The fun of frustrated homophobes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Most studies have confirmed the 2% number.

Gee, that's a pretty broad scope, Obi Gyn.

Feel free to show this.

You know, with evidence, not airy assertions such as 'Asher hasn't challenged it' which don't actually count as proof.

[Provost Harrison]

Fundamentalists should be banned!

[Whaleboy]

No, because I reject that presupposition that our desires are innate, and cannot be changed.

Which has exactly what meaning for your argument?

Furthermore why would it be relevant, if it is a personal condition or a personal choice? Are you attempting to imply a right or wrong choice in the individual context?

part of our essence is our desires, then you'd have everything across the board.

Again the obsession with sex. Would you say the same of the desire for love? Also, wrt the the desire for sex, is it not reasonable to say that there are limits to that which remain unaffected by acceptance of homosexuality, i.e., allowing sex between men is not a slippery slope to allowing sex between adults and children, for example?

What facts? People can overcome their inclinations if they are aware of them.

Ergo?

If something is accidental, that means it can change, without changing the nature of the object.

That's ridiculous, since the only thing that would change is the properties of the objects existence (allowing thus for individual subjectivity). I take it you're an essentialist though .

Fundamentalists should be banned!

I think it's time we put the "Fun" back into Fundamentalism

[Provost Harrison]

Well this is a salient point. Whether innate or choice, who gives anyone the f**king right to tell people who they can and cannot have (consentually of course )?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yeah, that's what happens when Kinsey conducts what is supposed to be a 'representative' sample of the male population. The figure is taken from his study, and his study only, which has been parroted countless times by other people.

Most studies have confirmed the 2% number.

Actually, it's what happens when people misread The Kinsey Report. Ten percent is the proportion of men who have engaged in any homosexual activity. That includes people who are experimenting, people in stress situations like prison, etc.

The percentage Kinsey discovered that is exclusively homosexual was 4% - 5% of the population, and that number has been consistently confirmed by various studies. It does not include bisexuals, the transgendered, etc., however, so don't go thinking that 95% of the population is heterosexual.

Human sexuality is still a wonderful and complex and mysterious thing, and far more diverse than the religionistas would have it.

[Kropotkin]

Perhaps I should have added that a serious answe on this issue would not include any answer from Kenobi, but I thought that might give people the impression that I don't take the issue seriously (perhaps I'm a closet christian! ).


So I looked around a bit for myself. As I do have some basic knowledge about statistics and making surveys about sensitive issues the impression I got wasn't really suprising. The results varies a lot depending on definitions (sexual orientation is not really a variable that can easily defined as 0 or 1) and so forth. All in all the variance is huge.

Still, the few figures I got where really low. I would think that a lot more than just 2 % of the people I've meet have been homosexuals. For an example, at least 2 out of the 25 people I started school with at the age of 7 is now openly gay. Sure, the size of that survey isn't huge but still.

I also made a search on wikipedia and the word homosexuality gave the following result:

YOUR MOM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

Didn't really help me much. One of the problems with an open project like that I suppose.

[Asher]

I think the number is substantially higher than 2%. 10% does seem about right, to me.

[Whaleboy]

Asher: Also any studies will be flawed. A society where Christianity is still endemic is likely to cause people who are gay to deny it on paper or have not realised it themselves.

Well this is a salient point. Whether innate or choice, who gives anyone the f**king right to tell people who they can and cannot have (consentually of course )?

I hate the way anti-gay people debate the choice vs. no choice question, as though if it is a choice they can then argue it is the wrong choice. That argument is about as coherent as the bible they refer to!

[monolith94]

Percentages matter not. What matters is that peoples rights are being oppressed, and it's neither right, nor just. If gay people were just .00001% of the population, they would still deserve the right.

[Kontiki]

Am I the only one who read the article, agreed with most of it, but came away with an utterly different conclusion than what the author actually intended? It seems to me that most of his points are valid and that should be a good thing. A quick summary:

- Homosexuals have made great strides in being accepted in society
- Today you can find homosexuals in all the same jobs straight people occupy
- A civil union bill has a good chance of passing in NZ parliament
- This may open the doors for full-blown gay marriage

I guess you have to be like Ben and hate all of this to your core to have a problem with it.

[Theben]

The important note is that the fundies are up in arms about 'civil unions', despite their previous assurances that as long as any gay union wasn't defined as marriage it'd be okay.

[C0ckney]

the only thing i would have a problem is gay marriage. gay 'marriage', that is to say civil unions, marriage in all but name, is a good idea

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Very good comparison. Who was it that considered the black skin to be part of the essence? Was it not the racists, who said such skin affected their status. This is why this reasoning does not work. It is only by rejecting the fact that the accidents are not part of the essence, can one justify treating blacks as persons, just like one would treat gay people as persons.

Except you seem to be missing the fact that the only person claiming that they define their being by their sexuality is the homophobe who wrote that article.

In the instances where homosexuals do use their sexuality, it is not because their sexuality defines who they are, but because it is the only thing that makes them different and the only thing they are discriminated against. That is no different from how, say, the Black Panthers defined themselves as being black.

[Nubclear]

Religion
Homophobic bigotry

[Whaleboy]

C0ckney: The debate over whether or not it is marriage by definition / nomenclature is a difficult one, largely irrelevant here since this is more one of homosexual rights. In my opinion, it *is* marriage and that's a good thing, but that's also another story .