The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[gigio79]

I am no one to judge if something is right or wrong, and I have no right to judge homosexuality. I have some friends and colleagues gay, but there has always been maximum respect among us. There is only one thing that I don't like and I don't agree, externalize it, like when they get together and go out on the street to show the world homosexuality. I think this is wrong, why go half-naked on the streets or on buses? What is it for?

 

[Famine]

There is only one thing that I don't like and I don't agree, externalize it, like when they get together and go out on the street to show the world homosexuality. I think this is wrong, why go half-naked on the streets or on buses?

This seems like a limited viewpoint.

Would you like and agree with people showing the world heterosexuality by going half-naked on the streets or on buses?
Would you like and agree with people showing the world homosexuality without going half-naked on the streets or on buses?

 

[merseyxshore]

When I was a kid, my family went on holiday to Florida with another family we were friends with. We did the usual Disney stuff, and on the first weekend we drove down to Key West for a couple of days. We got there late Friday afternoon, put our stuff in the hotel then we all went for a wander around looking for some food. We kept seeing people wearing strange things, including some super revealing outfits and old people in leather. Turns out we had accidentally arrived during something called 'Fantasy Fest'. My parents thought it was great, and we all ended up having a ball walking around and taking it all in. I definitely saw some 'strange' stuff, for a kid in the early 2000s anyway. I was in secondary school, but my sister and the other kids were still in primary school. Weirdly none of us needed saving or deprogramming after seeing an auld fella on a leash or a naked woman on a mechanical bull.

 

[TheCracker]

It's my impression that people who say 'i don't want my children seeing this sort of thing' is what they are actually saying is 'i don't want to have to explain this to my children'. They'd rather that their children discover these things in their own time (away from their parents) then have to expose their own deep-seated prejudices to children who just take new experiences at face value.

 

[Danoff]

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"??

Well then we're painting with entirely too broad a brush. We're talking about an article (not a parade) suggesting to keep the "kink". And we're talking about parades (not the article, at least I think) wanting to be family friendly. To make this case we'd need to find a single source advocating to be family friendly and to include "kink". In case I didn't just make it painfully clear, I haven't read the article.

 

[TexRex]

It is not. But just because you can does not mean you should.

That's not parental discretion. That's your discretion.

The author of the article is arguing that you should.

Direct quote from the article and an explanation from you that the quote supports this assertion, please.

I have to wonder if you've actually read it or if you've just observed reactions to it.

The author of the article is advocating for acceptance of kink as part of public Pride festivities to members of the community opposed to it. She doesn't even suggest people bring their children to public Pride festivities. Instead she acknowledges that people do (and this is key, because those in the community opposed to the presence of kink cite the presence of children as a basis for their opposition) and suggests that the kink likely to be on display in public isn't so bad for children to observe. I'm not certain that I'm convinced by the case she makes (I don't need to be, mind you), but hers, if only because she's approached it rationally, is better than your emotional arguments in opposition.

I am
merely arguing that you shouldn't.

Your discretion.

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

Your discretion.

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

Okay, Captain Obvious. Toiled away on that one, did you?

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

Any outlet, however mainstream it may be, may publish fringe content. The mainstream nature of the outlet doesn't make its contents mainstream. As it happens, fringe ideas in a mainstream publication are likely to be espoused as an op-ed much like the one being discussed.

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

Why would I need to be told that? It was post #8675 that I emebedded the Tom Nichols tweet that sparked this discussion here and in post #8684 I acknowledged that this isn't likely to be a popular position. My acknowledgement had the contents and mere existence of article itself and a brief dig into the discourse over kink at Pride as its foundation. If what she's suggesting is widely accepted, she doesn't need to suggest it.

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.

Your discretion.

Well then we're painting with entirely too broad a brush. We're talking about an article (not a parade) suggesting to keep the "kink". And we're talking about parades (not the article, at least I think) wanting to be family friendly. To make this case we'd need to find a single source advocating to be family friendly and to include "kink". In case I didn't just make it painfully clear, I haven't read the article.

You've got a pretty good handle on it. Here's the bare-bones article in full (it's like three minutes) if you'd prefer to not visit WaPo. Don't feel compelled to read it because I've transcribed it here...it took next to no effort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/pride-month-kink-consent/

Our family often took the train into Philadelphia, but as we rode across the bridge to attend the city’s Pride parade five years ago, my wife’s leg bounced with a nervous jitter. She squeezed my hand, worried that she might run into a colleague or be harassed by a stranger. My wife is trans, and wasn’t out at the time, so she typically only expressed her authenticity in the privacy of our home. That morning she wore a green skirt and light makeup, brushing her hair all to one side. Even though we’d attended Pride marches and protests in previous years, that day was our first celebrating openly as a family.

When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do.

The kink community has participated in Pride since its inception — risking their jobs and safety to be authentically themselves in public. Still, every year as Pride Month approaches, a debate erupts about whether kink belongs at Pride at all. Those hoping to oust kinksters often cite the presence of children as their top concern. That was pointedly the case this year when Twitter users argued that kink at Pride is a highly sexualized experience that children should be shielded from. Thousands of users supported these posts, claiming that kink at Pride crosses a line because minors also attend events. I agree that Pride should be a welcoming space for children and teens, but policing how others show up doesn’t protect or uplift young people. Instead, homogenizing self-expression at Pride will do more harm to our children than good. When my own children caught glimpses of kink culture, they got to see that the queer community encompasses so many more nontraditional ways of being, living, and loving.

As much as I want them to spend time in queer spaces so they can be with families like their own, I also want them to know that they shouldn’t limit their understanding of what relationships or expression look like to whatever’s most familiar. I want them to see that they can make their own ways in the world — and know that they’ll be supported and celebrated by their community. If we want our children to learn and grow from their experiences at Pride, we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend. How else can they learn about the scope and vitality of queer life?

Anti-kink advocates tend to manipulate language about safety and privacy by asserting that attendees are nonconsensually exposed to overt displays of sexuality. The most outrageous claim is that innocent bystanders are forced to participate in kink simply by sharing space with the kink community, as if the presence of kink at Pride is a perverse exhibition that kinksters pursue for their own gratification. But kinksters at Pride are not engaged in sex acts — and we cannot confuse their self-expression with obscenity. Co-opting the language of sexual autonomy only serves to bury that truth and muddies the seriousness of other conversations about consent. If this all sounds familiar, it’s because anti-kink rhetoric echoes the same socialized disgust people have projected onto other queer people when they claim that our love is not appropriate for public spaces. It’s a sentiment that tolerates queerness only if it stays within parameters — offering the kind of acceptance that comes with a catch. The middle-aged, White men who I grew up with said they were “fine” with gay people as long as they wouldn’t be subjected to PDA — as long as all signs of queer love could be outwardly erased. Queer people’s freedom to be themselves is, according to this logic, contingent on non-queer people’s freedom from exposure to it.

The arguable difference here is that many of the latest objections are coming from self-identified queer people, but that shouldn’t necessarily be surprising. Respectability politics demand that queer people assimilate as much as possible into cis- and heteronormativity, hewing to mainstream cultural standards. Members of the queer community have internalized those norms to the point that we judge ourselves by them, and then criticize and ostracize others if they don’t uphold them, too. This is the same oppressive message that prevented my wife from transitioning for 30 years, and the same message that still keeps marginalized children from coming to terms with their own experiences with desire and embodiment.

Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid — no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren’t bad or wrong, and that they aren’t alone in their experiences. I can’t think of a more relevant or important reminder for youth, who often struggle with feelings of isolation and confusion as they discover more about themselves and wrestle with concerns about whether they’re normal enough. Including kink in Pride opens space for families to have necessary and powerful conversations with young people about health, safety, consent, and — most uniquely — pleasure. Kink visibility is a reminder that any person can and should shamelessly explore what brings joy and excitement. We don’t talk to our children enough about pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment. Sharing the language of kink culture with young people provides them with valuable information about safe sex practices — such as the importance of establishing boundaries, safe words and signals, affirming the importance of planning and research and the need to seek and give enthusiastic consent. I never want my children to worry that exploring any aspect of consensual sex or touch is too taboo.

If we’re afraid to talk about kink with our children, we prioritize the status quo — sanitizing and censoring their access to information about appropriate and normal self-expression. These are the very attitudes that made Pride necessary — and life-affirming — for so many of us in the first place, and we have no business imposing them on the next generation. Kink embodies the freedom that Pride stands for, reminding attendees to unapologetically take up space as an act of resistance and celebration — refusing to bend to social pressure that asks us to be presentable. That’s a value I want my children to learn. Affirming the kink community helps our children to love themselves and others with courage and resilience. If my wife and I had seen such fierce and determined role models as young people, we might have learned to be ourselves much sooner. We didn’t have that chance, but my children have that community in Pride, and I want to keep it that way.

Edit: I'm not sure why it's not showing a link preview, but the link works for those who want to see it in its original context.

 

[UKMikey]

Edit: I'm not sure why it's not showing a link preview, but the link works for those who want to see it in its original context.

Me neither, even manually adding an unfurl="true" argument to the URL tag doesn't work. Perhaps this site is using its discretion. 😕 ← ???

 

[TexRex]

Me neither, even manually adding an unfurl="true" argument to the URL tag doesn't work. Perhaps this site is using its discretion. 😕 ← ???

So it's not just me.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Well then we're painting with entirely too broad a brush. We're talking about an article (not a parade) suggesting to keep the "kink". And we're talking about parades (not the article, at least I think) wanting to be family friendly. To make this case we'd need to find a single source advocating to be family friendly and to include "kink". In case I didn't just make it painfully clear, I haven't read the article.

Suggesting to keep the "kink", but also arguing it is beneficial for their kids to see it when they go to Pride. I think the posters here and on the comments section are opposed to that idea, and are then extending that to children and "kink" in Pride in general.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Direct quote from the article and an explanation from you that the quote supports this assertion, please.

You read the article, did you read that title? "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it."

How about this.

If we want our children to learn and grow from their experiences at Pride, we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend.

Oh, and what is with all the "she"s and "her"s? The author is clearly a "they". pronounphobic much?

 

[TexRex]

You read the article, did you read that title? "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it."

Her kids. You've copied the title, did you read and comprehend it? All signs point to "no."

How about this.

Swing and a miss. She's acknowledging that people bring their children to public Pride events. I've already indicated as much. Of course, this is central to the argument she's making because those opposed to the presence of kink at public Pride events, the people she's trying to convince, cite the presence of children at public Pride events. She argues that the acts of expression likely to be exhibited at public Pride events aren't so bad for children to observe and she approaches this rationally instead of emotionally.

Oh, and what is with all the "she"s and "her"s? The author is clearly a "they". pronounphobic much?

At no point in the article does the author identify as non-binary, but keep grasping at those straws.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Her kids. You've copied the title, did you read and comprehend it? All signs point to "no."

Swing and a miss. She's acknowledging that people bring their children to public Pride events. I've already indicated as much. Of course, this is central to the argument she's making because those opposed to the presence of kink at public Pride events, the people she's trying to convince, cite the presence of children at public Pride events. She argues that the acts of expression likely to be exhibited at public Pride events aren't so bad for children to observe and she approaches this rationally instead of emotionally.

At no point in the article does the author identify as non-binary, but keep grasping at those straws.

Well you quoted most of my post. Except for the part where they says "...we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend."

How in the hell can you say they is not advocating for children seeing kink? I understand that they is arguing against those who want to ban kink and use kids as their reason. But they does bring kids into the argument.

I haven't been to pride in about 15 years. Back then, I don't recall seeing any families with small kids. In public I saw lots of people (perhaps kink) wearing leather harnesses, assless chaps and other fashionably challenged apparel, but that was long before Disney and other companies broke out their rainbow logos.

Things are different now.

The "they" is from their Twitter profile. I thought I had posted a screen cap of that, but going back and looking, seems I didn't.

 

[NotThePrez]

Well you quoted most of my post. Except for the part where they says "...we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend."

How in the hell can you say they is not advocating for children seeing kink? I understand that they is arguing against those who want to ban kink and use kids as their reason. But they does bring kids into the argument.

Based on the first 2 paragraphs, as well as the paragraph that you quote-mined from, I'm 99% certain that the author is specifically talking about their own kids, not kids in general.

I haven't been to pride in about 15 years. Back then, I don't recall seeing any families with small kids. In public I saw lots of people (perhaps kink) wearing leather harnesses, assless chaps and other fashionably challenged apparel, but that was long before Disney and other companies broke out their rainbow logos.

I was only in 7th grade at the time, but I imagine the main reason for the lack of children was probably because homosexuality was still a major taboo ~2007, and that it had almost universally negative connotations surrounding it at the time. I'm pretty confident in saying gay people had a hell of a time just finding a relationship in that period, let alone entertaining the idea of having a family and bringing them to a pride event. I couldn't imagine a straight family bringing their whole collective to a pride event in 2007 in any part of the country, Texas and Florida especially.

Since homosexuality is much more widely accepted now, it makes sense for people to entertain the idea of bringing their own kids to pride events, since homosexuality is becoming more normalized in society.

Things are different now.

Indeed, and for the better.

The "they" is from their Twitter profile. I thought I had posted a screen cap of that, but going back and looking, seems I didn't.

And this is relevant to the topic at hand because...?

 

[TexRex]

Well you quoted most of my post.

I quoted your post in its entirety as made possible by the site's direct quote function. Because your post included text within a quote box, said text was omitted from the direct quote. Because I was responding to that which you quoted in its entirety, I wasn't compelled to specify any part and I deemed quoting your preface sufficient.

Except for the part where they says "...we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend."

This time you didn't quote it in its entirety.

How in the hell can you say they is not advocating for children seeing kink?

By reading, comprehending and thinking about it critically and rationally.

"If we want our children to learn and grow from their experiences at Pride, we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend."

The author is arguing that children observing kink at Pride plays a role in their learning and growing from their experiences there. I don't know if I agree, but that much is clear in context.

Why didn't you quote the full sentence in your rebuttal?

I understand that they is arguing against those who want to ban kink and use kids as their reason. But they does bring kids into the argument.

Kids are already part of the discussion. You acknowledge that they are in the part of your post that I've quoted above. You know...context.

I haven't been to pride in about 15 years. Back then, I don't recall seeing any families with small kids. In public I saw lots of people (perhaps kink) wearing leather harnesses, assless chaps and other fashionably challenged apparel, but that was long before Disney and other companies broke out their rainbow logos.

Things are different now.

I mean...okay? All this does is make clear that kink has and has had a presence at kink. It's part of the experience. Since it's part of the experience, maybe...just maybe...children observing kink in the context of Pride will help them to learn and grow from their experience there.

If the kink exhibited at public Pride events is permissible by law, as it's likely to be, maybe...just maybe...children don't actually need to be shielded from it. But that's best left to parental discretion.

The "they" is from their Twitter profile. I thought I had posted a screen cap of that, but going back and looking, seems I didn't.

'Kay.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I don't know if I agree

That, That!

I know, I know I don't agree with they.

Typical wishy washy liberal, can't take a side.

 

[TexRex]

That, That!

I know, I know I don't agree with they.

Okay, but regardless of whether or not you agree with the idea that observing the sort of kink being exhibited in public at Pride events is part of learning and growing from experiences there, is it really so bad that children observe the sort of kink being exhibited in public at Pride events, particularly when public exhibition of said kink is likely to be permissible by law? Why?

Maybe try arguing from reason instead of from emotion.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I honestly don't know whether the author meant their own children or all children since it's open to interpretation.

The opening few paragraphs make me think they are talking about their children, but this passage appears to show they are talking about all children:

I agree that Pride should be a welcoming space for children and teens, but policing how others show up doesn’t protect or uplift young people. Instead, homogenizing self-expression at Pride will do more harm to our children than good. When my own children caught glimpses of kink culture, they got to see that the queer community encompasses so many more nontraditional ways of being, living, and loving.

Notice they at first talk about "our children" straight after a sentence talking definitively about all young people. The very next sentence they explicity say "my own children", as if to differentiate the two.

 

[Danoff]

You read the article, did you read that title? "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it."

How about this.

Looks to me like that's consistent with what you said, just encouraging parents to consider the benefits of exposing (presumably older) children to a wider variety of celebration of sexuality. I don't see a difference between that and what you said. Seems like you and the author are in "violent agreement".

 

[TexRex]

I honestly don't know whether the author meant their own children or all children since it's open to interpretation.

The opening few paragraphs make me think they are talking about their children, but this passage appears to show they are talking about all children:

I agree that Pride should be a welcoming space for children and teens, but policing how others show up doesn’t protect or uplift young people. Instead, homogenizing self-expression at Pride will do more harm to our children than good. When my own children caught glimpses of kink culture, they got to see that the queer community encompasses so many more nontraditional ways of being, living, and loving.

Notice they at first talk about "our children" straight after a sentence talking definitively about all young people. The very next sentence they explicity say "my own children", as if to differentiate the two.

Look.

Shiny.

 

[TexRex]

Gay history exhibit removed from museum at Missouri Capitol

The exhibit was removed after complaints from some GOP officials. Democratic House leader says it should be returned ‘immediately.’

www.stltoday.com

An exhibit on Kansas City’s gay history has been removed from the Missouri Capitol following several complaints, including from a GOP official who works in the building.

The complaints about the exhibit, “Making History: Kansas City and the Rise of Gay Rights,” surfaced Tuesday on the social media account of an aide to a Republican lawmaker from southwest Missouri. The exhibit was removed on Wednesday.

Connie Patterson, spokeswoman for the Department of Natural Resources, confirmed Thursday the exhibit “has been moved from the Capitol” but didn’t say where it was moved or who ordered its removal.

One state senator from Kansas City said he was “appalled” and “personally offended” to learn the exhibit no longer was at the Capitol.

Sen. Greg Razer, a Kansas City Democrat and the only openly gay member of the Missouri Senate, said Wednesday he would “demand answers immediately.”

Kelli Jones, spokeswoman for Gov. Mike Parson, said Thursday the governor “was not aware of the display” but that his office “became aware” after “receiving several complaints.”

Parson has in the past expressed reservations about gays, telling the Baptist magazine Word&Way in 2017 that he was “old school. I know how I believe, I know what’s going to happen to these people.”

Jones said the Department of Natural Resources, overseeing the Division of State Parks, runs the museum and that “state statute requires the Department to coordinate activities relating to the Museum with the Board of Public Buildings.”

“The statutorily mandated process was not followed in this instance, thereby causing the Department of Natural Resources to remove the display,” she said.

The Board of Public Buildings includes the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.

A state law says the DNR “shall coordinate its activities relating to the museum with those of the board of public buildings in the use and utilization of the corridors ... as may be necessary for the display and exhibits of the museum and the memorial hall.”

The Board of Public Buildings typically acts on public funding for state-owned buildings such as the Capitol, and it also delegates other decisions to the Office of Administration.

There is no mention of any museum exhibits in available Board of Public Building minutes dating back to 2016.

Razer said Dru Buntin, director of the DNR, told him Thursday afternoon “the same thing we’ve heard from the governor’s office — that it didn’t go through the correct protocol, didn’t get approval from” the Board of Public Buildings “and so therefore it had to be taken down.”

“It sounds like a convenient bureaucratic excuse,” Razer said. “I suspect that that board rarely if ever approves temporary exhibits that go in that museum.”

Pushing ‘the LGBT agenda’

The controversy hit social media Tuesday, when Uriah Stark, legislative aide for state Rep. Mitch Boggs, R-La Russell, posted pictures of the exhibit on Facebook.

“So is there any good reason that our taxpayer funded museum is pushing the LGBT agenda in our state capitol?” he posted.

The photos showed the banner “Making History: Kansas City and the Rise of Gay Rights” was among several others displayed on the first floor of the Capitol.

Banner titles included “The Straight State” and “the Gay Liberation Movement,” among others.

Stark posted again on Wednesday.

“Thanks to the efforts of several of our great elected officials, the exhibit has been removed from the Missouri State Museum! To God be the glory!” he said, giving a “shoutout” to Reps. Ann Kelley, R-Lamar, and Brian Seitz, R-Branson.

Seitz, reached by phone on Thursday, said he hadn’t seen the exhibit in person and had left a message for a museum official on Wednesday in an effort to learn more but hadn’t received a response.

A University of Missouri-Kansas City website said the “Making History” traveling exhibit was originally a product of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Public History class.

It said the display was unveiled in 2017 after two groups, the Gay and Lesbian Archive of Mid-America and LGBT-KC, placed a commemorative marker in Kansas City the year before.

An Aug. 27 Facebook post by GLAMA at the University of Missouri-Kansas City said “Queer History Invades the Missouri Capitol! The touring version of ‘Making History: Kansas City and the Rise of Gay Rights’ is now on display at the Missouri State Museum!”

It said the exhibit details “the contributions made by Kansas Citians to gay and lesbian civil rights in the years before Stonewall,” referencing the 1969 riots in New York City that are seen as a central part in the movement for LGBT rights.

“We are absolutely thrilled that our colleagues at the Museum have mounted the exhibit, which will be on display for Capitol visitors and state legislators through the end of the year,” the post said.

The Missouri State Museum, located within the state Capitol, features numerous historical exhibits, including portraits of former governors and more.

“There is NOTHING controversial about an exhibit that explains how members of the LGBT community fought to end persecution and demand rights as citizens,” Razer tweeted on Thursday. “I’m extremely disappointed and angry that @mostateparks may think otherwise.

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, issued a statement Thursday demanding the exhibit be brought back to the Capitol.

“Only scared people with small minds feel threatened by historical facts that challenge them to reevaluate what they think they know,” she said. “The state Capitol belongs to all Missourians, and all Missourians deserve to have their history represented in it. This display must be reinstated immediately.”

This effort to remove--and celebration over successful removal of--material that informs observers of historical events from the Missouri State Museum seems an awful lot like that which the right frequently decries as "cancel culture."

Oh, and this seems fitting...

"STOP ERASING OUR HISTORY!"



That I live in a country that went from persecuting homosexuals to generally accepting them (even if there's clearly still work that needs to be done) is a point of pride for me. I still find it astounding that the Stonewall riots occurred just a couple years before I was born.

Typical wishy washy liberal, can't take a side.

Oh, fun! I hadn't caught this edit.

You've got a couple of logical fallacies here. I'm going to tackle them in reverse order because the response to the former is partly informed by the response to the latter.

This allegation that I can't take a side is funny. It's also a false dilemma.

You've omitted--seemingly deliberately--the position that I've taken, which is that children observing activities of which public exhibition is unlikely to be prohibited may not be that bad but is ultimately subject to parental discretion.

The first fallacy, the allegation that I'm a "typical wishy washy liberal," is ad hominem.

You've opted to attack me personally rather than address my argument. What's more, your attack--that bears exactly no relevance to discussion--isn't even accurate.

The position that I've taken here hasn't changed from the very beginning and I've repeatedly presented it to you to address directly. The problem is that you don't know what to do with it. It doesn't fit neatly into your moral panic fueled culture war. I can't be considered ally or adversary. Because I can't be considered ally, I default to adversary and you attack me personally just as you undoubtedly would if I took a position that you can more easily identify as adversarial, though the content of your attacks would likely reflect my status as a more direct adversary.

I've repeatedly presented my position to you for direct address and you've repeatedly deflected, ranging from anecdotal accounts and strawman arguments to even an implicit allegation of hypocrisy over misgendering the author. You opted to deflect because you couldn't present a cogent argument in opposition without resorting to appeals to emotion, but then in deflecting with anecdotal accounts and strawman arguments you still resorted to appeal to emotion.

As it happens, appeal to emotion is another fallacy.

Appeal to emotion is part and parcel with moral panic.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Gay history exhibit removed from museum at Missouri Capitol

The exhibit was removed after complaints from some GOP officials. Democratic House leader says it should be returned ‘immediately.’

www.stltoday.com

This effort to remove--and celebration over successful removal of--material that informs observers of historical events from the Missouri State Museum seems an awful lot like that which the right frequently decries as "cancel culture."

Oh, and this seems fitting...

"STOP ERASING OUR HISTORY!"



That I live in a country that went from persecuting homosexuals to generally accepting them (even if there's clearly still work that needs to be done) is a point of pride for me. I still find it astounding that the Stonewall riots occurred just a couple years before I was born.

Oh, fun! I hadn't caught this edit.

You've got a couple of logical fallacies here. I'm going to tackle them in reverse order because the response to the former is partly informed by the response to the latter.

This allegation that I can't take a side is funny. It's also a false dilemma.

You've omitted--seemingly deliberately--the position that I've taken, which is that children observing activities of which public exhibition is unlikely to be prohibited may not be that bad but is ultimately subject to parental discretion.

The first fallacy, the allegation that I'm a "typical wishy washy liberal," is ad hominem.

You've opted to attack me personally rather than address my argument. What's more, your attack--that bears exactly no relevance to discussion--isn't even accurate.

The position that I've taken here hasn't changed from the very beginning and I've repeatedly presented it to you to address directly. The problem is that you don't know what to do with it. It doesn't fit neatly into your moral panic fueled culture war. I can't be considered ally or adversary. Because I can't be considered ally, I default to adversary and you attack me personally just as you undoubtedly would if I took a position that you can more easily identify as adversarial, though the content of your attacks would likely reflect my status as a more direct adversary.

I've repeatedly presented my position to you for direct address and you've repeatedly deflected, ranging from anecdotal accounts and strawman arguments to even an implicit allegation of hypocrisy over misgendering the author. You opted to deflect because you couldn't present a cogent argument in opposition without resorting to appeals to emotion, but then in deflecting with anecdotal accounts and strawman arguments you still resorted to appeal to emotion.

As it happens, appeal to emotion is another fallacy.

Appeal to emotion is part and parcel with moral panic.

@TexRex, The author said yes, It is ok for children to watch a bare assed man get flogged. And more children should see it.

I said no, it is not ok.

You (@TexRex) said I don't know. Isn't that the definition of wishy washy?

Oh by the way, thanks for all the effort that went into that huge reply, even added memes. I noticed you didn't cuss though.

 

[TexRex]

@TexRex, The author said yes, It is ok for children to watch a bare assed man get flogged. And more children should see it.

I said no, it is not ok.

Why not?

If public exhibition of a thing is permissible and children are frequently out in public, even not at Pride, why should it not be okay for children to see the thing?

Try reason for a change, because emotion isn't working.

I maintain that the decision should be made by parents for their own children. You agreed to this briefly, but you keep going back to this sweeping declaration all while not justifying it.

You (@TexRex) said I don't know.

To what did I respond "I don't know" and what was my full response? Post numbers or direct quotes so that I can refer to the remarks myself, please.

Isn't that the definition of wishy washy?

Is it? How? Factor my full remarks and the context in which I made them into your explanation.

I noticed you didn't cuss though.

Words can't hurt you unless you let them hurt you.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why not?

If public exhibition of a thing is permissible and children are frequently out in public, even not at Pride, why should it not be okay for children to see the thing?

Try reason for a change, because emotion isn't working.

I maintain that the decision should be made by parents for their own children. You agreed to this briefly, but you keep going back to this sweeping declaration all while not justifying it.

I think he's agreeing to it being the parents' choice, but that it is the wrong choice to allow their children to see it.

I'd be interested to know if @Chrunch Houston thinks it should be made illegal for children to view.

 

[TexRex]

I think he's agreeing to it being the parents' choice, but that it is the wrong choice to allow their children to see it.

That's not parental discretion. That's his discretion.

I've already addressed this.

I'd be interested to know if @Chrunch Houston thinks it should be made illegal for children to view.

Danoff already addressed this...

So you're saying public decency laws are too lax? Or should they be somehow made more restrictive for parades?

...and he responded:

There doesn't need to be a law.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not sure what there is left to resolve then.

EDIT: Oh the "wishy washy" charge. I don't think that carries much weight

 

[merseyxshore]

I've been watching Sex Education on Netflix recently. I wish this had come out when I was at school, it's brilliant. I think this show is super positive for the teenagers of today, and should go a long way to help with the normalisation of homosexuality, among other things.

 

[p78]

I've never seen this thread pop up, (as i only recently ventured into the opinions & current events sub-forum).

but i'm surprised/shocked that in this day and age 20% voted the way they did.

edit
It seems like society still has a long way to go.

 

[NotThePrez]

I've never seen this thread pop up, (as i only recently ventured into the opinions & current events sub-forum).

but i'm surprised/shocked that in this day and age 20% voted the way they did.

To be fair, this is a roughly 19-year-old thread. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those votes are a decade old.

edit
It seems like society still has a long way to go.

Indeed, but the progress that's been made since 2003 has been something to behold, so that's a major positive.

 

[Sprite]

I've been watching Sex Education on Netflix recently. I wish this had come out when I was at school, it's brilliant. I think this show is super positive for the teenagers of today, and should go a long way to help with the normalisation of homosexuality, among other things.

When I was younger it was Eurotrash

That cleared up a lot of things for me.

 

[Jimlaad43]

The BRIT awards are the latest place to cave in and scrap "Male and Female" categories for their awards for the sake of inclusivity for non-binary artists.

Brit Awards scrap male and female categories

From next year, all musicians will compete for a combined best artist prize, organisers announce.

www.bbc.co.uk

However what they've done is now gone from rewarding two artists to only rewarding one...
There will now always be an argument every year over, if a man wins it "uh why didn't a woman win it grrrrrr patriarchy" or if a woman wins it "uh rigged against men because they wanted to show they're progressive". If all these categories are won by one gender, there will be outcry against the awards. By appeasing one section of society, they're opening a whole nother (and bigger) can of worms.