NationStates

Joohan wrote:

Valgora wrote:
Can you do it by not trying to dictate how others should live their life?

nothing much was ever accomplished by sitting quietly in the corner.

I don't force you to live your life a certain way.

Joohan wrote:

Valgora wrote:
Exactly what parts of the sub-culture of heterosexuality are we considering the inspiration for the sub-culture related to homosexuality?

heterosexuality isn't a sub culture - it is the prevailing culture.

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

Ihury wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
More ironically they're tapping away on a computer while dismissing any contribution by Turing..

To be fair, Turing didn't contribute to computer science because he was a gay boi, but your point stands nonetheless.

Sure, but one might argue his way of thinking was influenced by simply being gay, which is to my earlier point that counter cultural thinking can be the very spur that advances culture in general. Culture is not some monolithic that cannot change. Hence homosexuality can be seen as a boon and enhancer in the progress of society, not the only one, not even the predominant one.. but an influence all the same - and it's role is not, as the OP purports, purely the negation of heterosexual culture.

The South Falls wrote:

Joohan wrote:
how you chose to express it is though.

They don't mock heterosexuals, they just try to raise awareness that they're normal people.

I never said that they mocked heterosexuals ( generally, I am sure there are some weird exceptions to the matter I just don't know about - but that's aside from the point ).

Ihury wrote:

Mardla wrote:Homosexuality was very hip then, even King James (of the King James Bible) was into it. But homosexual culture of Shakespeare's time shares no continuity with contemporary homosexual culture. Also his sonnets are pretty meh compared to his incredible plays.

So pray tell, how is Renaissance homosexuality different from contemporary homosexuality, and why do you consider only the former to be acceptable?

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

Nasha Zemlya wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Other people’s sexual orientation and other proclivities should hardly be concern at all since they bring no harm to you as an individual.

Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, it brings harm to everybody.

Except that you can't choose to be homosexual, only a small percentage of the population is homosexual, and there is evidence to believe that homosexual people may serve a societal function.

Joohan wrote:

Valgora wrote:
Can you do it by not trying to dictate how others should live their life?

nothing much was ever accomplished by sitting quietly in the corner.

But what do you have to accomplish? Control of other people's lives just because you don't like that they are attracted to the same sex?

The South Falls wrote:

Joohan wrote:
nothing much was ever accomplished by sitting quietly in the corner.

I don't force you to live your life a certain way.

He's possibly the kind of person who can't have any of their food touching the other foods on his plate.

why does it feel like people are using this thread as a place to vent homophobia...

The South Falls wrote:

Joohan wrote:
nothing much was ever accomplished by sitting quietly in the corner.

I don't force you to live your life a certain way.

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 a man bad mouthing a cop in front of children will influence those children.

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.

This is a non-issue, and should be treated that way.

S0up Nazi wrote:

The South Falls wrote:I don't force you to live your life a certain way.

He's possibly the kind of person who can't have any of their food touching the other foods on his plate.

HEY

There are certain foods that should never meet. Ever.

Joohan wrote:

The South Falls wrote:I don't force you to live your life a certain way.

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.

Nasha Zemlya wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Other people’s sexual orientation and other proclivities should hardly be concern at all since they bring no harm to you as an individual.

Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, it brings harm to everybody.

Even if that were true, not every human being is born gay and those that are are not in high enough numbers to even remotely pose an existential threat to the human species as a whole. So in the end homosexuality is of no harm to anyone anywhere except from those who choose to physically and psychologically assault and abuse gay individuals.

Mardla wrote:

Ihury wrote:
So pray tell, how is Renaissance homosexuality different from contemporary homosexuality, and why do you consider only the former to be acceptable?

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.)

A fly landed on that POS over there.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Nasha Zemlya wrote:
Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, it brings harm to everybody.

Even if that were true, not every human being is born gay and those that are are not in high enough numbers to even remotely pose an existential threat to the human species as a whole. So in the end homosexuality is of no harm to anyone anywhere except from those who choose to physically and psychologically assault and abuse gay individuals.

Also, homosexuals can still reproduce.
All they have to do is get a female pregnant and that's it.

Joohan wrote:

The South Falls wrote:I don't force you to live your life a certain way.

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 a man bad mouthing a cop in front of children will influence those children.

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.

You're absolutely right.

Except that you (and the OP, for that matter) have yet to explain why and how allowing homosexual people to marry poses an existential threat to human flourishing.

The Church of Gino wrote:why does it feel like people are using this thread as a place to vent homophobia...

Welcome to NSG.

Valgora wrote:

Joohan wrote:
heterosexuality isn't a sub culture - it is the prevailing culture.

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.

Joohan wrote:

The South Falls wrote:I don't force you to live your life a certain way.

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 a man bad mouthing a cop in front of children will influence those children.

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.

True, we humans often emulate the things we see. And not just because we like them, but in the absence of contradictory knowledge, our understanding of life may be myopic or incomplete. And even if we don't approve of something, either intellectually or emotionally, which we see or which we experience, it may still constitute for us some knowledge we integrate about life and the world - which we might accept to some or another degree of totality, perhaps influencing it with some degree of our own agency and critical thinking. But what quality do you attribute to homosexuality that you think is especially inimical to a person's ability to rationalize life and the world in an ordinary way?

Joohan wrote:

Valgora wrote: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.

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

Nasha Zemlya wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Other people’s sexual orientation and other proclivities should hardly be concern at all since they bring no harm to you as an individual.

Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, it brings harm to everybody.

That it occurs and continues across species probably means it's very much not an evolutionary dead end. It could well be it's useful when circumstances create a large pool of young males in a group setting by reducing aggression overall.

Anyway, I ascribe to the view that those perturbed and most vocal about homosexuality are probably just shamed by culture into repressing their natural inclinations.

Joohan wrote:

Valgora wrote: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.

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