Thailand's Marriage Equality Bill to Become Law Next Month

[Puccini]

On 12/4/2024 at 9:00 AM, zackxx said:

I know homosexuality is certainly genetically related...

 

It would be considerate and generous on your part if you kindly shared your source of this knowledge with me and other readers by posting links to the corresponding articles.

[EVENKEEL]

On 12/2/2024 at 8:52 PM, Foxx said:

 

A stupid, ignorant generalisation.  There are plenty of unfit and abusive hetro couples.  Such a couple is far worse for a child than a loving same sex couple.

You can conger up extreme examples but a man as a father and a woman as the mother is natures way, the best way. 

[Puccini]

On 12/4/2024 at 10:53 AM, BarBoy said:

What happens when a farang bloke marries a thai bloke?

 

Who has to show the 400k or will that be a thing of the past?

 

The rules for extensions of stay will have to be rewritten.

 

No more "the husband or wife", but "that spouse"

 

No more "the father or mother", but "that parent"

 

If the appropriate words don't exist yet in the Thai language, they will have to be created. (This should make an interesting topic in the Thai Language forum)

[Puccini]

53 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, and?

 

I suggest you put your question to the person to whom my reply was addressed unless you have already found your answer in the scholarly and partly not so scholarly discussion that ensued.

[Scouse123]

On 12/4/2024 at 10:28 AM, NoshowJones said:

I remember years ago it was said that one guy out of twenty was homosexual. Are the odds the same today?

 

I think there were a lot more in the closet back then.

[Sig]

On 12/4/2024 at 12:36 AM, FritsSikkink said:

Have a read: Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNA | Science | AAAS

Interesting study. It falls infinitely short of anything definitive, by the authors' own admissions. That. of course, is pretty much the norm in scientific research. This is a single study with some interesting findings, but it hardly means anything of the sort that homosexuality is solely caused by epi-genetics or methylation. It would be an interesting study to compare these sorts of studies (of which there is apparently only one, at the moment) with the hundreds of studies along the lines of what I passed on to you the other day. Even if there is some sort of "influence" (as they mention in their report) from epi-genetics on "same-sex attraction" (as they mentioned), it begs at the very least one glaring question. What external social factors come into play that lead one to follow any sort of biologically influenced same-sex attraction to active homosexuality? Since it was clear in their study that even people with these markers were not all homosexual or even just experienced same-sex attraction, what other causes are there? Or do these markers indeed mean much of anything at all? Correlation is not causation. At least they were honest in the title of their article. A rare sight these days! A keyword in the title is "may". In other words, there is nothing concrete or definitive to be found here, just some interesting ideas that may or may not have any weight to bear on the issue. But of course, for those who are reaching for something to support their ideas, when they have nothing else to grasp onto as they are sinking, they'll grab onto studies like this as though they are the Holy Grail, or the missing link that proves it's out there.

[OneMoreFarang]

7 hours ago, Puccini said:

 

"informed comments" is an interesting term but it depends a lot on how it is interpreted.

 

In this topic, I have seen a member present his view with references to scientific publications accompanied by relevant links. This is, in my view, an informed comment, acknowledged by the readers as such regardless whether or not they share the opinions or conclusions of the linked published articles.

 

Obviously, it's nice to have relevant links ready. But what if we read books years ago, saw videos from experts, etc. and don't have the quotes or links ready? In our lives we learn a lot, sometimes we revise what we learn and sometimes we verify what we know already.

 

In this case I learns about parents how children learn and grow up over more than 30 years. Should I now try to find somewhere an article about what I know? Obviously, I could search the internet and post a link or two. But let's say I find a 30min video which seems to explain the situation. Should I watch it first to make sure I agree with all of it? And then there is obviously the question how much time I want to spend doing research for a forum like this. It's not that I have to prepare for a court case to win.

So, I will continue to write about what I know, and maybe add some links or quotes, but I don't feel compelled to do that all the time. 

[NoshowJones]

6 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

I think there were a lot more in the closet back then.

I never thought of that.

[johnnybangkok]

5 hours ago, Sig said:

Interesting study. It falls infinitely short of anything definitive, by the authors' own admissions. That. of course, is pretty much the norm in scientific research. This is a single study with some interesting findings, but it hardly means anything of the sort that homosexuality is solely caused by epi-genetics or methylation. It would be an interesting study to compare these sorts of studies (of which there is apparently only one, at the moment) with the hundreds of studies along the lines of what I passed on to you the other day. Even if there is some sort of "influence" (as they mention in their report) from epi-genetics on "same-sex attraction" (as they mentioned), it begs at the very least one glaring question. What external social factors come into play that lead one to follow any sort of biologically influenced same-sex attraction to active homosexuality? Since it was clear in their study that even people with these markers were not all homosexual or even just experienced same-sex attraction, what other causes are there? Or do these markers indeed mean much of anything at all? Correlation is not causation. At least they were honest in the title of their article. A rare sight these days! A keyword in the title is "may". In other words, there is nothing concrete or definitive to be found here, just some interesting ideas that may or may not have any weight to bear on the issue. But of course, for those who are reaching for something to support their ideas, when they have nothing else to grasp onto as they are sinking, they'll grab onto studies like this as though they are the Holy Grail, or the missing link that proves it's out there.

I appreciate your posts and on the whole they are fair and evenly argued. As much as I know there has been no proven gentic link to homosexuality (yet), I believe (and it is conjecture) that there must be something there as life as a gay man or women on the whole isn't easy.
In the UK for example, it was illegal to be gay up to 1967 with some very extreme cases such as the chemical castration of Alan Turing which in turn led to his suicide.  Even now there are 64 countries in the world that ban homosexuality with 11 of them having the death penality. The obvious question therefore is why with still so much prejudice and victimisation would anyone CHOOSE to be gay? 
This is why I do believe people are born gay simply because life would be so much easier if they weren't but equally I do find it interesting that the 'gay gene' still hasn't be found/proven leading again to the 'nature/nurture' argument.  

[newnative]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

I appreciate your posts and on the whole they are fair and evenly argued. As much as I know there has been no proven gentic link to homosexuality (yet), I believe (and it is conjecture) that there must be something there as life as a gay man or women on the whole isn't easy.
In the UK for example, it was illegal to be gay up to 1967 with some very extreme cases such as the chemical castration of Alan Turing which in turn led to his suicide.  Even now there are 64 countries in the world that ban homosexuality with 11 of them having the death penality. The obvious question therefore is why with still so much prejudice and victimisation would anyone CHOOSE to be gay? 
This is why I do believe people are born gay simply because life would be so much easier if they weren't but equally I do find it interesting that the 'gay gene' still hasn't be found/proven leading again to the 'nature/nurture' argument.  

        I am gay.  I was born gay.  I knew I was gay before I even knew what gay was.  I did not choose to be gay, I just am.  Just as I did not choose to be mixed-handed--I do some things with my left hand and some things with my right hand, without even thinking about it.   

     I eat and write with my left hand but do most other things with my right hand--like using scissors.  But, with eating, I use a knife with my right hand if I am cutting food but my left hand if I'm spreading something like butter on a roll.  If I am painting a wall, I use my right hand with a paint roller but can use either hand with a paint brush.  If I am writing on a blackboard, I use my right hand, rather than the left, even though I write on paper with my left.  I can use my left or right hand with badminton but the right is a little better; neither is great.

     I went into some detail with my mixed-handedness to use that as an example of things that make up the human body and behavior.  I did not 'learn' to be gay, just as I did not learn all these weird combinations and variations of how I use which hand to do things.   As I did not choose to be gay, neither did I choose my strange mixed-handed business.  With both, just born that way.  Don't know why but do know it just is.  

[johnnybangkok]

23 hours ago, newnative said:

        I am gay.  I was born gay.  I knew I was gay before I even knew what gay was.  I did not choose to be gay, I just am.  Just as I did not choose to be mixed-handed--I do some things with my left hand and some things with my right hand, without even thinking about it.   

     I eat and write with my left hand but do most other things with my right hand--like using scissors.  But, with eating, I use a knife with my right hand if I am cutting food but my left hand if I'm spreading something like butter on a roll.  If I am painting a wall, I use my right hand with a paint roller but can use either hand with a paint brush.  If I am writing on a blackboard, I use my right hand, rather than the left, even though I write on paper with my left.  I can use my left or right hand with badminton but the right is a little better; neither is great.

     I went into some detail with my mixed-handedness to use that as an example of things that make up the human body and behavior.  I did not 'learn' to be gay, just as I did not learn all these weird combinations and variations of how I use which hand to do things.   As I did not choose to be gay, neither did I choose my strange mixed-handed business.  With both, just born that way.  Don't know why but do know it just is.  

Exactly. 
I think many try to “solve” the gay quandary when the simple answer is it just “is”. 

[Sig]

On 12/5/2024 at 7:40 PM, johnnybangkok said:

I appreciate your posts and on the whole they are fair and evenly argued. As much as I know there has been no proven gentic link to homosexuality (yet), I believe (and it is conjecture) that there must be something there as life as a gay man or women on the whole isn't easy.
In the UK for example, it was illegal to be gay up to 1967 with some very extreme cases such as the chemical castration of Alan Turing which in turn led to his suicide.  Even now there are 64 countries in the world that ban homosexuality with 11 of them having the death penality. The obvious question therefore is why with still so much prejudice and victimisation would anyone CHOOSE to be gay? 
This is why I do believe people are born gay simply because life would be so much easier if they weren't but equally I do find it interesting that the 'gay gene' still hasn't be found/proven leading again to the 'nature/nurture' argument.  

I can understand coming to the conclusion that you do with the reasoning given. Another question to consider in the light of that same reasoning would be why some people are kleptomaniacs, knowing that it will continue getting them imprisoned. Or, why do people gamble their livelihoods away and destroy their families, knowing that over and over it has led to destruction. Or, why do people continue to choose drinking to excess or doing drugs to excess, knowing the ends of such things. Or, why do people who think that the government is spying on them everywhere they go and is out to get them and is conspiring to kill them and/or steal their most valued possessions, continue to think in such ways even though nobody has ever tried to kill them or has ever broken into their home or stolen anything from them? Nor do they own anything of any sort of high value or have any particular knowledge or special reason for them to be targeted. Or, why do some people continue lashing out in anger at the slightest provocation even though it has landed them in the hospital or in jail a number of times and nobody else thinks they are justified? Or, why do some people lapse into a malaise or depression, even though from the view of every objective person around them cannot find any reason for such thinking and the person's life looks like it should be wonderful, even to the people (family and friends) who know them the best. Same can be said about people behaving with extreme anxiousness/anxiety and even often self-admittedly have no objective reason for it. As you said, "life would be so much easier if they weren't (this way)", so why would they choose it? There are many things that people do that bring them chronic misery that are outside the normative behavior of humanity. These have usually been considered a problem of the psyche. When a person is encouraged to embrace these things that they have a proclivity toward and it is treated as though it is normal, then the person suffering with these things has a higher likelihood to continue in them, although some do try to work their way out of them (thus we have things like Alcoholics Anonymous). Just like, I believe same-sex attraction can have a biologically driven basis, it does not need to be given ground and encouraged to grow into a habit/lifestyle. But when everything in such a person's environment encourages them to embrace the habit/lifestyle (gambling, drinking, homosexuality, delusional thinking, thievery, etc.), then it becomes extremely difficult to do anything but embrace it. Just ask any alcoholic who is given a drink, a gambler who is given some cash, a kleptomaniac who is given inside information on how they can get away with stealing, or give a depressed person reason to believe that the things they are depressed about are real, even though no objective person thinks they really are, or fuel a person with anger issues by supporting their ideas and agreeing that whatever it is that they're angry about it completely right, even though no objective person would think there would be any reason to be more than maybe a little irritated. These things are why suicides are often not publicized because it will push some who suffer with some sort of issue pushing them that direction to follow suit. It encourages them, so to speak, to follow through with their thoughts. This is why some assassins (or other variety of murderers) have been "created" because whatever issue they were struggling with didn't get dealt with properly and they somehow got pushed to the ends of killing. Homosexuality also was always considered to be a problem of the psyche until recent times when the social sciences began slowly changing it's theories and interpretation of the data. It's a fascinating study to review psychology textbooks since the 1800's to the present day. It took many decades for this change to come about, but very little by very little the data was interpreted with different theories and interpretations, until now, where we have arrived and people have been taught the way it is viewed now for at least a couple of decades. What's next? No idea.... but I can't help but wonder. Does it continue evolving on the path that it has been for over a hundred years, wherever that could possibly lead to? Or does it somehow reverse course? Or have we arrived at an enlightened truth!? I highly doubt that one....
I think I probably failed to answer some of your question, but that's my general thought. I agree it's difficult to figure on people in countries where the penalty is very harsh, and not only on the books, for practicing homosexuality. In those cases, their behavior is not encouraged. But I think we can also find people who still do other things in places like that - like stealing, when knowing that if they get caught, they'll get their hand chopped off. Or, if they don't control their sexual urges and commit adultery, have affairs, commit incest, etc., they'll get stoned. And of course there are more similar kinds of things with other issues/behaviors. But these behaviors are still practiced.
I, of course, don't have the answer. Just ideas from some years of discussions, pondering, and reading.

[MarkBR]

This article has certainly enraged the bigots

[MarkBR]

On 12/6/2024 at 10:40 AM, johnnybangkok said:

I appreciate your posts and on the whole they are fair and evenly argued. As much as I know there has been no proven gentic link to homosexuality (yet), I believe (and it is conjecture) that there must be something there as life as a gay man or women on the whole isn't easy.
In the UK for example, it was illegal to be gay up to 1967 with some very extreme cases such as the chemical castration of Alan Turing which in turn led to his suicide.  Even now there are 64 countries in the world that ban homosexuality with 11 of them having the death penality. The obvious question therefore is why with still so much prejudice and victimisation would anyone CHOOSE to be gay? 
This is why I do believe people are born gay simply because life would be so much easier if they weren't but equally I do find it interesting that the 'gay gene' still hasn't be found/proven leading again to the 'nature/nurture' argument.  

Many genes will be involved in sexuality in general.  Due to the taboo nature of such research there has not been so much research &/or funding on it as other aspects of human physiology & behaviour.  Very few things in genetics are one gene = one effect

[MarkBR]

On 12/5/2024 at 11:11 PM, Puccini said:

 

It would be considerate and generous on your part if you kindly shared your source of this knowledge with me and other readers by posting links to the corresponding articles.

Highly likely there is a genetic component but the likelihood is it is also polygenic.  Both my brother & myself are gay.

[MarkBR]

On 12/5/2024 at 9:07 AM, FritsSikkink said:

Your point being?

Research should focus on understanding sexuality as a fascinating phenomemon of evolutionary interest. 

[MarkBR]

On 12/3/2024 at 5:38 PM, Fairynuff said:

Your comment suggests that a person’s sexuality is learned behaviour, it definitely is not.

Indeed, my mother and father were by no definition in favour of being liberal as regards how their sons, my brother & myself, turned out as regards orientation.  Yet, both of us are gay.   If sexuality was a learned behaviour it is likely there would only be heterosexual females & heterosexual males. 

[johnnybangkok]

19 hours ago, Sig said:

I can understand coming to the conclusion that you do with the reasoning given. Another question to consider in the light of that same reasoning would be why some people are kleptomaniacs, knowing that it will continue getting them imprisoned. Or, why do people gamble their livelihoods away and destroy their families, knowing that over and over it has led to destruction. Or, why do people continue to choose drinking to excess or doing drugs to excess, knowing the ends of such things. Or, why do people who think that the government is spying on them everywhere they go and is out to get them and is conspiring to kill them and/or steal their most valued possessions, continue to think in such ways even though nobody has ever tried to kill them or has ever broken into their home or stolen anything from them? Nor do they own anything of any sort of high value or have any particular knowledge or special reason for them to be targeted. Or, why do some people continue lashing out in anger at the slightest provocation even though it has landed them in the hospital or in jail a number of times and nobody else thinks they are justified? Or, why do some people lapse into a malaise or depression, even though from the view of every objective person around them cannot find any reason for such thinking and the person's life looks like it should be wonderful, even to the people (family and friends) who know them the best. Same can be said about people behaving with extreme anxiousness/anxiety and even often self-admittedly have no objective reason for it. As you said, "life would be so much easier if they weren't (this way)", so why would they choose it? There are many things that people do that bring them chronic misery that are outside the normative behavior of humanity. These have usually been considered a problem of the psyche. When a person is encouraged to embrace these things that they have a proclivity toward and it is treated as though it is normal, then the person suffering with these things has a higher likelihood to continue in them, although some do try to work their way out of them (thus we have things like Alcoholics Anonymous). Just like, I believe same-sex attraction can have a biologically driven basis, it does not need to be given ground and encouraged to grow into a habit/lifestyle. But when everything in such a person's environment encourages them to embrace the habit/lifestyle (gambling, drinking, homosexuality, delusional thinking, thievery, etc.), then it becomes extremely difficult to do anything but embrace it. Just ask any alcoholic who is given a drink, a gambler who is given some cash, a kleptomaniac who is given inside information on how they can get away with stealing, or give a depressed person reason to believe that the things they are depressed about are real, even though no objective person thinks they really are, or fuel a person with anger issues by supporting their ideas and agreeing that whatever it is that they're angry about it completely right, even though no objective person would think there would be any reason to be more than maybe a little irritated. These things are why suicides are often not publicized because it will push some who suffer with some sort of issue pushing them that direction to follow suit. It encourages them, so to speak, to follow through with their thoughts. This is why some assassins (or other variety of murderers) have been "created" because whatever issue they were struggling with didn't get dealt with properly and they somehow got pushed to the ends of killing. Homosexuality also was always considered to be a problem of the psyche until recent times when the social sciences began slowly changing it's theories and interpretation of the data. It's a fascinating study to review psychology textbooks since the 1800's to the present day. It took many decades for this change to come about, but very little by very little the data was interpreted with different theories and interpretations, until now, where we have arrived and people have been taught the way it is viewed now for at least a couple of decades. What's next? No idea.... but I can't help but wonder. Does it continue evolving on the path that it has been for over a hundred years, wherever that could possibly lead to? Or does it somehow reverse course? Or have we arrived at an enlightened truth!? I highly doubt that one....
I think I probably failed to answer some of your question, but that's my general thought. I agree it's difficult to figure on people in countries where the penalty is very harsh, and not only on the books, for practicing homosexuality. In those cases, their behavior is not encouraged. But I think we can also find people who still do other things in places like that - like stealing, when knowing that if they get caught, they'll get their hand chopped off. Or, if they don't control their sexual urges and commit adultery, have affairs, commit incest, etc., they'll get stoned. And of course there are more similar kinds of things with other issues/behaviors. But these behaviors are still practiced.
I, of course, don't have the answer. Just ideas from some years of discussions, pondering, and reading.

Not sure I agree with many of your comparisons simply because most of them are well documented physcological problems of a particularly destructive nature and are viewed universally as not good. Kleptomaniacs, alcoholics, depressives, gambling addicts et al are well studied and are are definately coming from a 'mentally broken' standpoint whereas homosexuality (certainly in more enlightened countries) rightly isn't and I think it's slightly disingenuos to try and lump it in with all the other examples you've given.

 

Granted, homosexuality was viewed for many years as 'a problem of the psyche' but the difference is all the others you've mentioned continue to be viewed that way, whereas homosexulaity has been rightly ''re-categorised' to more accurately reflect it's status.    

[johnnybangkok]

17 hours ago, MarkBR said:

Highly likely there is a genetic component but the likelihood is it is also polygenic.  Both my brother & myself are gay.

Interesting point but again the 'confusion' comes with studies in twins where a majority shared the same sexual orientation but interestingly, 35% of them didn't https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494487/

 

A very good gay friend of mine has a brother who is two years older than him and as straight as they come so if it is genetic surely all that have close genetic components (especially twins) should all be the same but the reality is that many aren't. I don't have the answers and I understand it adds to the confusion but that's what the science says. 

[Sig]

19 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Not sure I agree with many of your comparisons simply because most of them are well documented physcological problems of a particularly destructive nature and are viewed universally as not good. Kleptomaniacs, alcoholics, depressives, gambling addicts et al are well studied and are are definately coming from a 'mentally broken' standpoint whereas homosexuality (certainly in more enlightened countries) rightly isn't and I think it's slightly disingenuos to try and lump it in with all the other examples you've given.

 

Granted, homosexuality was viewed for many years as 'a problem of the psyche' but the difference is all the others you've mentioned continue to be viewed that way, whereas homosexulaity has been rightly ''re-categorised' to more accurately reflect it's status.    

"...rightly "re-categorised" to more accurately reflect it's status."
Yes, to its current cultural status. I agree. The "rightly" part is debatable on many levels and very subjective.
I was not being disingenuous at all. I was being candid. My intention was not to draw exact parallels to each of the issues of the psyche that I mentioned, but to the general circumstance related to how was previously mentioned re people continuing in behavior even though it causes them to suffer.

Certainly, you would find those comparisons not particularly agreeable with the outlook you are coming from. As you mentioned, "for many years" homosexuality was viewed as a problem of the psyche. As these sorts of things (thought on social or psychological issues) come and go through the centuries, I think "many years" might need emphasis on the "many" part. And for us to think that we are somehow more enlightened than some millennia of understanding/knowledge/thought, is quite arrogant. But that's typical of every generation, thinking they know more or better than the last one, or even than the last millennium for that matter. Just ask or observe your average teenager to see how much better they think they know than their parents lol, pretty much the same thing. Of course, every ensuing society thinks they have good reason for thinking they know better too.

I'm not saying that you are being dogmatic at all. But many are, on both sides. I think there is a LOT of room to question and nothing about this new enlightened thinking is certain, by any stretch of science. And I believe any unbiased/uninterested scientist would happily agree with that. Science does not produce facts, but it does attempt discover facts and bring us closer to a better understanding. At this point, I don't see any reasonable rationale to be unequivocal in a position that has yet to have significant evidence to overturn millennia of understanding. I do see reason to continue studying and to gain a better understanding of the issue that could be of help, especially toward lessening the burden of suffering from people directly affected. But even as I say things like this, I am labelled a bigot by some. I find it mildly humorous, but sad that some can't see beyond their eyelashes, let alone their nose.

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, Sig said:

"...rightly "re-categorised" to more accurately reflect it's status."
Yes, to its current cultural status. I agree. The "rightly" part is debatable on many levels and very subjective.
I was not being disingenuous at all. I was being candid. My intention was not to draw exact parallels to each of the issues of the psyche that I mentioned, but to the general circumstance related to how was previously mentioned re people continuing in behavior even though it causes them to suffer.

Certainly, you would find those comparisons not particularly agreeable with the outlook you are coming from. As you mentioned, "for many years" homosexuality was viewed as a problem of the psyche. As these sorts of things (thought on social or psychological issues) come and go through the centuries, I think "many years" might need emphasis on the "many" part. And for us to think that we are somehow more enlightened than some millennia of understanding/knowledge/thought, is quite arrogant. But that's typical of every generation, thinking they know more or better than the last one, or even than the last millennium for that matter. Just ask or observe your average teenager to see how much better they think they know than their parents lol, pretty much the same thing. Of course, every ensuing society thinks they have good reason for thinking they know better too.

I'm not saying that you are being dogmatic at all. But many are, on both sides. I think there is a LOT of room to question and nothing about this new enlightened thinking is certain, by any stretch of science. And I believe any unbiased/uninterested scientist would happily agree with that. Science does not produce facts, but it does attempt discover facts and bring us closer to a better understanding. At this point, I don't see any reasonable rationale to be unequivocal in a position that has yet to have significant evidence to overturn millennia of understanding. I do see reason to continue studying and to gain a better understanding of the issue that could be of help, especially toward lessening the burden of suffering from people directly affected. But even as I say things like this, I am labelled a bigot by some. I find it mildly humorous, but sad that some can't see beyond their eyelashes, let alone their nose.

Again I'm not quite sure where you are coming from. Obviously we are now more enlightened than previous generations, certainly when it comes to science. Isn't the whole point of advancement that you move forward in thinking and certainly on this subject, civilisation has moved on from the puritanical thinkings of previous generations to a much more enlightened understanding of homosexuality? When you mention 'overturn millennia of understanding' I would counter there wasn't much understanding at all - only victimisation and ostracising predominateloy led by the intolerance of religion.   

 

And what exactly needs to be questioned? That being gay is ok? That it's not perverted? That's it natural and can be seen throughout the animal kingdom? Whether there is a scientific reason behind it is almost irrelevant; it's there, it happens and perhaps although some would prefer a scientific explaination, when there's nothing conclusive offered, then as I've said already, it just is.

 

 

[Sig]

.

[Sig]

Why can't I delete mistaken posts? Or can I and I haven't figured it out??

[Sig]

On 12/8/2024 at 8:06 PM, johnnybangkok said:

Again I'm not quite sure where you are coming from. Obviously we are now more enlightened than previous generations, certainly when it comes to science. Isn't the whole point of advancement that you move forward in thinking and certainly on this subject, civilisation has moved on from the puritanical thinkings of previous generations to a much more enlightened understanding of homosexuality? When you mention 'overturn millennia of understanding' I would counter there wasn't much understanding at all - only victimisation and ostracising predominateloy led by the intolerance of religion.   

 

And what exactly needs to be questioned? That being gay is ok? That it's not perverted? That's it natural and can be seen throughout the animal kingdom? Whether there is a scientific reason behind it is almost irrelevant; it's there, it happens and perhaps although some would prefer a scientific explaination, when there's nothing conclusive offered, then as I've said already, it just is.

 

 

I suppose the same could be said from this end. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from. I believe it is far from obvious that we are now more enlightened than previous generations. You mentioned that in specific regards to science and in one way I can agree and in another, not so much. This is also much about social science, which I don't think we have necessarily come so far ahead on - although, again, this is specific to this topic. I don't intend that to be an overarching generalisation. And there was a lot more study done on homosexuality that it appears you know of in antiquity. Of course, there are fewer documents available to read, but it is very evident in the literature. It was not at all like it was some sort of thing that was not discussed and thought about extensively among intellectuals - doctors, philosophers, etc. Whether influenced by the religion of humanism, Islam, or Christianity, some influences wane and some gain in their influences over time. We are clearly in a time of humanism having gained ground worldwide, which coincides with the current view. Also, the typical trope that the media and academia like to create with it being only victimisation and ostracising led by the intolerance of religion is also not true. Depending on which century and country one may be referring to, there are many instances of humanist leaders who were opposed to homosexuality just as much as other religious leaders. Cicero (Roman, but before Christ's time), Kant, and closer to our time - Nietzsche, all expressed criticism of homosexuality. Plato called it "contrary to nature". Confucian thought also criticised it as being harmful to family and society. Of course, there are also humanists that didn't take that stand, as there were also religious figures who didn't take such a strident stand as they are generalised to have done. It isn't such a simple thing to create into a black and white, us against them dialogue, try as hard as academia and media does these days. But by and large, historically, through the ages and across the world's cultures, homosexuality has largely been criticised and is still to this day, more than it is looked upon as a normative and healthy (for the individual as well as the society) way to live one's life. This being the case, it definitionally is perverted. Just thought I'd throw that in there, since you brought it up. Whether something can be seen throughout the animal kingdom is not particularly relevant. Yes, as you mention, "it's there", it happens", "it just is." There are many things that are "there", that "happen" and just "are". That doesn't make them good, productive, healthy, or positive. As you also brought up the idea of it being "natural"... Even the claimed naturalness of homosexuality has been debated more than a millennium. Just because something exists or is practiced by a small minority, doesn't mean it is natural. That would make many things that we wouldn't want to think of as natural, just so. About the same percentage of the adult population of the U.S. commit misdemeanors (including all crime would make it higher, of course) every year as the percentage of the population that practice homosexuality. Should we call committing crime "natural"? I suppose we could, but then how do we determine which "natural" things are acceptable and to be encouraged and even celebrated and which are not. Depending on one's definition of "natural", it may or may not be natural at all.

We have gotten far from where we started. I think this is far enough, for me. It is a complex topic that is far beyond the typical black and white, blanket-pro and blanket-con ideations. I don't expect anyone holding fast to their "side" or opinion in the matter is going to change from anything here. I just wish people would do a little more critical reading and thinking on complex topics before climbing up hills to die on. I don't mean that directly toward you. That's a general statement regarding so much of the strident comments often seen on the forum. To the contrary, you've held a decent dialogue. Thank you.