I think it’s a bit of a non issue, even though it’s been brought up on libcon quite a lot recently. I can’t think of any reason why there should be any opposition to gay marriage, why don’t candidates simply come out and support it?

Tricky. There are lots of things that ought to be intolerable (child molesters, workplace bullies, satchets of ketchup) and perhaps other things that it’s OK to find completely unacceptable (in your sense) yet which ought to be tolerated (burqas, the New Economics Foundation). Who gets to decide what falls in what category? You make tolerance sound like a virtue, but there’s no virtue in tolerating what ought not be tolerated. One obvious critera is harm-to-others, but I’m not sure whether that clears everything up. I hesitate to mention it, for fear of derailing the comments, but abortion is an example where its not obvious (to some at least) whether tolerance would be a good thing (please, let’s not debate that here).

Perhaps acceptance is the more important thing, and when we talk about tolerant people we really mean being accepting of others who differ from oneself. If I was gay, I imagine I’d prefer that people regarded my sexuality as no more interesting than my haircolour, than tolerated me. Although you’re right, if people cannot be accepting, it’s better that they are at least tolerant.

The Tebbit thing is all part of the left’s mythology that the 80s were intolerant, and neo liberalims fundamental failure to undertsnad that tolerance doesn’t have to be a positive statement, just an absence of censure.

I am not the most tolerant person in the world, but I tolerate gay activists’ and liberal lefties’ support of marriage for gay people, even though I would much rather they campaigned for full civil partnerships for all.

I don’t like marriage. I think it is as much a ‘piece of misogyny’ as the burqa. Though I wouldn’t use that phrase myself to describe either. They both exist in gendered society and can be used to oppress women, but maybe are not always used in that way.

“the New Economics Foundation”

Never quite understood the hatred for them amongst you economist types, sure they write some nonsense, but no more so than other fringe groups.

The question of tolerating homosexual marriage would be straightforward but for the fact that it risks making homosexuality seem indistinct from heterosexual union; it is necessary that our practices and customs reflect the difference between the two.
To give the impression that homosexual marriage is more or less the same would confuse future generations who would grow up thinking sexuality is a simple choice between two equally good options. This is not right. Hetersexual union is the very foundation stone of life itself since it has, for millenia, provided us with offspring. Hence it’s superiority should be preserved symbolically by retaining the distinction between civil partnerships and marriage.

@6
Are you seriously suggesting that if gay people can marry their long term partner that straight people will suddenly decide “Oh, you know since the gays can get married, I think I’ve become sexually attracted to members of the same sex.”

And then what was conflating breeding with marriage all about? –
“Hetersexual union is the very foundation stone of life itself since it has, for millenia, provided us with offspring.”
Funnily enough people manage to ‘provide offspring’ without getting married, and teenagers are more than capable enough of figuring out which sex they happen to be attracted to. Unlike Jack Onion, whom fears sexual confusion should teh gayz be allowed to marry.

Never quite understood the hatred for them amongst you economist types, sure they write some nonsense, but no more so than other fringe groups.

I think you’ll find it’s because of the use of the E word in their title. Economists feel it is demeaned when it is appropriated by a bunch of loons.

Of course among liberals there is a similar antipathy to those who purloin the L word.

That’s because Tolerance is a negative liberty – what Tories specialise in; while Labour are for positive liberties, like Liberation and Acceptance rather than the “put-up and shut-up” attitude of Conservatives.

I think you’re spot-on about the face that the true test of tolerance comes when we experience deeply unpleasant things though, that is the test of liberty.

Planeshift,

It’s a bit of a solitary in-joke for me, but I am half serious. If I was to try to justify it, it would be something like how they style themselves as free-thinking iconoclasts, whilst usually doing little more than revealing their ignorance and incomprehension of economics, combined with how they manage to be taken seriously by the Guardian and the BBC.

nef…yes, it’s not that they’re loons (which they are) it’s that they pretend to be informed loons when in fact they are ignorant loons.

Almost all of their initiatives trip over the first few pages of any economics text book. No, I don’t mean of a classical, or neoclassical, or new classical, not even Keynesian, not even “green” (like Hermann Daly for example) book, but over the few basic and simple precepts which underly the whole subject.

For example, their report on why growth isn’t possible (the one with the 9 billion tonne hamster). They start off with a quote from Daly (no, I don’t like him but he is indeed an economist and thus gets it) where he makes the distinction between growth meaning more stuff and growth meaning higher value stuff (he actually says the difference between qualitative growth and quantitative growth).

The rest of the report is how GDP growth isn’t possible because endless quantitative growth isn’t possible. Which is an insane missing of the very point that Daly makes. Both q types of growth are growth in GDP. For GDP is the “value of goods and services produced at market prices” meaning that we can increase GDP by increasing the value of what is produced….Daly’s point and the one that the nef then comprehensively ignore. If they’re even capable of recognising it.

Their report on working hours compreshensively misses the basic point that market working hours aren’t the only hours that we work. And so on.

I’m entirely tolerant of their being loons, less so of their claim to be doing economics.

Very illiberal of me of course, as as the post itself says (and I fully agree with) it is tolerance, not acceptance, which is the thing, the definition of liberalness. I do not have to accept, listen to, support or pay for grunge, grunk, grime, garage or Godspell (not all of those might be real forms of music) but I do have to be tolerant of others doing so.

It’s what liberal means, see?

An interesting philosophical point perhaps, but most people are ‘tolerant’. The “live and let live” attitude is widespread in Britain, and always has been to some extent, at least away from the prying eyes of self-appointed community leaders and the state.

Even the state has been fairly tolerant, with the police often turning a blind eye to ‘criminal’ sexual behaviour in the past.

The problem is that this argument over the importance of tolerance misses the point, precisely because tolerance is common and widespread. Acceptance, which as you rightly pointed out is quite different, is what is needed and is what we should be promoting and encouraging.

I don’t want to be tolerated and I don’t thank Tebbit for tolerating me, any more than he would thank me for tolerating him. It’s a patronising position that assumes superiority and a right to judge others.

An interesting article (and perhaps necessary – it certainly made me think!)

But you have to be careful as this kind of argument is often used to defend levels of homophobia that ARE damaging to people. Tebbit may have gay staff etc but he has consistantly voted for measures (section 28 being the most famous) which have directly damaged the lives of vunerable people… I don’t know how tolerant that makes him.

Cylusys:

“Are you seriously suggesting that if gay people can marry their long term partner that straight people will suddenly decide “Oh, you know since the gays can get married, I think I’ve become sexually attracted to members of the same sex.”

No I’m not saying any such thing, and it’s a shame you have to simplify my point in order to knock it! The formation of a sexual identity is a complex process involving many factors, one of which is the cultural climate of the age in which we happen to live. The more that homosexuality is considered the norm in our culture the more likely it is that people will embrace that lifestyle. The most extreme example I can think of (to illustrate the point) are the kids who are being brought up by two males in a civil partnership. Children follow the example of their parents and subconsciously absorb their attitudes. This isn’t difficult to understand is it?
If you are gay you shouldn’t take any of this personally, it is the interests of future generations I am thinking of.

“And then what was conflating breeding with marriage all about? –
“Hetersexual union is the very foundation stone of life itself since it has, for millenia, provided us with offspring.”
Funnily enough people manage to ‘provide offspring’ without getting married, and teenagers are more than capable enough of figuring out which sex they happen to be attracted to. Unlike Jack Onion, whom fears sexual confusion should teh gayz be allowed to marry.”"

Marriage has evolved over many years as a way of ensuring a solid, stable base for the up bringing of children, something which is crucial for their well being. That’s why I mentioned it in relation to breeding. I sense from your response that you are quite young and desperately want to display your funky broadmindedness despite having a sneaking feeling that you are missing something. I suggest going for a nice long walk in nature, watch the birds and bees doing what they do, I bet it will all fall into perspective.

What’s “teh gayz” mean?

This post was less interesting than the headline suggested.

@14

The more that homosexuality is considered the norm in our culture the more likely it is that people will embrace that lifestyle.

Erm, what? Do people “embrace” heterosexual “lifestyles” because it’s the “norm”? Or do folk just fancy who they wanna, and that might be a person of the same sex or not, but in fact it’s none of your damn business, basically?

‘The formation of a sexual identity is a complex process involving many factors, one of which is the cultural climate of the age in which we happen to live.’

Nope. Look at countries where homosexuality is illegal. Doesn’t mean they have 100% heterosexual populations.

‘The more that homosexuality is considered the norm in our culture the more likely it is that people will embrace that lifestyle.’

Good. Nothing healthy about being forced to repress your sexual orientation.

‘The most extreme example I can think of (to illustrate the point) are the kids who are being brought up by two males in a civil partnership. Children follow the example of their parents and subconsciously absorb their attitudes.’

Ha ha ha! Sexual orientation isn’t an attitude. But homophobia is – are/were your parents homophobic?

‘This isn’t difficult to understand is it?’

Well, it seems that is is for you.

‘If you are gay you shouldn’t take any of this personally, it is the interests of future generations I am thinking of.’

Disclaimer doesn’t work. Your comments are offensive.

‘Marriage has evolved over many years as a way of ensuring a solid, stable base for the up bringing of children, something which is crucial for their well being.’

Lol at your Daily Mail attitudes and inattention to the history of marriage.

‘That’s why I mentioned it in relation to breeding. I sense from your response that you are quite young and desperately want to display your funky broadmindedness despite having a sneaking feeling that you are missing something. I suggest going for a nice long walk in nature, watch the birds and bees doing what they do, I bet it will all fall into perspective.’

Yeah, and you’re not at troll at all are you? Funny though

‘What’s “teh gayz” mean?’

It’s a nice new exciting type of confectionary. Go ask for it in Tesco.

Jack Onion you don’t understand sexuality.

Go and read up on Havelock Ellis, McKinsey, von Krafft-Ebing, the Ancient Greeks, the Afghan National Police, Freud and Foucault then come back.

Rather than your prejudice on gay parenting (and that is what it is, unless you have you any source material to back up your views) how about an evidence based approach? From Ryan Avent:

The paper also found children of lesbian parents are less likely to conform to traditional gender roles, but are no more likely to identify as gay or bisexual than children of hetero parents.

There is much more there on the benefits of gay adoption, why don’t you read the whole blogpost?

desperately want to display your funky broadmindedness despite having a sneaking feeling that you are missing something. I suggest going for a nice long walk in nature, watch the birds and bees doing what they do, I bet it will all fall into perspective.

But presumably under no circumstances should I, during my nice long walk in nature, watch Bonobo chimps doing what they do…

“But presumably under no circumstances should I, during my nice long walk in nature, watch Bonobo chimps doing what they do…”

No, certainly not. Given that bonobos “sell” sex for status and or food then reporting upon that would entirely destroy the argument that only humans ,….male humans…..are sufficiently bastards to “buy” sex.

It would be completely and entirely wrong to explode one of the major feminist tropes by observing the real world.

Of course.

Tim, what are the other ‘major feminist tropes’?

@Tim W,

Two things,

First of all. Please don’t mention bonobos without mentioning Penis Fencing. One of the most hilariously graphic and graphically hilarious phrases I have heard. Ever.

Secondly, here is the google search for Penguin Prostitute. You may like it given the content of your last comment.

Thirdly, prostitution is a real problem and your tone on the matter often makes you sound like you don’t care about women being exploited and abused.

In context, you seem to find it hard to accept feminists (although I know you are willing to tolerate them), however you seem willing to accept prostitution even when it should be unacceptable (and I say that as a liberal legalise it and drugs and that type of guy).

Haha, three things then…

“Tim, what are the other ‘major feminist tropes’?”

We might start with the idiocy that humans are uniquely patriarchal…….

Penis fencing is indeed one of those things that should have a wider currency. Yet one of the joys of Bonobos is exactly that “Whoo you lookin’ at?” in a pub at closing time is the same behaviour differently expressed.

“Thirdly, prostitution is a real problem and your tone on the matter often makes you sound like you don’t care about women being exploited and abused. ”

Ah, but I do. Exploitation, abuse, I’m against. I’m as yet unconvinced that all (please note that “all”) who rent out their gonads are being exploited or abused.

“however you seem willing to accept prostitution even when it should be unacceptable”

Tsk… that is assuming what has to be proven. Why should prostitution be unacceptable? Given that our closest genetic relatives do the same?

OK, our closest genetic relatives also eat too much fruit and shit from trees…..but why should the proffering of the use of gonads, the rental, be unacceptable?

Tim – just patriachy and prostitution then? No other ‘feminist tropes’.

Prostitution is unacceptable when it involves coercion dependency and abuse, most of the time from my understanding.

Your usual focus on the libertarian case for prostitution, kinda makes you look like you have odd priorities (at least from a utilitarian perspective, and also from a liberal perspective because you are not helping to eliminate “harm”). Hope that’s clear, its late.

Earwicga, your reply consists mostly of straw man arguments and misunderstandings. I haven’t the time to go into each one. I regret, though, making the remark about the birds and bees since it was interpreted as flippancy. I take this subject seriously and it bothers me that so many children these days are being brought up without the help of a father. The gradual erosion of the family may give a refreshing, new sense of a freedom to you now, but the negative consequences for our country as a whole will far outweigh any such short term benefits. As a teacher of some experience I am struck time and again by the self confidence and balanced temperaments of children who have a stable family set up in contrast to the many whose parents have divorced/split. I mention this in relation to the issue of homosexual marriage because I believe it will further undermine the family. No doubt there will always be some homosexuals and I am glad for it, since they make a unique contribution to our culture, but their difference should be reflected in our institutions.
By the way I found your comments “offensive” too. Homophobia (defined as “an irrational hatred or distrust of homosexuals”) is not something I am guilty of. Nor do I read the Daily Mail.

Left outside:

“Rather than your prejudice on gay parenting (and that is what it is, unless you have you any source material to back up your views) how about an evidence based approach? From Ryan Avent:” etc.

My comments were the distillation of things I have read, observed and thought about over many years. That is “evidence based”, just as much as as one study, whose significance must surely be limited by the size of the sample, the recentness of gay adoption, not to mention possibility of it being coloured by the prejudices of it’s author. We live in a time when stats, studies and “snarling logicality” (William James- worth a million McKinseys) rule public discourse. It wasn’t always so. We used to use our instinct, it served us well then, why not now?
Go take that walk in nature…

Lordy, Jack Onion, I’m getting the impression that you aren’t in fact making up this stuff and actually believe it. I had hoped you were trying to parody Norman Tebbit. Well, I hope your ‘many years’ of thought mean you are getting to the end of your duties as a teacher. Your particular prejudices are well past their sell by date and no child should ever be exposed to them. Likewise fellow teachers.

And you make me laugh when you show your dislike of families headed by a single parent in which a father isn’t present but you also dislike families headed by two fathers. Both comments show ‘irrational hatred or distrust’.

If you are offended by being compared to a Daily Mail reader, then don’t think like one then. Simples

Jack Onion is an anagram of Ninja Cook. I’m not sure if this means anything.

Oh & I f–king hate the word “trope”.

@ Jack Onion
“By the way I found your comments “offensive” too. Homophobia (defined as “an irrational hatred or distrust of homosexuals”) is not something I am guilty of. Nor do I read the Daily Mail.”

Unfortunately for yourself your comments have homophobia dripping from them, and indeed contain shades of Jan Moir’s infamous article on Stephen Gately.

For the first point you first sallied forth claiming that a version of “marriage apartheid” was necessary so that future generations would not view same sex marriage as being equal with opposite sex marriage, your clarification of why this point is important directed straight to the idea known in the anti-gay (or “pro-family”) community as “recruitment”. That gay men and women somehow corrupt ostensibly straight men and women into being gay. This is false, the current body of scientific evidence heavily leans toward that sexuality is largely determined prior to leaving the womb. A child brought up by two gay fathers has the exact same chance of being gay as a child brought up by your average middle-class family, although chances are that said child will probably be more comfortable with their own sexuality be it bi, hetero or homo, than with the middle-class family.

Furthermore your statement:

“To give the impression that homosexual marriage is more or less the same would confuse future generations who would grow up thinking sexuality is a simple choice between two equally good options.”

this implies that whom someone selects as a life partner/falls in love with is dictated by whether or not they can marry them, rather than something more instinctive such as being in love with them, finding them sexy/funny etc. This statement is even more confusing given that in your next two replies you then make appeals to nature:

“We used to use our instinct, it served us well then, why not now?
Go take that walk in nature…”

Stating that marriage equality would cause previously straight people to go against their inborn nature, against their very inborn sexual instincts is quite frankly preposterous. You are essentially saying that giving lgb’s the right to marry to person they both love and find sexually attractive will cancel out that instinct in heterosexual people. That is what you are saying, you might not like that implication, given its absurdity, but that is the position you have set forth.

Secondly I have to call you out on your usage of what can only be called burkha logic. Your assertions that improved visibility of lgbt’s is responsible for the break down of heterosexual relationships, families and indeed society are highly offensive precisely because they lay so much blame at the door of a people who are actually seeking to establish their own families.

“The gradual erosion of the family may give a refreshing, new sense of a freedom to you now, but the negative consequences for our country as a whole will far outweigh any such short term benefits.”

The big irony is that lgbt’s don’t want to erode the family at all, they want to have their own! Indeed “the family” (scare quotes required) is in fact a tool used to attack lgbt’s whom would rather be a part of their families but whom were then expelled from their families once their sexuality became know.
It is anti-gay bigotry, the seeking to ensure that lbgt’s remain second-class citizens, that destroys and rips apart families, their lgb children cast out into the night.

@Cylusys

You shouldn’t misuse words. Although you don’t realise it, debasing language can lead to evils just as bad as “dripping” homophobia (why would you use such a wet metaphor I wonder?). As I said, my comments were NOT homophobic. They were NOT a product of hatred (irrational or otherwise). It was a calmly expressed opinion on a subject that I have read and thought about. I bear no ill will toward homosexuals in the abstract, and, in fact, have a lot of regard for the work of quite a few homosexuals in the public eye (Stephen Fry, David Hockney, Simon Callow for example).

When you use a term like homophobia (dictionary definition: “an extreme and irrational hatred or distrust of homosexuals”) inappropriately, you devalue the word. In doing so you undermine your own cause.
Similarly, “marriage apartheid” is not a phrase I used. You used it! why did you put it in inverted commas? Do you want to distance yourself from it? If so why use it? Apartheid is the system of segregation that existed in South Africa. It is wrong to borrow the moral anger associated with one issue and use it to bolster your own unrelated cause. If gays continued to hook up in civil partnerships but were not allowed to marry, do you think that the suffering they would experience would be anything like comparable to that faced by black south Africans during the apartheid era? Of course not, so don’t use the phrase, it is a cheap propagandists’ trick.

You say:

” the current body of scientific evidence heavily leans toward that sexuality is largely determined prior to leaving the womb”

Nobody KNOWS this. You choose to believe it because it because it suits you to do so.

“child brought up by two gay fathers has the exact same chance of being gay as a child brought up by your average middle-class family”

You shouldn’t use the word “exact” until you know exactly what it means. This statement, is unprovable so again it is something you choose to believe. Even if it were true, what about working and upper class families?

“Your assertions that improved visibility of lgbt’s is responsible for the break down of heterosexual relationships, families and indeed society…”

I didn’t make those assertions.

“Stating that marriage equality would cause previously straight people to go against their inborn nature, against their very inborn sexual instincts is quite frankly preposterous”

Well it might be preposterous, I don’t know, I didn’t say it.
My point was that if the law gives the impression that that gay/straight union is the same then a valuable symbolic distinction will be lost. The effect of which would be to contribute to a climate in which future generations (young children whose attitudes, habits of thought are still maleable) will gradually come to think that both options are more or less the same. This will change our nature in ways that are more subtle and complex than you have so far considered. Our WHOLE nature has been shaped over millenia by the impulse to procreate, to ignore that to spare the feelings of a small minority is wrong. At the same time I feel it is very important to have a sympathetic attitude toward people who have suffered pain and confusion because of their “sexuality”. I believe we are all born with a sexual energy which, left to it’s own devices in a hypothetical state of nature, would lead us toward sexual union with the opposite sex. Because we are human, though, language, ideas and experience can divert our course especially when we are very young. I used the word “option” because I believe sexuality is a choice. The word “choice” obviously implied to you something instant and whimsical. That is not what I meant; our sexual self-image matures over many many years during which the choice is ever present. Things may happen to us which may constantly tip us one way or the other until circumstances seem to force our hand. But it’s still a choice.

I don’t particularly like these online conflicts because their is a danger that the cold anonymity afforded by cyberspace can remove the human element, and the argument can descend into a souless intellectual chess match. The reason why I have taken the time over this is because I care. And caring is good isn’t it? On that much we can surely agree?

By the way the trees and flowers are still awaiting your presence…

It seems Jack Onion/Ninja Cook is correct. I know this ‘cos the Bishop says so:

http://thecardinal.posterous.com/gazing-upon-the-gays

“The reason why I have taken the time over this is because I care. And caring is good isn’t it? On that much we can surely agree?”

No, not if your “caring” leads you to ridiculous positions. I’m tempted to invoke Godwin just to bring this pointless discussion to a close.

Jack Onion, it is clear that you haven’t actually studied the history of sexuality before coming to your conclusions, and what is this “state of nature” business about?

“I believe we are all born with a sexual energy which, left to it’s own devices in a hypothetical state of nature, would lead us toward sexual union with the opposite sex.”

This has no evidence to back it up, in fact, every conceivable society, every people with a decent recorded history had people engaging in sexual relations with people of the same sex.

As I said “go and read up on Havelock Ellis, McKinsey, von Krafft-Ebing, the Ancient Greeks, the Afghan National Police, Freud and Foucault then come back.” You haven’t “read and thought about” sexuality in any depth evidence by your arguments.

Finally,

I consider your comments homophobic and you are abusing language by saying “you’re only allowed to use the narrow definition I decide upon.”

Very Alice in Wonderland.

You think gay people should be denied rights afforded to others. In doing so you deny a gay person’s moral equivalence with a straight person – – this is homophobic in any sensible definition of the word.

“child brought up by two gay fathers has the exact same chance of being gay as a child brought up by your average middle-class family”

But that’s not the problem, no one is seriously suggesting that gay parents = gay children, why would it, given that straight parents can = gay kids ? Sexuality is not socially constructed, it exists in all cultures and has done throughout history. The notion that societal acceptance somehow increases the number of gay people is a 1970s lesbian fantasy with no scientific foundation whatsover.
The problem is the psychological harm that will occur (and it will no matter how subtly) when the kid realises that he is the only one in the playground that has 2 dads/mums.

@ 34 “You think gay people should be denied rights afforded to others. In doing so you deny a gay person’s moral equivalence with a straight person – – this is homophobic in any sensible definition of the word.”

But there is no “right” to get married.

‘But there is no “right” to get married.’

Yes there is, unless you are already married or gay.

@ 37 – How so, how does a single person exercise a “right” to get married ?

Well, I’ve never done it but I believe a willing partner and a certificate ceremony would be the way to go, after formally giving notice of your intentions to the relevant authority. Not really sure what kind of clever point you are trying to make, but it’s too opaque for me.

My point is it’s ludicrous to describe a voulntary act between 2 people as “a right”, when it has no such status, in law or anywhere else. I object to this popular notion that everything can de descrobed in terms of “rights”

Fair enough. Marriage is a legal right for all legal citizens, aged 18+ (16 with permission) hetrosexual citizens. But you can call it what you like

@ Jack onion 32:

“You say:

Nobody KNOWS this. You choose to believe it because it because it suits you to do so. ”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

Explain that one sunshine. Hell I’ll even throw in a link that contains the brain scan pictures.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

“I used the word “option” because I believe sexuality is a choice.

Also the only choice gay people get regarding their sexuality is to either embrace it and be open, or to deny it and lead a life of lies and misery. I know full well, I drearily walked the second path before finally joyfully skipping down the first.

“The problem is the psychological harm that will occur (and it will no matter how subtly) when the kid realises that he is the only one in the playground that has 2 dads/mums.”

That’s not an argument. Why does the child have to be traumatised? There are thousands of differences between children and they are not stigmatised by those. If a particular difference is not stigmatised it does not need to be traumatic.

“Sexuality is not socially constructed, it exists in all cultures and has done throughout history.”

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The homosexual/heterosexual binary view of sexuality has only existed 150 years of so. Before hand the focus tended to be on actions, i.e. giver versus receiver with the giver being a high status role and the receiver a low status role.

Men being sodomised were seen as abnormal not so much because they fancied men, but because of receiving the bum loving.

This is good if you want a window on the beginnings of modern sexuality forming.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_RE9zgwh_BMC&hl=en&dq=inauthor:%22Richard%20Krafft-Ebing%22&ei=iGFPTLn6F4TP4gb_06WwCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA

NSFW of course.

“The notion that societal acceptance somehow increases the number of gay people is a 1970s lesbian fantasy with no scientific foundation whatsover.”

Could you expand on that please? Are you talking about the “political lesbian” thing that was going on for a while.

“My point is it’s ludicrous to describe a voulntary act between 2 people as “a right”, when it has no such status, in law or anywhere else. I object to this popular notion that everything can de descrobed in terms of “rights””

What is marriage then? A privilege granted by the state? I don’t like the sound of that. If two people want to be formally joined then why should anyone stop them because of their gender?

Matt @35
“The notion that societal acceptance somehow increases the number of gay people is a 1970s lesbian fantasy with no scientific foundation whatsover.

Increases the number of gay people, no.
Increases the number of out gay people, yes.

@Cylusys

Congratulations, I am glad you are happy with your choice, nothing I have posted was ever intended to irritate or hurt you.

The BBC story, though, proves nothing conclusively. Read carefully and you will see that the report merely suggests a tentative hypothesis. The studies were done on adults not foetuses. This question will never be answered conclusively, it is- as I said- a question of belief.

@ Left Outside

I am disappointed by your reply. You shouldn’t make claims about my learning, you don’t know what I have read or studied.
The definition of homophobia I got from the Oxford English dictionary, and it is a sound definition. I hope you are not suggesting we make up our own definitions of words to suit our particular ideological position? That would truly be a recipe for chaos.
I have studied politics, sociology and philosophy at degree level – since you mention it – but my understanding is far more a result of experience than academia. “The state of nature” is a theoretical tool for explaining the existence of government (look it up!), and I borrowed it to shed light on the question of sexuality.

I think your reading is a little narrow. Why not try something that unifies the mind rather than spitting things up into “sexuality”, “ethnicity” “politics” etc. (a very modern and, I think, unhelpful trend) .
I have just finished reading “The Will to Believe” (and other essays) by William James and it really is very enlightening, I urge you to try it.

There was goodwill in my last post and I am surprised that you didn’t respond in an appropriate way. Just because you are on line doesn’t mean you should ditch good manners!

I will have to finish with this thread because I am starting to feel a bit out of place among all the gabbling and confused indignation. I’m off to find some serenity in the woods.

Be good kids.

Jack Onion

Yes, I am quite a rude commenter, some times its fun, other times, no, I cross a line. I apologise for any distress.

Right,

Just because a word is defined thus, doesn’t mean that you can’t bend its meaning or that its meaning cannot evolve. Its not a recipe for chaos, it is how language works. I think that definition is out of date in today’s world because genuine intolerance of homosexuality has more or less gone beyond the pale, on the other hand, not accepting it is still acceptable. However, I think this is morally dubious and the more that can be done to show that certain views (for example, that homosexuals should not be allowed to get married, or adopt) should be stigmatised; therefore I use the word homophobic.

I am sorry if you are offended by my slights on the wideness of your reading. But having studied sexuality, this history of sexuality and the changes between abnormal and normal, it seems you are making elementary errors which a wider reading would correct.