) than something actively afecting a species' survival. One thing it is important to remember is that as a biological entity you "have faith" in 100% of your genes, whether they are ultimately good or bad for your species. You don't make the choice to continue a line further. Sicence makes no attempt to ignore that, in fact quite the opposite. It is widely considered that homosexuality is "caused" by a variation on the instinctal (and hence biological) attraction centre of the brain (a slight hic-up in the system if you like), which is then either enhanced or stemed by both environmental and interpersonal affectors. This is believed both by scientists and theologians alike. This would back up the belief that human sexuality is sliding scale - everybody has experienced same sex attraction to some degree (sometimes emotional, sometimes purely physical). Some people moreso than others. Some people lessso than others. (Side note: the UK has a proportionally higher rate of self-identifying GLB people than America (which is believed to take into account the wide difference in social views and tollerance between our countries) of about 2 people to every one hundred. The average in America is 4 people out of every one hundred, the average in the UK is 6. This certainly points towards a likelyhood that an individuals place on the sexuality scale is at least in part dependant on biological factors present in the available gene pool, and that nonheteros do breed to return the genes back to the pool) Transexuality is something totally different - that is a physical condition (a birth defect) where a person develops with an alter-sexed self image, but we're not talking about that anymore.
David Wulff wrote: There is a huge difference between sexual attraction and fertile viability - even a gay man and a lesbian woman can parent a child - the parental drives that cause straight people to want offspring are no different. Studies done have found almost every species of animal has some degree of same sex behaviour within their groups and yet this is not being bred out as you suggest. It appears to be more of a stagnant derivision (w?) than something actively afecting a species' survival. First, I don't think it is important whether homosexuality is genetic or not. I was only trying to establish why I am skeptical of the so-called "science". The question is - should people be bludgeoned by the state into tolerating behavaiors which they are culturally or relgiously predisposed to be intolerant of regardless of the cause of those behaviors? I am fully aware that homosexuals are biologically capable of having children and passing any "homosexual" gene on to a new generation. But, the fact remains, that if anything we are told by the behavioral sciences about homosexual attraction is true, than that gene would certainly be out competed over long biological time spans and would not be stable across all cultures and societies which it would have to be for the (preposterous) statistic of 10% homosexuality rates among the general human population. Somebody is not being honest somewhere, and if intellectual dishonesty is being accepted anywhere it is probably being accepted everywhere. I generally have a disdain for modern social sciences. Most of them are completely in the service of one political/social/moral agenda or another. There is very little honesty left in those areas of science. They approach their field of study with a preconceived opinion and "discover" facts that support those opinions. Do you really believe that the people who recently reported homosexual behavior among male sheep would have published their findings if they had not supported their political agenda? I don't. I think any scientist who publishes findings which do not support the established orthodoxy is going to have a short career in modern academia. I certainly do not think this psuedo science should be taught to children in school. It would be no different than turning our schools over to right wing religious zealots teaching creationism. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
David Wulff wrote: There is a huge difference between sexual attraction and fertile viability - even a gay man and a lesbian woman can parent a child - the parental drives that cause straight people to want offspring are no different. Studies done have found almost every species of animal has some degree of same sex behaviour within their groups and yet this is not being bred out as you suggest. It appears to be more of a stagnant derivision (w?) than something actively afecting a species' survival. First, I don't think it is important whether homosexuality is genetic or not. I was only trying to establish why I am skeptical of the so-called "science". The question is - should people be bludgeoned by the state into tolerating behavaiors which they are culturally or relgiously predisposed to be intolerant of regardless of the cause of those behaviors? I am fully aware that homosexuals are biologically capable of having children and passing any "homosexual" gene on to a new generation. But, the fact remains, that if anything we are told by the behavioral sciences about homosexual attraction is true, than that gene would certainly be out competed over long biological time spans and would not be stable across all cultures and societies which it would have to be for the (preposterous) statistic of 10% homosexuality rates among the general human population. Somebody is not being honest somewhere, and if intellectual dishonesty is being accepted anywhere it is probably being accepted everywhere. I generally have a disdain for modern social sciences. Most of them are completely in the service of one political/social/moral agenda or another. There is very little honesty left in those areas of science. They approach their field of study with a preconceived opinion and "discover" facts that support those opinions. Do you really believe that the people who recently reported homosexual behavior among male sheep would have published their findings if they had not supported their political agenda? I don't. I think any scientist who publishes findings which do not support the established orthodoxy is going to have a short career in modern academia. I certainly do not think this psuedo science should be taught to children in school. It would be no different than turning our schools over to right wing religious zealots teaching creationism. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
I was responding to your statement, "I know, for example, that a gene, recessive or not, which minimizes the probability of a viable off spring will not last long in a gene pool. The fact that the "science" surrounding this issues ignores this basic, irrefutable, fact makes me highly suspicious of all of it." Nothing more. Stan Shannon wrote: The question is - should people be bludgeoned by the state into tolerating behavaiors which they are of regardless of the cause of those behaviors? Well I personally think black people are very obviously inferior animals (far closer to apes than I am) and should be used to fill all the undesirable and underpaid jobs like sewage workers and refuse collectors. They, after all, wont show the dirt, and they all smell like shit anyway. Ok so I personally don't hold that view, but it was (and in places sadly still is very much so) a view that people were culturally or relgiously predisposed to have. Should we have campaigned to have that criminalised by the state? The people en mass only started to disagree with that view once they were educated on the matter - without that I'd still see coloured people in shackles at my local market. Stan Shannon wrote: But, the fact remains, that if anything we are told by the behavioral sciences about homosexual attraction is true, than that gene would certainly be out competed over long biological time spans and would not be stable across all cultures and societies which it would have to be for the (preposterous) statistic of 10% homosexuality rates among the general human population. Firstly the 10% figure is indicative of individuals who do not have largely heterosexual attractions, not of practising homosexuals, but that asside. As I said in my last reply, sexuality is not considered to be entirely genetical any more than your exact finger length is. It is present to some degree in almost every species of animal thusfar studied (and we're not talking merely chimps and dolphins here as some homophobic organisations would like to have us believe) so whatever affectors are in place to cause it they are most certainly not being bred out. It is quite amusing watching two male peacocks mating, but I have yet to see that published yet. HIv/AIDs was widely a disease homosexuals spread during the early seventies (sadly that view is still prevailiant in many places today), yet in 2000 there were considerably more diagnosed cases of HIV amongst straight people than ga
-
I was responding to your statement, "I know, for example, that a gene, recessive or not, which minimizes the probability of a viable off spring will not last long in a gene pool. The fact that the "science" surrounding this issues ignores this basic, irrefutable, fact makes me highly suspicious of all of it." Nothing more. Stan Shannon wrote: The question is - should people be bludgeoned by the state into tolerating behavaiors which they are of regardless of the cause of those behaviors? Well I personally think black people are very obviously inferior animals (far closer to apes than I am) and should be used to fill all the undesirable and underpaid jobs like sewage workers and refuse collectors. They, after all, wont show the dirt, and they all smell like shit anyway. Ok so I personally don't hold that view, but it was (and in places sadly still is very much so) a view that people were culturally or relgiously predisposed to have. Should we have campaigned to have that criminalised by the state? The people en mass only started to disagree with that view once they were educated on the matter - without that I'd still see coloured people in shackles at my local market. Stan Shannon wrote: But, the fact remains, that if anything we are told by the behavioral sciences about homosexual attraction is true, than that gene would certainly be out competed over long biological time spans and would not be stable across all cultures and societies which it would have to be for the (preposterous) statistic of 10% homosexuality rates among the general human population. Firstly the 10% figure is indicative of individuals who do not have largely heterosexual attractions, not of practising homosexuals, but that asside. As I said in my last reply, sexuality is not considered to be entirely genetical any more than your exact finger length is. It is present to some degree in almost every species of animal thusfar studied (and we're not talking merely chimps and dolphins here as some homophobic organisations would like to have us believe) so whatever affectors are in place to cause it they are most certainly not being bred out. It is quite amusing watching two male peacocks mating, but I have yet to see that published yet. HIv/AIDs was widely a disease homosexuals spread during the early seventies (sadly that view is still prevailiant in many places today), yet in 2000 there were considerably more diagnosed cases of HIV amongst straight people than ga
Well said David. I have been thinking about replying to Stans comment all day, but you said everything I was thinking plus a whole lot more. Education is obviously the key here - if only more people would realise that. Luckily, homophobia (and racism) seems to be linked to your generation (not always, but often) - and with each new generation there seems to be more tolerance and understanding. I was born in the 1970s and know of little homophobia among my age group - and with the generation born afterwards (yours I guess) there is even less. My fathers generation (he was born in 1936) is a good example - rife with racists and homophobics! (most of the Daily Mail readership for example ... ha ha ha ha). Basically, people are definitely becoming more tolerant of others. The UK is actually pretty good too - a poll by The Economist (for some reason) in 2000 asked the question "Do you think a homosexual relationship is as valid as a hetereosexual one?", and 69% of people said "Yes". We WILL see same-sex marriages, etc. before too long - and this usually lacklsutre government is actually moving things forward. All I can hope for is that people with Stans attitude are in an ever-decreasing minority. It *is* hard to tolerate people with such an attitude - which is something that Stan has made a point of using as an argument (that by being intolerant of homophobes, etc. makes me as bad as them) - but I can't help but feel that tolerance of other peoples lifestyles/etc. is a positive outlook on life, whereas intolerance is just so negative. I know which side of the fence I would prefer everyone to stand on. Here comes some flamebait - this whole sub-thread begs the question - do I think I occupy a higher moral ground than your average homophobe of my tolerant outlook? You bet your sweet ass I do. Do I think that I am somehow a better person because I am tolerant of others? Damn right. I'm sure I will get flamed for that, but it's what I really think. There have been people on this site who have posted comments in the past that I have found so unbelieveable (mostly cloaked in religion) that it definitely changed my opinion of them for good. I try to respect everyones opinions, but there are different levels of respect ... and people that hide behind religion whilst dishing out hurtful comments rate pretty fucking low in my book. At least John doesn't hide behind Christianity when he offends - I have to give him credit for that, even though he seems to have a real problem with certain ... minorities. Ah
-
I don't agree with what Anna has done with his life, but its his life. I'd rather not hear about it like John, but I think he has just as much of a right to post (in the soapbox) as anyone else. John does say what he feels, but that can get you into trouble. Sometimes its better to be quiet than to be [EDIT]vocal[/EDIT] about your feelings.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: metimes its better to be quiet than to be [EDIT]vocal[/EDIT] about your feelings I think it's common sense to take things like other peoples feelings in consideration when uttering ones thoughts. No matter what feeling one might have, one don't have the right to hurt someone elses feelings unprovoked. If Anna wants to be known as a female, I'll respect that, regardless of what I think. Just because Andy went from Anna, she is still a human being with feelings you know. -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: metimes its better to be quiet than to be [EDIT]vocal[/EDIT] about your feelings I think it's common sense to take things like other peoples feelings in consideration when uttering ones thoughts. No matter what feeling one might have, one don't have the right to hurt someone elses feelings unprovoked. If Anna wants to be known as a female, I'll respect that, regardless of what I think. Just because Andy went from Anna, she is still a human being with feelings you know. -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Just because Andy went from Anna, she is still a human being with feelings you know. I realize that, but I also recognize that I don't think Anna is really a female. I can't, in good conscience, call Anna a she without lying to myself. Therefore, I will refer to the old Andy not as he or she, but as Anna at all times. I'm not trying to disrespect Anna, just trying to stay true to what I believe. I think Anna understands my moral dilemna.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
John, Guess what? I don't care what you think. You're bigotry is your problem, not mine. You leave me to live my life and I'll leave you to live yours, OK? I may have been born looking like a guy, but that doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of my life pretending to be one. One more thing. As far as how I look is concerned, I'm quite happy with my appearance and figure, and so it seems are most others...I've been receiving emails at work today congratulating me on how good I look, and I don't get a second glance when I go out in public. Stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
I whole heartedly agree with you, but posts like these are best ignored. Feed the trolls once, and they'll come back for more. :( -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
-
I whole heartedly agree with you, but posts like these are best ignored. Feed the trolls once, and they'll come back for more. :( -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
I know...but when someone's so obviously trying to be insulting to me and others in my condition I'm afraid I can't sit idly by. I've been through and seen too much suffering for that. Let's face it, with over 160,000 members on CP now there are bound to be a few of us around...and if recent figures on the incidence of intense dysphoria (i.e. transsexualism) are accurate 1 in 1000 is a conservative estimate. What do they think of certain peoples "opinions" on my transition, I wonder? With that in mind, I do feel I have a responsibility to those whose confidence isn't strong enough to be "out" in public. Fear of bigots is part of the reason the suicide rate amongst us is so high and I for one won't sit idly by while they spout their crap. Sorry to get on my soapbox, but this is something I can't let go. :rose: Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
I know...but when someone's so obviously trying to be insulting to me and others in my condition I'm afraid I can't sit idly by. I've been through and seen too much suffering for that. Let's face it, with over 160,000 members on CP now there are bound to be a few of us around...and if recent figures on the incidence of intense dysphoria (i.e. transsexualism) are accurate 1 in 1000 is a conservative estimate. What do they think of certain peoples "opinions" on my transition, I wonder? With that in mind, I do feel I have a responsibility to those whose confidence isn't strong enough to be "out" in public. Fear of bigots is part of the reason the suicide rate amongst us is so high and I for one won't sit idly by while they spout their crap. Sorry to get on my soapbox, but this is something I can't let go. :rose: Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
You're right. I wouldn't take crap from anyone, why should you? For what it's worth, here's one out of 160,000 members who doesn't have a problem with your transition. :) -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
-
You're right. I wouldn't take crap from anyone, why should you? For what it's worth, here's one out of 160,000 members who doesn't have a problem with your transition. :) -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
Thank you. :rose: I really do appreciate your support and that of so many others here. Had I not had that coping with everything would have been much more difficult - if I managed it at all. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++