gay culture

[peterh]

the truth about gay culture is that it is not a culture they do not have religion they do not differ as humans and they do not do anything different that the straight world does. to say they are different and have a different culture because most of them are perverts who take mind altering and body altering drugs and have a different gender preference to those who are straight is a joke this is true of morons who think hip hop is a culture as well

they are members of all cultures and should not be forced out in gods image they are made as well

again the dictionary is insufficient in its definition and use of the word culture and does not define in entirity the whole of nations or peoples

[venicekat]

nice to read this. I see your point. Now i will speak of the 'gay community' instead of the 'gay culture'.

[...]

the truth about gay culture is that it is not a culture they do not have religion they do not differ as humans and they do not do anything different that the straight world does. to say they are different and have a different culture because most of them are perverts who take mind altering and body altering drugs and have a different gender preference to those who are straight is a joke this is true of morons who think hip hop is a culture as well

they are members of all cultures and should not be forced out in gods image they are made as well

again the dictionary is insufficient in its definition and use of the word culture and does not define in entirity the whole of nations or peoples

..most of them are perverts who take drugs?

[sonrisa]

maybe he was doing shrooms when he started this thread

[blakeh]

All I got from this was that homosexuals were drug abusing perverts. I sincerely hope that this is not what you're trying to say, especially since you offer no support for the claim. Would you mind clarifying what it is you're trying to say?

[longing4peace]

the truth about gay culture is that it is not a culture they do not have religion they do not differ as humans and they do not do anything different that the straight world does. to say they are different and have a different culture because most of them are perverts who take mind altering and body altering drugs and have a different gender preference to those who are straight is a joke this is true of morons who think hip hop is a culture as well

they are members of all cultures and should not be forced out in gods image they are made as well

again the dictionary is insufficient in its definition and use of the word culture and does not define in entirity the whole of nations or peoples

I love the fact that someone is finally correct in defining culture.

[GeorgiaUnity]

'Culture' is a pretty broad term used to describe groups of people that think or act in certain ways based on beliefs and feelings, and whose system of living distinguishes them. So, yes, actually, 'gay culture' is an appropriate term.

Gays and lesbians (Queers, bi, homosexuals) share a similar story no matter what household they grow up in; that of being isolated and not considered. Being overlooked by the larger society. Those feelings of isolation, fear, deprived longing, and separateness create a very unique mindset, and when we finally meet others 'like us' we do tend to move towards the social and political norms of others for a greater sense of belonging, identity, and connectedness. Thus we end up mirroring one another.

It turns out, too, that many of us do share some similarities in taste and interest. No, not always show tunes; not that there's anything wrong with that. But we tend to have an affinity for the underdog... we like brazen, outspoken women....we are very sexually driven since that part of us was suppressed for many years, as a rule....and we like the sense of freedom that comes from not being a part of the regimented American Dream expectation.

There are, also, gay farmers and teachers and cops and Dads and Moms and grandpas who, although gay, will never partake of the same things as the mainstream/visible gay culture. They are not less gay as a result, they are simply not part of the same mindset and activities that have established gay culture.

Rich, vibrant, verifiable, validated, beloved gay culture.

(But in response to the question about what the original post meant; It means the guy didn't read the posting policies, cuz his was mean-spirited, accusatory, and defamatory!)

[chaosmembrane]

Greetings,

"they do not differ as humans"

I beg to differ. Each human is unique.

"most of them are perverts who take mind altering and body altering drugs"

Interesting accusation. To make such a sweeping generalization, I assume you know plenty from the LGBT community. If not, then yours is not a valid proposition and is merely an opinion with no solid foothold except in rumors and lies.

"the dictionary is insufficient in its definition"

I shall await your version of the dictionary. Meanwhile, I offer these:

"Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate") is a term that has different meanings." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture)

"5c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line>"
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture)

Saying that, I find it offensive that someone who is not part of the gay culture makes such claims. It's like me saying that most straight people were brainwashed by society because of the overwhelming images and ideas that promote the straight lifestyle. Hardly seems fair doesn't it?

And no, I don't take, nor do I plan to take, body- or mind-altering drugs. But I know quite a number of straight people who do and will.

Peace and blessings.

[Ron-the-Elder]

Homosexuality is not a decision, but a genetic variation, much like many other variations in genetics found within the genetic structure of all life.

What is perverse is a belief in a god that creates creatures a certain way and then condemns them. Those who believe such things are just ignorant of the facts of biology, which is a function of their culture, chosen for them by their parents. So, really they are the real perverts as to the laws that govern this universe.

As with all genetic variants, the environment will test them for survivability. Those with traits which allow them to compete in the environment will survive. Those that cannot compete will become extinct. No exceptions.

[Gelatinous Pope]

pererh you strike me as someone who doesn't have any gay friends. ?

[the_aphid]

When I hear the term 'gay culture', which is not very often I might add, I simply think of the 'queer-friendly' community, which extends beyond the LGBT community to include heterosexuals as equals. How would I define it? It is just like any other community, such as a community of church-goers, or a community of outdoors enthusiasts, or perhaps even a community of online discussion of philosophy, religion, etc.. Basically, the one common thread of the community is an open respect and appreciation for which everyone within the community recognizes. But maybe I am wrong here. When I do have time to go meet up with friends at a pub or something and happen to meet up with gay friends or acquaintances, I certainly do not suddenly feel as though I am now in the presence of the 'gay community'. However, when I specifically go out with a group of homosexual friends, I certainly become more aware of my heterosexuality and can attest to feeling as though I am immersed in a 'gay community'.

As for the culture, I don't really observe one other than the 'pop-gay culture'. What I mean is that I feel like 'gay culture' is to the LGBT community as 'pop culture' is to everyone else. And just like everyone else, there are many people within the LGBT community that are quite frankly annoyed or disgusted by a lot of the stuff that pops up within the 'gay culture', just as I get rather annoyed when I hear all about the Twilight stories, and Justin Bieber, and the new hit TV series that "just everybody is talking about!"

As for homosexuality being genetic or not, I really think that whole argument is irrelevant to the acceptance of homosexuality. I have come to think of it as a sort of ice-breaking argument for those who might be uncomfortable with homosexuality in general. For example, if a father is to learn that his son or daughter is gay, if there is any shadow of a doubt that it is a choice then it might prevent him from accepting their decision, whereas if it is strictly nature and hard-wired into their genetic framework, then the ultimatum is clear.

Granted, there is certainly evidence that there are genetic factors, however after discussing this with many homosexual and bisexual friends, I don't doubt for a second that these genetic factors are perhaps 'precursors' to sexual orientation, and environmental cues which are equally important are often overlooked. The whole point is that it frankly doesn't matter if their sexual orientation is genetic or a decision (or somewhere in between) in my opinion, so long as all parties are consenting.

I know men who are only attracted to men, some who are only marginally attracted to women, or certain women, women who are essentially equally attracted to both sexes, or only to one. For these people choice is certainly part of their 'sexual identity' as each of them to varying degrees has a choice in what members of which sex(es) they are attracted to and will engage with.

Personally, I feel this is an essential outlook to have in order to truly look at everyone as equal. After all, heterosexuals are significantly influenced by the culture they are raised in as well, and have choice in who they are attracted to, and who they are not. I certainly do not think it is our genes that keep the vast majority of people from stepping outside their caste or race or creed to date a member of the opposite sex that our parents or friends or community may 'frown upon'. Thankfully though, this is changing and people are now far less likely to refer to a couple as in an 'interracial relationship', instead they are simply seen as being in a relationship, period.

Anyways, there's my two cents...

[schrodinger]

As with all genetic variants, the environment will test them for survivability. Those with traits which allow them to compete in the environment will survive. Those that cannot compete will become extinct. No exceptions.

Good point which begs the question:
If survival depends upon maximizing one's success at the four F's: "feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing", does gay culture have survival value?

Incidentally, I think the OP was just trolling and not worth a response.

[Ron-the-Elder]

.
Personally, I feel this is an essential outlook to have in order to truly look at everyone as equal. .

Well, from the naturalistic view, survival is what determines if you are equal or not. Rarely in nature is "equal" a determinant in a society if ever. There is always a pecking order. There are those who compete in a niche and win, and those that compete and lose. There are those who are more intelligent, faster, stronger, more flexible or adaptive, those to whom mates are attracted, and those who die. There are those who form symbiotic relationships, learn to cooperate, share, and survive, and those who don't. There are those who can burrow after a meteor or comet strike, a solar plasma storm, or an nuclear strike, and those who die.

There are those who produce offspring and those who don't and their species dies.

This is reality, not some fairytale made up by those who wish "all" to be equal. This is just delusional.

"Wake up and smell the pheromones.";)

[the_aphid]

Well, from the naturalistic view, survival is what determines if you are equal or not.Natural selection has nothing to do with the equality I am speaking of Ron. My whole point is that in order to look at anyone as equal, and by this I mean free to enjoy all the same human rights and dignities as anyone else, you have to look past 'genetics' and stop looking at homosexuals as 'suffering' from a genetic disorder.

Put simply, my point is that even if homosexuality is a choice, there is nothing morally wrong with that decision, and people should simply be accepting of it.There are those who form symbiotic relationships, learn to cooperate, share, and survive, and those who don't. There are those who can burrow after a meteor or comet strike, a solar plasma storm, or an nuclear strike, and those who die.Perhaps it is precisely these adaptive qualities that has permitted homosexuality not only to emerge and survive in humanity, but in many other species as well. I do not think it is a coincidence that the species that display homosexual behaviors are often highly social, intelligent, and cooperative.

In fact, it is very likely that the genes which prompt homosexual behaviors are closely linked to other advantageous genes, perhaps genes that prompt creativity, empathy, intelligence, etc., so I would not be too quick to discount homosexuality as having 'staying power' in this 'naturalistic' framework.There are those who produce offspring and those who don't and their species dies.

This is reality, not some fairytale made up by those who wish "all" to be equal. This is just delusional.

"Wake up and smell the pheromones.";)What I think is delusional here, if I may say so Ron, is that this does not address 'homosexuality' but rather a strict refusal for any particular individual to procreate, one should be very careful not to confuse the two because there is a difference. Homosexuality is not an on/off switch, and I have to admit that I believe people who resort to this line of reasoning have not personally engaged with homosexual people in order to truly understand it. I mean, if this is the way you look at homosexuality, how has it even emerged to begin with? How has homosexuality cropped up in many mammalian species, from horses to dolphins to primates to giraffes and even some birds, just to name a few?

One need not look further than the wild environment (or a prison for that matter) to observe how sexuality presents itself in this primitivistic environment. I do not think that the vast majority of incarcerated men and women who are engaging in sexual activities with their cell mates are doing so because they are homosexual, but are doing so out of necessity. Hypothetically speaking, it is very likely that in a naturalistic setting, homosexuals would also neglect their 'preference' for the opposite sex and engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, albeit likely at a lesser frequency than heterosexual individuals.

Furthermore, the homosexual gene(s), if they do exist, could be recessive, and carried along by females that are not homosexual themselves. These females would procreate just like any other heterosexual female, however her female offspring would similarly be carriers and her male offspring could be homosexual. Thus the homosexual genes are permitted to propagate along the matriarchal lineage. In fact, this simplistic mechanism would likely also explain why homosexuality is significantly more common in males than in females, since females have two X's and males only have one.

[Ron-the-Elder]

Aphid,

First, let me thank you for the well thought out responses. However, you will find in many ways that you and I are not equals. There is a pecking order and a way in which one can be of service to another because of superior physical abilities, mental abilities, financial circumstances, education, and experience. And yes, all of these are largely due to genetics, which allow the individual, family, or group to emerge as superior given variations in the environment. Those who don't get this are just going to be frustrated and disappointed.

Natural selection has nothing to do with the equality I am speaking of Ron. My whole point is that in order to look at anyone as equal, and by this I mean free to enjoy all the same human rights and dignities as anyone else, you have to look past 'genetics' and stop looking at homosexuals as 'suffering' from a genetic disorder.

If we are born, we are suffering, because that is the nature of life. If we survive long enough to reproduce, then the species survives. Our innate abilities and environmental circumstances are deterministic of this fact. (Resistance is futile!)

Put simply, my point is that even if homosexuality is a choice, there is nothing morally wrong with that decision, and people should simply be accepting of it.Perhaps it is precisely these adaptive qualities that has permitted homosexuality not only to emerge and survive in humanity, but in many other species as well. I do not think it is a coincidence that the species that display homosexual behaviors are often highly social, intelligent, and cooperative.

Well, if you were an openly Gay person in Biblical times, and you brought your sexual proclivities to the fore, you would be executed, just as today in Moslem communities ruled by The Taliban if you declared yourself homosexual you would be executed. So, there is a survival disadvantage with being genetically stupid and being born into either of these Abrahemic cultures.

In fact, it is very likely that the genes which prompt homosexual behaviors are closely linked to other advantageous genes, perhaps genes that prompt creativity, empathy, intelligence, etc., so I would not be too quick to discount homosexuality as having 'staying power' in this 'naturalistic' framework.

Yes. We are only talking about sexual preference. My wife watches the same t.v. shows you do, apparently.

What I think is delusional here, if I may say so Ron, is that this does not address 'homosexuality' but rather a strict refusal for any particular individual to procreate, one should be very careful not to confuse the two because there is a difference.

Yes. Gays and Lesbians can reproduce. They have all the necessary sexual equipment. So what? The next steps involve raising the offspring in a protected, nurturing environment until they reach adulthood and can sustain themselves in some equally supportive culture. This probably explains why so many Gays and Lesbians decided to move into states where they have become voting majorities. This shows intellect, which is a survival advantage.


Homosexuality is not an on/off switch, and I have to admit that I believe people who resort to this line of reasoning have not personally engaged with homosexual people in order to truly understand it. I mean, if this is the way you look at homosexuality, how has it even emerged to begin with? How has homosexuality cropped up in many mammalian species, from horses to dolphins to primates to giraffes and even some birds, just to name a few?

Well, this assumes that folks, like me for example, have never experienced the emergence of homosexuality in their own families. Your assumption of inexperience would be false. I have a niece who has declared herself Lesbian. She is very intelligent, well educated, well employed and compensated, has had numerous lovers, she has Lesbian groupies slobbering over her, and male groupies hanging and drooling all over her, due to her beauty, presence, and magnetic personality. But, because she gets bored with them, she keeps them for but a time and then shows them the bricks.

She has been with a few women who had children. She even talked marriage/partnership, but she likes kids until she has to take care of them day after day after day after day. She is the equivalent of the sperm donating dad, who hangs around till he gets something else better going on and then takes off for greener grass, or in this case, greener ass.

One need not look further than the wild environment (or a prison for that matter) to observe how sexuality presents itself in this primitivistic environment. I do not think that the vast majority of incarcerated men and women who are engaging in sexual activities with their cell mates are doing so because they are homosexual, but are doing so out of necessity.

Sexual gratification is hardly a necessity with another human being. Nuff said.

Hypothetically speaking, it is very likely that in a naturalistic setting, homosexuals would also neglect their 'preference' for the opposite sex and engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, albeit likely at a lesser frequency than heterosexual individuals.

Yes. Oh! I am beginning to see where you are going now. You assumed when I was talking about survival that you thought I was saying that homosexuals would be less able to survive. No. Not me. The environment decides.

Furthermore, the homosexual gene(s), if they do exist, could be recessive, and carried along by females that are not homosexual themselves. These females would procreate just like any other heterosexual female, however her female offspring would similarly be carriers and her male offspring could be homosexual. Thus the homosexual genes are permitted to propagate along the matriarchal lineage. In fact, this simplistic mechanism would likely also explain why homosexuality is significantly more common in males than in females, since females have two X's and males only have one.

I think you have it right. The greater the genetic diversity of any given species or individual, the greater the likelihood of survival in the long run.

We are in perfect agreement.

Thanks again for the very intelligent conversation and thread.

[the_aphid]

We are in perfect agreement.

Thanks again for the very intelligent conversation and thread.Fair enough. ;)

[JackPat]

This was interesting to read.

[chaosmembrane]

Or at least the responses are. :D