Homosexuality and Culture

[Joohan]

Neither you, nor I, live alone on an island. Your actions, no matter how seemingly disparate from my own physical person - often do have an impact on my world. Trash thrown away by Joe living Japan effects my planet, which affects me. Me giving money to a man running for president effects the country, which effects you. And may bad mouthing a cop in front of children will influence them.

Our individual actions can have massive real effects upon the greater society - which is why we shouldn't simply view ever interaction as be isolated and disparate from anyone or anything else.

Sex between two consenting adults has such little impact on you that it is negligible.

It disparages my faith, it influences my children, it effects human reproduction.

Those are three pretty big influences right there.

[Bombadil]

Sex between two consenting adults has such little impact on you that it is negligible.

It disparages my faith, it influences my children, it effects human reproduction.

Those are three pretty big influences right there.

Ha, using 'effects' is the very opposite meaning of what I imagine you intended.

Affects.

effects: cause (something) to happen; bring about.

[Valgora]

I'm considering it a large sub-culture within an even larger sub-culture.
But that's not the point of my question.

Sub-culture is defined as: a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture.

Heterosexuality is the larger culture in this case. But, regardless, I will humor the question. Essentially, all concepts of acceptable love ( within Christian European societies ) have been portrayed from the perspective of heterosexuality. A unique identity was crafted in the homosexual sub-culture by adapting heterosexual culture to their own desires.

If heterosexuality ain't a sub-culture, then homosexuality ain't either.

I'd argue that those concepts of acceptable love have more to do with the main culture then being put into the perspective of heterosexuality. The homosexual sub-culture didn't adapt the heterosexual sub-culture to their own, they used the concepts that were a part of the main culture to begin with.

[Joohan]

Sub-culture is defined as: a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture.

Heterosexuality is the larger culture in this case. But, regardless, I will humor the question. Essentially, all concepts of acceptable love ( within Christian European societies ) have been portrayed from the perspective of heterosexuality. A unique identity was crafted in the homosexual sub-culture by adapting heterosexual culture to their own desires.

The fate of humanity doesn't balance on the whims of European Judeo-Christian values.

no, but gay-subculture was created by that society so......

[Joohan]

It disparages my faith, it influences my children, it effects human reproduction.

Those are three pretty big influences right there.

Ha, using 'effects' is the very opposite meaning of what I imagine you intended.

Affects.

effects: cause (something) to happen; bring about.

My mistake

[Ihury]

Sex between two consenting adults has such little impact on you that it is negligible.

It 1. disparages my faith, it 2. influences my children, it 3. effects human reproduction.

Those are three pretty big influences right there.

1. So does the existence of other religions. Does that mean you'd be justified in launching a crusade to eliminate all those filthy Muslims, Jews, Shintōists, Buddhists, Hindus, et al? The world doesn't revolve around Christianity.

2. You can't choose to be homosexual. If you could, then why are there gay people in Saudi Arabia, where having relations with someone of the same gender gets you executed?

3. You can't choose to be homosexual. Also, only a small percentage of the population is homosexual, and there is reason to believe that homosexuality serves a societal function.

[Dogmeat]

The fate of humanity doesn't balance on the whims of European Judeo-Christian values.

no, but gay-subculture was created by that society so......

Only by virtue of appropriating all of European culture in the name of Christianity. As though it's solely yours.

[Uxupox]

Sub-culture is defined as: a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture.

Heterosexuality is the larger culture in this case. But, regardless, I will humor the question. Essentially, all concepts of acceptable love ( within Christian European societies ) have been portrayed from the perspective of heterosexuality. A unique identity was crafted in the homosexual sub-culture by adapting heterosexual culture to their own desires.

They literally just have sex with people of a different sex. Provide examples on how they adapted heterosexual sub culture to their own.

There is a very specific example of this by anthropology study such as marriage in which it is defined as "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men. This was first inflicted around 1300-1250 BC (If I remember correctly) by virtue of a right to sexual access.

Its however rather obvious that the meaning has changed overtime in modernity.

[Purgatio]

Has homosexuality made any positive contributions to our culture? Why? Or why not?

I argue that homosexuality becoming tolerated has added zero to our culture. Homosexuality, being incompatible with our cultural norms, created a fundamentally opposed culture. It was almost an anti culture, as its basis was grotesque caricature of our culture. This culminated in homosexual marriage, which is a grotesque caricature of heterosexual marriage; even the homosexual ancient Greeks would see homosexual marriage as a farce of heterosexual marriage.

And not only that: I go so far to assert that our culture's immune system has become deficient due to homosexual culture. For a culture's ability to reject certain elements is just as important for its preservation as its ability to accept. By accepting homosexuality, a counter-culture built purely on negation and "spoof" of its host culture, our culture was confronted by a sort of mocking reflection of itself which it was told it must credit. As a result, we have lost our strength to resist culture which attacks and totally undermines our own. We have even fallen to a sort of self-hate and continual guilt-tripping of our culture, through which the only posited way to atone is by ceasing to resist antithetical cultures and values.

Sorry, but this probably one of THE most ridiculous OPs I have read thus far on NS, and that's saying a lot given the OPs we've seen so far.

Homosexuality does not "attack" any part of the present culture, except homophobia and irrational prejudice against two consenting adults having sex. In that sense, homosexuality and its acceptance does "attack" homophobia, so I'll give you that. But you seem to imply that something being part of the present culture means that anything opposed to the present culture must be resisted. This is a fallacious argument which the OP at no point even attempts to justify, rather he takes it for granted that if X is part of the culture, then people have a right to oppose anything that is anti-X, without explaining at any point why X is valuable to begin with.

Let's make something crystal clear - something being part of a "culture" does not automatically make it justifiable. I hate to break it to you, but a lot of pretty odious and immoral things are part of "cultures" all around the world - honour killings, child brides, arranged marriages, feet-binding, the triple talaq, no spousal maintenance etc etc etc. Something being part of a "culture" isn't some automatic argument that allows intellectually-lazy people like the OP to avoid having to justify that thing's very existence. So yes, I agree with you that homophobia is part of the cultures of many societies, and homosexuality by its very definition opposes homophobia. That doesn't even make an effort to explain why homophobia is good and homosexuality is bad. I'm genuinely curious if the OP has ever been to university before, because if this is the kind of academically-lazy argument the OP puts on a college essay, I'd love to see him laughed out of the room by everyone.

[Uxupox]

no, but gay-subculture was created by that society so......

Only by virtue of appropriating all of European culture in the name of Christianity. As though it's solely yours.

I'd rather not sacrifice random people off the street to appease some weather phenomenon.

[Conserative Morality]

no, but gay-subculture was created by that society so......

Only by virtue of appropriating all of European culture in the name of Christianity. As though it's solely yours.

It has always been the dream of Christianity to claim and then replace the cultures of the societies it attaches itself to.

[Joohan]

no, but gay-subculture was created by that society so......

Only by virtue of appropriating all of European culture in the name of Christianity. As though it's solely yours.

no, I was specifying from which society gay-subculture in modern times sprang from. This was the European christian society, who, through Christianity and a myriad of other influences, created our current culture. I wasn't espousing chauvinism, I was just pointing out origin.

[Valgora]

Sex between two consenting adults has such little impact on you that it is negligible.

It disparages my faith, it influences my children, it effects human reproduction.

Those are three pretty big influences right there.

I don't care about your faith if you use it as a means to control the lives of others. And what two consenting adults decide to do is more important than what your faith says.
It influencing your children also doesn't really matter.
It doesn't have a significant impact on human reproduction.

[Dogmeat]

Only by virtue of appropriating all of European culture in the name of Christianity. As though it's solely yours.

I'd rather not sacrifice random people off the street to appease some weather phenomenon.

Or, you know, things like Burgundian roofing, which have very little to do with Pagan or Christian deities.

[Ifreann]

If anything our culture needs more gay. Where my Rantasmo at?

---

I propose that people who don't like homosexuality should mind their business and stop obsessing about it.

Someone who doesn't concern themselves with society, who just minds his own business, was called an "idiotes" in ancient Greece.

Lies make Baby Jesus cry.

---

If anything, the discrimination and oppression of homosexuality has made negative contributions to our culture, especially in America where the ideals of liberty and freedom are supposed to be essential cornerstones to it.


Agreed on this 100%.

You will pardon me if I doubt "liberty and freedom" signified fellatio to the Minutemen.

The Minutemen would have had no truck with the rituals of the Russki.

---

let's make parkus argue against himself

I really can't see how anyone gives a shit. If anybody is actually bothered by homosexual couples, then he should stop engaging in sodomy, because he has something way too big up his ass.

Honestly, what kind of an infantile moron does one have to be to be "offended" by homosexual marriage? Sex is fucking sex, it's not like its primary purpose is babies, these days. Nature didn't invent condoms or panties, either, but who gives a fuck? Homosexuality has been observed in virtually all species, anyway. Are homophobes jealous that gays can get more sex than they can? Christ, uptight people need have a drink and a smoke, get laid, then get over it.

viewtopic.php?p=1282576&sid=2ea6215f94282b1e0e5f0a0d34a5b59f#p1282576

True then as it is now.

wtf, i love TLT now

[Dogmeat]

Only by virtue of appropriating all of European culture in the name of Christianity. As though it's solely yours.

no, I was specifying from which society gay-subculture in modern times sprang from. This was the European christian society, who, through Christianity and a myriad of other influences, created our current culture. I wasn't espousing chauvinism, I was just pointing out origin.

Christianity is just a thread in European culture. It doesn't have ownership of the culture. Homosexual European culture emerging from this tapestry doesn't indebt it to Christianity

[Conserative Morality]

Only by virtue of appropriating all of European culture in the name of Christianity. As though it's solely yours.

I'd rather not sacrifice random people off the street to appease some weather phenomenon.

... so you're against Christianity?

[Uxupox]

I'd rather not sacrifice random people off the street to appease some weather phenomenon.

Or, you know, things like Burgundian roofing, which have very little to do with Pagan or Christian deities.

they hold no candle to Islamic architecture.

[Uxupox]

I'd rather not sacrifice random people off the street to appease some weather phenomenon.

... so you're against Christianity?

im against everything.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Has homosexuality made any positive contributions to our culture? Why? Or why not?

Is homosexuality as a whole just this mass of people or are we allowed to say that people who are gay made positive contributions to our culture?

If it is the latter, that means you never heard a Queen song before. This is an incredible catastrophe that must be rectified right now.


Gay people also helped made the computer you are seeing this text on right now.

[Conserative Morality]

... so you're against Christianity?

im against everything.

I can dig it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The problem isn't necessarily homosexuality, though I have problems with the LGBT rights movement. Consumerism and mass production in-general have made culture into something that isn't profound, and made things like the sexual revolution inevitable.

[Joohan]

It 1. disparages my faith, it 2. influences my children, it 3. effects human reproduction.

Those are three pretty big influences right there.

1. So does the existence of other religions. Does that mean you'd be justified in launching a crusade to eliminate all those filthy Muslims, Jews, Shintōists, Buddhists, Hindus, et al? The world doesn't revolve around Christianity.

2. You can't choose to be homosexual. If you could, then why are there gay people in Saudi Arabia, where having relations with someone of the same gender gets you executed?

3. You can't choose to be homosexual. Also, only a small percentage of the population is homosexual, and there is reason to believe that homosexuality serves a societal function.

1. not yet

2. Being homosexual and believing one to be homosexual are two different things. There are numerous straight people who thought that they might not be straight, only discover later that they most certainly were. Truly, this point has a great correlation to the first, but also merits of it's own.

3. I understand that it might have a social function - I never stated that it was a pointless matter - but it does have a direct effect upon global population. In a century were we are expected to see massive demographic changes and overpopulation across the world, the issue of reproduction does begin to effect the greater society as a whole.

[Conserative Morality]

The problem isn't necessarily homosexuality, though I have problems with the LGBT rights movement. Consumerism and mass production in-general have made culture into something that isn't profound, and made things like the sexual revolution inevitable.

Yes, I remember the good ol' days when only the upper classes made bodily fluid jokes. How very deep and meaningful!

[Mardla]

I don't particularly approve of either, but renaissance homosexuality did not caricature our culture. Shakespeare would have thought same-sex marriage a farce.

It's a little more complicated than that.

During the Renaissance era, the idea of sexual orientation as we know it today did not exist; at the time, people who were convicted on homosexuality-related charges were not accused of being homosexual (in the way we would imagine it today), but of committing homosexual acts. (I would also disagree with the assertion that being gay was cool back then, but that's a different discussion.)

Yes, yes, I've read Foucault