Is being gay wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

To all people who are against homosexuality, read this:
http://web.morons.org/feature/marriage.jsp

It revolves around the argument of gay marriage, but there's a lot of valid points made about homosexuality in general.

I suppose one way of stifling debate is to declaim that any individual who does not 'buy into' the package of current sensibilities is a Moron.

I completely fail to see how the manipulation of the mass media by a handful of highly influential, manipulative and predominantly invisible political entities can quite 'rub out' all preceding history prior to around 1990 - 1995.

When I was growing up in the 1970's and 1980's homosexuality was generally despised and although it had been 'decriminalised' in the UK it was hardly considered to be a desirable 'lifestyle choice'. Of course, the Identity Politics vernacular was not mainstream at that time, being largely restricted to self-appointed 'radical intellectuals', who were usually those sections of the privileged classes who couldn't do science or business, but didn't quite want to sink down to the level of blue collar manual worker.

In the UK we have an organisation called The BBC, who have recently had their 'Royal Charter' (that alone tells us rather a lot!), renewed by the Labour Government. The Royal Charter is at once permission to Operate a State Controlled broadcasting service, plus the instructions for social and political engineering. This is basically the 'contract' that allows the BBC to operate from a clearly privileged position that is not enjoyed by its commercial 'competitors'.

The BBC is funded through a regressive and punitive taxation system known as the Licence Fee. In the UK, it is illegal to operate a television set unless you have paid the annual fee of around £112.00 for the privilege of doing so. Failure to comply with the legislation can mean a custodial sentence of up to 3 months in prison, in addition to a £1,000.00 fine. I know of no other country where this tax applies and I am particularly galled by the fact that a so-called 'Labour' Government can be so bald faced in its hypocrisy, double standards and contempt for the voiceless sections of society that New Labour itself has done so much to weaken even further.

The tax is regressive, because it is not predicated on the basis of ability to pay (such as Income Tax or National Insurance, for example). It is an attack on poorer people who are perhaps more likely to turn to the Television Set for cheap entertainment, since other options are generally closed to them.

The reason I have gone into this is that it tells us something about the political philosophy of The BBC and perhaps affords an insight into how it is able to get away with acting as a mouthpiece for certain kinds of propaganda.

As one might expect, The BBC is extremely 'gay friendly', since the self-appointed 'intellectual radicals' mentioned above have a peculiar interest in promoting such marginilia and passing it off as being 'mainstream'.

I do not quite subscribe to a conspiracy theory about a self-elected degenerate elite infiltrating our institutions in order ot attempt to destroy the society and value systems that they hate, so that they can enjoy higher status and greater influence over everybody else. I just think that they are a bunch of bone-idle freeloaders who are using their comparative privilege and social advantage to score themselves an easy ride.

It is a bandwagon, or a gravy train and it is high time it was derailed.

I don't think that the intention of the link was to imply anyone disagreeing was a moron. It does contain a useful set of observations.



Even if you agree with this, why does it matter?

As someone who is gay and grew up in the 1970's and 80's in the UK, the normalisation of gay issues in society has had a hugely positive impact on my life, and they have cost other people nothing.

Ok, I'm going to lift a bit from a webcomic I really like for this......


You think being gay is a CHOICE? Fine then you do it! I dare you! You don't have to do anything physical, but for the next hour be sexually/romantically attracted to the same sex! If being gay is a choice, you should be able to "choose" it too!

Did it work? No? well while you are figuring out why you can't "choose" same sex attraction, stop and think how others are supposed to be "choosing it'!

Do you think people choose to be a member of one of the most socially opressed, religion persceuted minrities in the world becausse its fun? because they like being disowned by theri familes, attacked by strangers, liked being the only group in the US they are trying to write opression of into the constitution???


You don't choose to be gay.

If you were growing up in the 1970's and 1980's then the 'normalisation' exercise would surely have passed you by, wouldn't it? The whole cultural emphasis around homosexuality is oriented towards the youth market, so older people are going to be left a bit 'high and dry' in any event, unless they mobilise highly developed and specific social skills in order to manipulate matters to their own advantage.

I think the point of my objections concerning the role of the BBC is that homosexuality is a non-mainstream 'sport', unless it is truly possible that people can 'drift' towards it under a non-judgemental societal regime. Even if people can do this (and I am by no means certain that they can), then one would have to ask why we would wish to precipitate this state of affairs? The idea that older homosexual men are perpetually looking to 'recruit' younger males is not always verifiably true, so I suspect that motive would be considered irrelevant.

On the other hand, it doesn't really answer the question as to why this process of social engineering (and others like it) are all going unchallenged.

I have to say that from my perspective, things still aren't normalised now, although they are vastly better than they were when I was a student back in the 70's and 80's. I'm not sure that gay issues are centered around the youth market any more than any other social issues - this tends to be a reflection of the fact that young people are the more radially polically active and generally the source of most sex-related culture (by which I mean clubs, music - things related to dating etc, rather than culture in the sense of 'high art').



I'm not sure that I understand your points. You could equally argue that chess is a 'minority sport' and so should not receive the positive coverage that it gets from the BBC. I have no idea how you connect the notion of older homosexuals trying to 'recruit' young males to the BBC, or even where this idea comes from. In my first hand experience I've never seen this.



Aren't they are challenged, by the various governing bodies in the BBC and government, and also in the largely right-wing non-BBC media, such as the press. My impression is that many of these groups (eg the Christian Coalition in the US) are the ones followin an agenda rather than the BBC itself.

I personally believe that gay people are just like everyone else, except for the fact they are attracted to the same sex. It's nothing to freak out about, and it's also none of our buisness. Let them get married for all I care! it doesn't affect my life and it no one should let it affect their lives except for the gay couple's friends or family. They are the only people that should be concerned.


But that's just me...

That's one thing I want to know: Why is homosexuality treated like such a big deal? There's much worse characteristics people can have. Yet some people treat it like it's worth disowning children to be against.

[hick voice] Beekuz da Holey Buy-Bull sez itz bad and dat mayks it so! [/hick voice]

I am homosexual but I don't identify myself as such. I am a female who just happens to like females.

Though I do know many people who make "GAY" their identity.

I am probably more prone to make "ASPIE" my identity before "GAY" not because I would ever be ashamed of being homosexual, but simply because my life doesn't revolve around that as much.

But then again, I have rarely been persecuted for my same-sex attraction and I think the people who do wear their Gay on their sleeve are the ones who have been mistreated their entire lives for who they are with regards to their sexuality. This I can kinda understand. At last, they have the opportunity to no longer hide and not be ashamed but go the opposite route and even be proud.

But as I said, I am not like this I think because I haven't experienced that level of mistreatment. I have been lucky. I don't identify it as anything abnormal.

Yeah just like the Americans that go about wearing "proud to be an American" t-shirts are persecuted and made to feel ashamed about being American. Some people will look for attention regardless of what they represent.

I'm not sure that persecution is necessarily the issue, at least in Europe and the US. As someone who has a partner and who is far from behaving as the stereotypical flamboyant gay character, the issues for me are the reactions of family members and people at work. These are strongly influenced by society and the media. I know some people who mange to keep their relationships secret, but I'm not very good at thinking what I should disclose. It also doesn't help much if your partner's family and friends native language lacks gender neutral terms...

There are also general issues regarding equality under the state. In the UK, this has improved immensely, although gay people are still in many ways second class citizens (for example, inheritance and hospital visiting rights, not to mention numerous anomalies affecting tax and benefit issues).

Two US men have been found guilty in California of killing a transgender teenager with whom they both had sex.
Michael Magidson and Jose Merel beat, tied up and strangled 17-year-old Gwen Araujo after discovering she was biologically male, the court heard.

Her body was found in a shallow grave in the Sierra Nevada hills soon after the October 2002 killing in Newark.

The men face 15 years to life in jail for murder but were cleared of hate crime charges.

It was the second time the case had gone to court, after a first attempt in 2004 was declared a mistrial.

A mistrial was declared in the case of a third suspect, Jason Cazares. He told the court he only helped bury the victim.

'Towards closure'

Speaking after the verdict, Ms Araujo's mother Sylvia Guerrero told the Associated Press news agency she was pleased with the outcome.

She said: "Nothing is going to bring Gwen back. I know that. But this is at least a step towards closure."


The court in Hayward, California, heard Ms Araujo had been born a boy named Edward but chose to live as a female.

She met the defendants, who knew her as Lida, in 2002 and they both had sexual encounters with her.

Suspicions about her gender ended in a confrontation in the early hours at Merel's home, the court heard.

A witness who was also at the house described how the victim was savagely beaten after her biological identity was revealed when her underwear was pulled aside.

An autopsy concluded she died of asphyxiation associated with head injuries.

A lawyer for Magidson said he would appeal against the verdict.

They should definately get jailed for 10-15 years but not life because there was provocation by the looks of it.

what provocation? as in - what sort of provocation in this case made beating someone to death justifiable?

I didnt say killing him was justifiable but the victim was rather silly to pass himself off as a girl and have sexual intercourse with people without letting them know that he wasnt. I would be pissed off if someone did this to me. I hope it is ilegal.