The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[McLaren]

I don't mind @McLaren digging across the web for crap I have posted over the years. I find it kind of flattering actually. I would never waste my time digging for crap on other members here. I just don't care enough. So thanks McL. Oh and that guy Ray, wouldn't join here.

By digging across the web, you mean 2 clicks to your politics thread that's literally you & the other guy circle jerking over owning da libs for 20 pages.

 

[Brett]

My concern is for the children. If you guys are so ok with kids being exposed to such things, maybe call your local library and see if they can put up a St. Andrews cross, and set up a single tail demo in time for the next drag queen story hour.

Don't threaten me with a good time!

Guuurl, do I have some tea to spill for you.

Drag Queen Story Hour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I had no idea this was a thing.

 

[Joey D]

Serious question, do you think it's ok to do sexual themed things in front of children?

It depends on what it is and how old the child is.

While I'm not a free spirit by any means, I do think the whole taboo thing surrounding sex is weird. I'm not going to purposely shield my son from something, but depending on what it is, I won't seek it out either. For example, if for some reason we were walking downtown and a pride event was going on, I wouldn't be horrified to see what amounts to a kinky Village People cosplay going on. Chances are my son wouldn't even know what was going on at the time. If he was older and had questions, I'd answer them and probably work something in about "if two consenting adults want to do that, more power to them".

Really, I think just before the age of puberity is probably a good time to start pointing out sexualized stuff, especially when it's in the media. I fully believe it's the parent's job (not the school's) to teach that sort of stuff and I want my kid growing up in a sex positive house where he doesn't need to sneak around. When a household is sex negative, that's when teen pregancies happen and I'll be damned if I'm raising another kid. But I mean you're roughly the same age as me, I'm sure you were exposed to sexualized stuff or even downright porn when you were between 7-10 years old. Kids now have access to the internet on everything, chances are they're going to see it earlier than millenials would've.

 

[NotThePrez]

It depends on what it is and how old the child is.

While I'm not a free spirit by any means, I do think the whole taboo thing surrounding sex is weird. I'm not going to purposely shield my son from something, but depending on what it is, I won't seek it out either. For example, if for some reason we were walking downtown and a pride event was going on, I wouldn't be horrified to see what amounts to a kinky Village People cosplay going on. Chances are my son wouldn't even know what was going on at the time. If he was older and had questions, I'd answer them and probably work something in about "if two consenting adults want to do that, more power to them".

Really, I think just before the age of puberity is probably a good time to start pointing out sexualized stuff, especially when it's in the media. I fully believe it's the parent's job (not the school's) to teach that sort of stuff and I want my kid growing up in a sex positive house where he doesn't need to sneak around. When a household is sex negative, that's when teen pregancies happen and I'll be damned if I'm raising another kid. But I mean you're roughly the same age as me, I'm sure you were exposed to sexualized stuff or even downright porn when you were between 7-10 years old. Kids now have access to the internet on everything, chances are they're going to see it earlier than millenials would've.

To add to this, in my observations if a kid knows that something exists, and you keep telling them that they're not allowed to look at/for something while simultaneously refusing to explain what it is and/or why that's the case, they're going to be much more tempted to look for the thing in question behind the parent's back. I think that people greatly underestimate how perceptive and creative small kids can be (my less-than-2-year-old-niece has demonstrated that on more than one occasion), and with the ease of internet access, kids can combine that perceptiveness with their resources and still find the "taboo," only now they're going to be both curious and not get the whole picture, which can cause major problems down the line if the parent is unwilling to talk about it. Bonus points if the kid is a teenager.

 

[TexRex]

But again, if public exhibition of a thing is permissible by law, as it likely would be at an event like Pride, what's the concern that children see it?

People making strong rational arguments would likely be more willing to address this than those making weak emotional arguments, posing further vague questions regarding children seeing unspecified supposed sexual things instead.

This is just pathetic. It's not at all surprising, mind you, but yeah, it's ****ing pathetic.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

But again, if public exhibition of a thing is permissible by law, as it likely would be at an event like Pride, what's the concern that children see it?

So little kids are just short adults, and should be allowed to see anything that is legal?

This is just pathetic. It's not at all surprising, mind you, but yeah, it's ****ing pathetic.

Another great TexRex rant. Meaningless, but hit the swear word filter, so good for you. 👍

 

[TexRex]

So little kids are just short adults, and should be allowed to see anything that is legal?

Strawman.

If a thing is permissible for public exhibition, and children exist in public, who am I or anyone else to say people should shield their own children from it?

Try a good faith, rational argument for a change. These deceitful, emotional arguments aren't getting you anywhere.

Another great TexRex rant. Meaningless, but hit the swear word filter, so good for you. 👍

Oh no, censored profanity. Buck the **** up, peanut.

 

[ryzno]

Pride

What pride?
Being gay?
Why should being gay or one the numerous letters be any better than being hetero?
Why can't I be proud? Why is there no holiday or parades?
Oh yeah, it's the same as me being proud I'm white...

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Strawman.

If a thing is permissible for public exhibition, and children exist in public, who am I or anyone else to say people should shield their own children from it?

Try a good faith, rational argument for a change. These deceitful, emotional arguments aren't getting you anywhere.

Oh no, censored profanity. Buck the **** up, peanut.

Strawman lol.

There is a reason why we have movie ratings, to keep young kids out of adult movies.

There is a reason why we have age of consent laws.

Young children can not consent. They should not be subjected to sexual things.

 

[Lain]

What pride?
Being gay?
Why should being gay or one the numerous letters be any better than being hetero?
Why can't I be proud? Why is there no holiday or parades?
Oh yeah, it's the same as me being proud I'm white...

Unlike being straight, gayness is a culture to a certain extent due to the fact that, as a taboo and a minority, they have to band together. It makes sense to be proud of culture, whereas being proud of being straight is like being proud of being right-handed... pretty silly.

 

[Touring Mars]

I guess it's a perfectly natural and understandable response to generations of oppression, abuse, victimisation, harrassment, violence, unjust laws and even mortal danger for daring to be sexually attracted to someone with the same genitalia as you.

No-one is saying that others can't be proud of themselves too, it's just that it has never unjustly been a criminal (or even capital) offence to be straight.

Tragically, it still is a capital offence to be openly gay in some places, hence although our countries are (relatively) enlightened when it comes to freedom of sexuality, the message that it is perfectly acceptable to be gay still requires reinforcement as well as open and obvious shows of solidarity and recognition.

 

[NotThePrez]

What pride?
Being gay?
Why should being gay or one the numerous letters be any better than being hetero?
Why can't I be proud? Why is there no holiday or parades?
Oh yeah, it's the same as me being proud I'm white...

1) I don't recall anybody making the argument that being gay is better than being straight or otherwise.

2) As @Lain just kindly pointed out, being gay in Western society very much makes someone a minority, and the USA in particular has historically done a fairly poor job of not treating minorities with due respect, regardless of their overall background. Such behavior tends to get like-minded individuals to band together and celebrate who they are, in spite of what the world thinks of them. It also demonstrates that being gay doesn't make a person any less human, and is one step in normalizing that culture.

Plus, I don't recall any point in history (including the modern day) where a person can be mocked, publicly ostracized, tortured/imprisoned and potentially even killed for being a straight, white dude, yet those are things that have been a genuine threat to gay people for quite a long time.

Strawman lol.

There is a reason why we have movie ratings, to keep young kids out of adult movies.

Which in most cases can be side-stepped if the parent(s) is with the kid and gives consent for the kid to see the movie with them.

You seem to be having a very hard time understanding the bit where the onus of what a child can/can't see in public is almost exclusively on the parent(s).

There is a reason why we have age of consent laws.

Yes, because having kids potentially attend a kink-friendly pride parade that's being held and demonstrated by consenting adults is on totally equal terms to kiddy diddiling. What the actual 🤬, dude.

Young children can not consent. They should not be subjected to sexual things.

Implying that people are advocating for children to be subjected to sexual things against their will which, if you had actually been reading what's been posted, is not the case at all.

 

[Famine]

What pride?
Being gay?
Why should being gay or one the numerous letters be any better than being hetero?
Why can't I be proud? Why is there no holiday or parades?

You should be proud of who you are (unless you're a Nazi nonce), but the point of Pride is that these are people who have been shamed for who they are by society for at least the last 150 years.

Not only shamed but tortured - physically, sexually, and psychologically - by government and government-funded institutions, ostracised by society and family, subject to public abuse and assault, and murdered. For being gay. In many countries around the world, primarily those with a serious religion problem infecting the corridors of power, this still happens.

Can you say the same of being straight? Have straight people ever been abused in the streets for their sexual preference, locked in government or religious (or both) institutions and subject to electric shocks to cure them and had their genitals removed, or murdered for the satisfaction of a baying crowd?


Modern Pride counters historic shame - and ongoing shame in less enlightened nations. That's literally the point and purpose of the name.

Oh yeah, it's the same as me being proud I'm white...

Didn't seem to stop the Proud Boys.


We can swap out gay for black in all of the above, because white society did the same to them, only for much longer and with the added abuses of slavery.

And to be fair, the USA still isn't a great place to be either black or gay, but it's probably less institutionally oppressive now than most when it comes to race and sexuality at least.

 

[TexRex]

That was...brief.



Just barely eleven hours.

What pride?
Being gay?

Yes.

Why should being gay or one the numerous letters be any better than being hetero?

Indeed; why should it? This isn't a prevailing sentiment. However widely held it may be, I don't agree with it and I maintain that those who hold it are ignorant.

Why can't I be proud?

Be proud, peanut. Be proud.

Why is there no holiday or parades?

Why are there no holidays? You tell me. Pride Month (it's not actually a holiday, but this is and undoubtedly will continue to be lost on you) is observed only by those who choose to observe it.

There are straight pride parades, however. They're petty, reactionary affairs. Because they're petty, reactionary affairs, they're not prevalent.

Oh yeah, it's the same as me being proud I'm white...

How's that?

Strawman lol.

That's what it's called. It's called that because a man made of straw is said to be easily attacked.

There is a reason why we have movie ratings, to keep young kids out of adult movies.

That's not a function that movie ratings themselves serve. The ratings are purely advisory. Their original purpose was to provide for parents and guardians a basis for discretion when it comes to the appropriateness of movies for the children under their charge. Some of those ratings actually acknowledge the notion of parental discretion right in the very name given to them.

These ratings are observed in civil statutes, however. These civil statutes are what actually govern private businesses that exhibit or distribute films (legally, though there exist civil and criminal statutes pertaining to illegal exhibition and distribution). Home exhibition isn't so governed, nor should it be.

There is a reason why we have age of consent laws.

Yes. There is. But given remarks above, I get the distinct impression that you don't know what it is. You clearly don't understand...things.

Young children can not consent.

More accurately, the consent of young children isn't recognized under law. This is important because the law recognizes that young children can't be expected to understand fully the implications of things to which they've given consent.

They should not be subjected to sexual things.

This is recognized under law. Definitions under law for what constitutes a "sexual thing" are very specific, and this is important because ambiguity in statute benefits those who may violate it. These definitions are similar throughout the United States, though the age of potential victims varies to a small degree and there are some specific exemptions in certain jurisdictions under which age differentials are observed and codified.

In the state of Texas, a person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex and regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child at the time of the offense, the person engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact, or, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, exposes the person's anus or any part of the person's genitals, knowing the child is present, or causes the child to expose the child's anus or any part of the child's genitals.

These acts aren't likely to occur at Pride events but criminal code applies in the unlikely event that they do.

The moral panic here is regarding public lewdness, which applies regardless of whether it occurs at a Pride event or not, and there are criminal statutes where that's concerned as well. (That which is deemed deviant behavior is also a significant issue, but that's subject, simultaneously and to a significant degree, to the conservative victim complex and the conservatives' perception of their own moral superiority.)

In the state of Texas (and it's not unique), a person commits an offense if the person knowingly engages in any of the following acts in a public place or, if not in a public place, the person is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by the person's act of sexual intercourse, act of deviate sexual intercourse or act of sexual contact.

(According to Texas statute, and it's not unique, sexual intercourse is defined as penetration of the female sex organ (vagina) by the male sex organ (penis), deviate sexual intercourse is defined as any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person or the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object, and sexual contact is defined as any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.)

So I ask again (with the informed expectation that you will continue to dodge the question because your arguments are emotional rather than rational and you have demonstrated that you have no interest in engaging in good faith), why is parental discretion insufficient when public exhibition of things is permissible under law?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't really know enough about it to offer an opinion but it's interesting that the most recommended comments on the WaPo article are....kinda against it which is a surprise

The most recommended one even talks about how hard it was to get over the past association of pride with NAMBLA and how the children should be protected from "kink"

 

[Danoff]

So I ask again (with the informed expectation that you will continue to dodge the question because your arguments are emotional rather than rational and you have demonstrated that you have no interest in engaging in good faith), why is parental discretion insufficient when public exhibition of things is permissible under law?

Additionally, I'm concerned about something one step deeper into this discussion. Why should we need special more restrictive rules for gay pride parades than we do for a random Tuesday? That seems to be what's being requested by some conservatives.

 

[TexRex]

Additionally, I'm concerned about something one step deeper into this discussion. Why should we need special more restrictive rules for gay pride parades than we do for a random Tuesday? That seems to be what's being requested by some conservatives.

"Freedom for me but not for thee" is their stock in trade these days. It may have been all along, but it's never been so apparent as it is right now. **** 'em.

 

[ryzno]

Didn't seem to stop the Proud Boys.

They are a whole different animal, being proud and being racist are two different things IMO.

Why should we need special more restrictive rules for gay pride parades than we do for a random Tuesday?

I've never been to one or Mardi Gras but I feel it has a Mardi Gras vibe. Naked people bound in leather leading each other around by a leash on the genitalia.
I can understand why people don't want children seeing that.

And I don't remember who brought up porn as a child but yes I was probably 9 or 10 when I found my dad's porn for the first time. It was way more mild than things I've seen from Mardi Gras.

 

[TexRex]

They are a whole different animal, being proud and being racist are two different things IMO.

They're racist? On what have you based this?

You people just cry racism whenever you don't agree with someone.

I've never been to one or Mardi Gras but I feel it has a Mardi Gras vibe. Naked people bound in leather leading each other around by a leash on the genitalia.
I can understand why people don't want children seeing that.

You say you've never been to Mardi Gras, and I believe you if that's what you think it's like, but it's also apparent you've never been to Pride.

 

[Danoff]

I've never been to one or Mardi Gras but I feel it has a Mardi Gras vibe. Naked people bound in leather leading each other around by a leash on the genitalia.
I can understand why people don't want children seeing that.

And I don't remember who brought up porn as a child but yes I was probably 9 or 10 when I found my dad's porn for the first time. It was way more mild than things I've seen from Mardi Gras.

Mardi Gras has some relaxed regulations around it specifically carved around that holiday. That being said, New Orleans is one place in the US where women are not legally allowed to go topless (there are places in the US where this is not the law). And that law it appears does not get suspended for Mardi Gras, it's just not enforced by the police for that event.

Is that what we're talking about? Police not enforcing normal ordinances during pride parades? I'd need to see an example or evidence that this occurs.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

why is parental discretion insufficient when public exhibition of things is permissible under law?

It is not. But just because you can does not mean you should. The author of the article is arguing that you should. I am
merely arguing that you shouldn't.

You could have "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie night with your eight year old, but you shouldn't.

Additionally, I'm concerned about something one step deeper into this discussion. Why should we need special more restrictive rules for gay pride parades than we do for a random Tuesday? That seems to be what's being requested by some conservatives.

Gay has nothing to do with it. Take the spankee, lets turn him into a cis gender straight female. For modesty, trade the suspenders for a sports bra.

Now we have a woman in a leather thong, with a sports bra and sunglasses, being flogged by her male lover. Is that really something kids six to eleven years old should see? Should someone write an article encouraging children see this sort of thing?

Now that I think about it, if it were straight people, the article would have probably never been written.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't see how criticising a fringe article that met with almost universal disagreement addresses @Danoff's question of whether gay people should be subjected to different laws than straight people are.

 

[Danoff]

Gay has nothing to do with it. Take the spankee, lets turn him into a cis gender straight female. For modesty, trade the suspenders for a sports bra.

Now we have a woman in a leather thong, with a sports bra and sunglasses, being flogged by her male lover. Is that really something kids six to eleven years old should see? Should someone write an article encouraging children see this sort of thing?

Now that I think about it, if it were straight people, the article would have probably never been written.

I'm with @UKMikey, this did not address my point.

Edit:

Hang on, if I squint maybe I can see it. You're just saying that you're uncomfortable with what is allowed in these parades regardless of sexual orientation. So you're saying public decency laws are too lax? Or should they be somehow made more restrictive for parades?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I don't see how criticising a fringe article...

The Washington Post in a major US newspaper. I wouldn't characterize anything they publish as fringe.

...that met with almost universal disagreement...

Tell that to @TexRex. If that were the case I wouldn't be posting here.

I'm with @UKMikey, this did not address my point.

Edit:

Hang on, if I squint maybe I can see it. You're just saying that you're uncomfortable with what is allowed in these parades regardless of sexual orientation. So you're saying public decency laws are too lax? Or should they be somehow made more restrictive for parades?

You can open your eyes. I am not saying any of that.

All I am saying is a man, or a woman, with their ass hanging out, getting flogged, is not something that is suitable for an elementary school aged (6-11 in the US) kid to watch.

There doesn't need to be a law. Parents can, and should, be responsible for what they allow their children to see.

 

[Danoff]

You can open your eyes.

Totally unnecessary to say something like this.

I am not saying any of that.

Still trying to figure out what you're saying.

All I am saying is a man, or a woman, with their ass hanging out, getting flogged, is not something that is suitable for an elementary school aged (6-11 in the US) kid to watch.

There doesn't need to be a law. Parents can, and should, be responsible for what they allow their children to see.

So you're good with gay pride parades, including the "kink". You think parents should be responsible with their children, and gay parades should let their freak flag fly. Sound right?

 

[Joey D]

All I am saying is a man, or a woman, with their ass hanging out, getting flogged, is not something that is suitable for an elementary school aged (6-11 in the US) kid to watch.

It might not be suitable for your 6 to 11-year-old to watch, but kids have all different maturity levels so it can't really be a blanket statement. What might be OK for little Johnny to see might not be OK for little Suzy. As you said, it should be up to the parents to decide.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So you're good with gay pride parades, including the "kink". You think parents should be responsible with their children, and gay parades should let their freak flag fly. Sound right?

Pretty much. But I would hope the organizers would work to keep the parades somewhat family friendly.

The first pride I went to there was a leather dom beating his slave with a flogger and a single tail whip. The crowd seemed to enjoy it. But this was happening in a private outdoor area of a gay bar.

 

[Danoff]

"Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it." Is a pretty disgusting article.

It's ok if a kid knows Billy has two daddies. But no kid needs to know what Billy's daddies do in their basement dungeon.

So you're good with gay pride parades, including the "kink". You think parents should be responsible with their children, and gay parades should let their freak flag fly. Sound right?

Pretty much. But I would hope the organizers would work to keep the parades somewhat family friendly.

You can see how this is confusing right?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You can see how this is confusing right?

I guess so, but that is why I said pretty much, and not yes.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Totally unnecessary to say something like this.


Still trying to figure out what you're saying.

So you're good with gay pride parades, including the "kink". You think parents should be responsible with their children, and gay parades should let their freak flag fly. Sound right?

I think the opposition to it (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that Pride parades are meant to be family friendly, but they are allowing and approving (well the author of the article is, at least) of "non-family friendly" themes. I guess the argument goes that to keep their badge of being kiddie friendly they'd need to drop the "kink"??