Mormons Walk In Gay Pride Parade

[Libs]

And, I guess you had to attack the messenger, as you frequently do.

Thanks for the cheap shot.

You're right, it was a cheap shot and I apologize. I was responding to your "cheap shot" about my needing to sound intelligent, but that's no excuse.

Even those who believe in God know that sex is also about pleasure, intimacy and hopefully about love. I wouldn't say the sex act is used primarily for procreation, even though it might be considered the "primary function". Sex is about a lot more than just procreating...

You ignore what is actually written, and blather on with some strawman argument. You didn't even bother to quote me.

Quote:

Even those who deny God and sin will admit that the primary function of sex is reproduction, so SS attraction is dysfunctional for a primary function to continue society. I would call that a disorder.

You want to call homosexuality a "disorder", because you believe that the primary function of sex is reproduction. My answer was a bit round about, but basically your belief that the primary function of sex is to reproduce, is much too simplistic. Which is why I added what I did about intimacy and love. Humans are very complex and so are our sexual experiences. They are not simply "biological" (like dogs or cats). The "function" of sex, for humans is multifaceted.

and most of the time, we humans are trying to avoid procreating (many more times than we are having sex to procreate, I would think). It is pleasurable and a very intimate means of expressing our love. That is the primary use, even if it isn't the primary "function". And, this would be true for both same sex and opposite sex partners.

Read what I actually wrote.

You can have all the sexual pleasure that you want, both in your fantasies and with another person. I really don't care, but the topic was society and SS marriage.

Yes, I'm very aware of that. It's a very complex subject, as I said. Humans fall in love and often mate for life. That coupling is much more complex than simple biological reproduction, wouldn't you agree? And, many families do exist, without couples actually biologically reproducing (both hetero and homosexual couples). Hopefully, our culture/society will come to support all of these varieties of families and not just heterosexuals who can biologically reproduce. That is my hope, anyway.

[california boy]

Did I say most? I would think that coping with homosexuality in a fairly anti-homosexual world cannot be easy. It has been my experience (non-clinical) that people who feel discrimination and unfairness turn their anger inwards and then out.

I agree with you and it sounds like you also agree with the APA. I am just confusted by your earlier statement when you were accusing the APA for changing their views on homosexuality due to some kind of political pressure.

[Aliwe]

Even those who deny God and sin will admit that the primary function of sex is reproduction, so SS attraction is dysfunctional for a primary function to continue society. I would call that a disorder.

Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, they should have been bred out of the species long ago, if "primary functions" had sole sway. But homosexuals can serve a secondary function. The time and energy they would have devoted to caring for a spouse and raising a family would be transfered to the clan as a whole.

[Ron Beron]

I agree with you and it sounds like you also agree with the APA. I am just confusted by your earlier statement when you were accusing the APA for changing their views on homosexuality due to some kind of political pressure.

In the 1970's a group of gay individuals protested and essentially did a takeover of the APA convention. The result was a later addition to the authoritative manual, DSM III which declassified homosexuality as abnormal. The APA as well as any large agency or organization is susceptible to outside pressure.

[Calm]

Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, they should have been bred out of the species long ago, if "primary functions" had sole sway.

Homosexuals have been reproduce the same way heterosexuals have since the beginning of time, possibly because primary functions had deep influence (they wanted children and were willing to marry or at least mate with women to get them just as now though they have the added option of going through surrogacy).

The time and energy they would have devoted to caring for a spouse and raising a family would be transfered to the clan as a whole.

Would be interesting to see how much time was actually devoted to unselfish pursuits (as opposed to say going out and getting in trouble, starting conflicts with other clans, putting one's resources into collecting horses, books, art work, slaves, etc.) in contrast to heterosexuals of the clan.

[california boy]

In the 1970's a group of gay individuals protested and essentially did a takeover of the APA convention. The result was a later addition to the authoritative manual, DSM III which declassified homosexuality as abnormal. The APA as well as any large agency or organization is susceptible to outside pressure.

I understand that you feel the APA buckled under pressure of political correctness to change their opinion about homosexuality being a mental illness. What I am confused about is that you also don't believe homosexuality is a mental illness. Do I have that part right?

So if you don't believe that homosexuality is a mental illness, why do you expect the APA should have continued to believe homosexuality is a mental illness? That is what I am confused about. Am I missing something here?? Or are you just hung up on the used of the word abnormal? I am sure you realize that something can be normal even when it is a trait that occurs in a small part of the population. For example having red hair is not considered abnormal, it is just something that occurs regularly to a small percentage of the human population.

[Ron Beron]

I understand that you feel the APA buckled under pressure of political correctness to change their opinion about homosexuality being a mental illness. What I am confused about is that you also don't believe homosexuality is a mental illness. Do I have that part right?

So if you don't believe that homosexuality is a mental illness, why do you expect the APA should have continued to believe homosexuality is a mental illness? That is what I am confused about. Am I missing something here?? Or are you just hung up on the used of the word abnormal? I am sure you realize that something can be normal even when it is a trait that occurs in a small part of the population. For example having red hair is not considered abnormal, it is just something that occurs regularly to a small percentage of the human population.

You're right....not a mental illness. I have no problem with the APA downgrading homosexuality from a mental illness. I have a problem with their consideration of it being "normal" or a "sexual orientation disturbance". While the therapist must take into consideration his clients wishes he does not respect those who want to change their orientation insisting, rather, that they have been harassed into believing they want to do so. In the meantime and more back on topic is the need to vouchsafe their homosexuality by "parading" it. It doesn't solve anything and might make straight people more homophobic.

[california boy]

You're right....not a mental illness. I have no problem with the APA downgrading homosexuality from a mental illness. I have a problem with their consideration of it being "normal" or a "sexual orientation disturbance". While the therapist must take into consideration his clients wishes he does not respect those who want to change their orientation insisting, rather, that they have been harassed into believing they want to do so. In the meantime and more back on topic is the need to vouchsafe their homosexuality by "parading" it. It doesn't solve anything and might make straight people more homophobic.

Well I don't konw if gay pride parades make straight people more homophobic. Perhaps it just gives them an excuse to be homophobic. Is all I know is that there are over 1 million that watch the gay pride parade in San Francisco each year. It is broadcast live on the local television station. And it is the single biggest event that San Francisco holds each year. The vast majority of those watching are straight couples and their families. The whole event is for the most part a family type activity culminating in a street fair gathering near the city hall. I know the idea of a gay pride parade being a family outing will send some people over the edge thinking this is entirely inappropriate for children. But they are usually the ones that have never actually been to a gay pride parade. And perhaps for them it is best that they stay away.

[Buzzard]

Well I don't konw if gay pride parades make straight people more homophobic. Perhaps it just gives them an excuse to be homophobic. Is all I know is that there are over 1 million that watch the gay pride parade in San Francisco each year. It is broadcast live on the local television station. And it is the single biggest event that San Francisco holds each year. The vast majority of those watching are straight couples and their families. The whole event is for the most part a family type activity culminating in a street fair gathering near the city hall. I know the idea of a gay pride parade being a family outing will send some people over the edge thinking this is entirely inappropriate for children. But they are usually the ones that have never actually been to a gay pride parade. And perhaps for them it is best that they stay away.

Might I humbly submit that the demographics of San Fransisco are not representative of the country at large? And while I am sure that the parts of gay pride parades that get on television are the most titillating segments, I have seen plenty that would exclude them from any consideration as family friendly. It's like saying a movie didn't deserve to be rated R, except for one or two sex scenes. Well the scenes-and the S&M marchers in the parades-ARE there, and one cannot pretend they are not.

[Ron Beron]

Well I don't konw if gay pride parades make straight people more homophobic. Perhaps it just gives them an excuse to be homophobic. Is all I know is that there are over 1 million that watch the gay pride parade in San Francisco each year. It is broadcast live on the local television station. And it is the single biggest event that San Francisco holds each year. The vast majority of those watching are straight couples and their families. The whole event is for the most part a family type activity culminating in a street fair gathering near the city hall. I know the idea of a gay pride parade being a family outing will send some people over the edge thinking this is entirely inappropriate for children. But they are usually the ones that have never actually been to a gay pride parade. And perhaps for them it is best that they stay away.

C'mon, this is San Francisco! I grew up in the area and I know the mindset. Such a parade would not have such a presence in Orange County. I believe that San Franciscans have a mentality that is basically fun loving and liberal so such parades with even the extremes that are commonly associated with gay parades are tolerated. It would be akin to Carnival in Rio. While there are extremes it is more or less excepted.

[cdowis]

You want to call homosexuality a "disorder", because you believe that the primary function of sex is reproduction. My answer was a bit round about, but basically your belief that the primary function of sex is to reproduce, is much too simplistic. Which is why I added what I did about intimacy and love. Humans are very complex and so are our sexual experiences. They are not simply "biological" (like dogs or cats). The "function" of sex, for humans is multifaceted.

In the context of society, the function of sex is reproduction. But individuals can indeed drink themselves into oblivion, consume themselves with porn, engage themselves outside marriage with prostitutes and various sexual partners, and many other "multifaceted" activities.

But these activities are for the sake of the pleasure of the individual and have no functional purpose for society. I apologize if my post was not clear on that point -- SS marriage, homosexuality is dysfunctional in the context of society.

Yes, I'm very aware of that. It's a very complex subject, as I said. Humans fall in love and often mate for life. That coupling is much more complex than simple biological reproduction, wouldn't you agree? And, many families do exist, without couples actually biologically reproducing (both hetero and homosexual couples). Hopefully, our culture/society will come to support all of these varieties of families and not just heterosexuals who can biologically reproduce. That is my hope, anyway.

Heterosexual marriage partners have the potential for reproduction, and that puts them into a special place in society, above those individual pleasurable activities that you mention.

[cdowis]

So if you don't believe that homosexuality is a mental illness, why do you expect the APA should have continued to believe homosexuality is a mental illness?

It is no more a mental illness than autism. It is a condition which can be treatable, and the individual can learn to make adjustments to their condition.

Or the individuals can cause society to change and re-define what is considered normal behaviour. The treatment for both are halted thru that change in definition.

But the effects remain the same.

[california boy]

C'mon, this is San Francisco! I grew up in the area and I know the mindset. Such a parade would not have such a presence in Orange County. I believe that San Franciscans have a mentality that is basically fun loving and liberal so such parades with even the extremes that are commonly associated with gay parades are tolerated. It would be akin to Carnival in Rio. While there are extremes it is more or less excepted.

I don't disagree with your point. Certainly that kind of community involvement would not happen in most communities. But I am still not sure gay pride parades cause straight people to be more homophobic. But like I stated, it may cause some to justify their homophobic beliefs.

[Aliwe]

Heterosexual marriage partners have the potential for reproduction, and that puts them into a special place in society, above those individual pleasurable activities that you mention.

I am now in menopause (triggered by chemo, not old age, thank you) and I never had children, despite 22 years of trying. I don't know if the underlying cause was me, or my husband, but if we use your criteria above, the State should have tested us for infertility and not allowed us to have a special place in society, because we did not have the potential for reproduction.

[Calm]

I am now in menopause (triggered by chemo, not old age, thank you) and I never had children, despite 22 years of trying. I don't know if the underlying cause was me, or my husband, but if we use your criteria above, the State should have tested us for infertility and not allowed us to have a special place in society, because we did not have the potential for reproduction.

Are you claiming that homosexual partners are exceptions to the norm in the same way that infertile heterosexual partners are?

[cdowis]

I am now in menopause (triggered by chemo, not old age, thank you) and I never had children, despite 22 years of trying. I don't know if the underlying cause was me, or my husband, but if we use your criteria above, the State should have tested us for infertility and not allowed us to have a special place in society, because we did not have the potential for reproduction.

Thank you for sharing your deepest personal health issues with us on this public forum.

Anyway, the issue is the potential for bearing children as a basic criterion. That is why the state refuses a license for a father and daughter, mother and son to marry regardless of their ability to bear children.

Do you now suggest that the state remove that restriction if they are infertile?

[Ron Beron]

I don't disagree with your point. Certainly that kind of community involvement would not happen in most communities. But I am still not sure gay pride parades cause straight people to be more homophobic. But like I stated, it may cause some to justify their homophobic beliefs.

Do you believe that the overly festive and nearly pornographic marchers endears the cause of the gay community to people who are straight? All it does is give Bill O'Reilly cause to dismiss your efforts.

[Aliwe]

Do you now suggest that the state remove that restriction if they are infertile?

I suggested the infertility case as an example of reductio ad absurdam, to point out that marriage is not only about reproductive issues. It is the smallest indivisible unit of human society, like an atom.

[Calm]

It is the smallest indivisible unit of human society, like an atom.

Indivisible? What about divorce?

And your comment would seem to imply that anyone single is not a part of society as they don't belong to the "smallest...unit" of it.

[Aliwe]

Indivisible? What about divorce?

Christ forbids divorce.

[Aliwe]

And your comment would seem to imply that anyone single is not a part of society as they don't belong to the "smallest...unit" of it.

I'm not saying a single person is not in society, they just are not themselves a society. They remain part of the family unit they were born and raised in, until they are married.

[california boy]

Do you believe that the overly festive and nearly pornographic marchers endears the cause of the gay community to people who are straight? All it does is give Bill O'Reilly cause to dismiss your efforts.

I take it by your comment that you have never actually been to a gay pride parade. I guess if someone is forming their views of what gays are all about by watching Bill O'Reilly, you are going to get a pretty distorted view of what an actual parade is and what a gay person is. That is like understanding what a Christian is like by watching the highlights of the Christian celebration of Mardi Gras that marks the beginning of lent.

The truth is, I think gay pride parades gives someone like Bill O'Reilly a reason to justify his distorted views on the gay community. It gives him something to point to that he can cherry pick to present his point of view. In reality, gay pride parades are about much more than go go boys on a float. It is about community coming together to support a group of people who have traditionally been oppressed, discriminated against, assaulted and even killed because of their sexual orientation. But showing news footage of Catholics, Protestants, politicians, leading members of the community, businesses and a host of other groups parading in support of the gay community does not really make the Fox news hour does it. For some, seeing those groups supporting the gay community is more shocking than go go boys dancing to ABBA.

[Calm]

In reality, gay pride parades are about much more than go go boys on a float.

But if there are go go boys on a float, does the rest of the parade being family friendly make it suitable for children? Does 95% family friendly make the entire parade event family friendly?

If porn only occurs in five minutes of a film and an individual thinks porn is disgusting, is it inappropriate for him to say 'I will not see the film because it will disgust me' or 'the film was pornographic' if he did see it?

[Ron Beron]

I take it by your comment that you have never actually been to a gay pride parade. I guess if someone is forming their views of what gays are all about by watching Bill O'Reilly, you are going to get a pretty distorted view of what an actual parade is and what a gay person is. That is like understanding what a Christian is like by watching the highlights of the Christian celebration of Mardi Gras that marks the beginning of lent.

The truth is, I think gay pride parades gives someone like Bill O'Reilly a reason to justify his distorted views on the gay community. It gives him something to point to that he can cherry pick to present his point of view. In reality, gay pride parades are about much more than go go boys on a float. It is about community coming together to support a group of people who have traditionally been oppressed, discriminated against, assaulted and even killed because of their sexual orientation. But showing news footage of Catholics, Protestants, politicians, leading members of the community, businesses and a host of other groups parading in support of the gay community does not really make the Fox news hour does it. For some, seeing those groups supporting the gay community is more shocking than go go boys dancing to ABBA.

Well, first of all I love ABBA. Second, I have seen such parades in San Francisco and N. Hollywood. And, for the most part are harmless. On the other hand I have to agree with Calmoriah that a few bad eggs spoil it for the serious individuals involved. Add to that invasions into Catholic masses, assaults on businesses and people who supported Prop. 8, etc., then there is an element that distorts a portion of the gay lifestyle for the majority of Americans.

[california boy]

But if there are go go boys on a float, does the rest of the parade being family friendly make it suitable for children? Does 95% family friendly make the entire parade event family friendly?

If porn only occurs in five minutes of a film and an individual thinks porn is disgusting, is it inappropriate for him to say 'I will not see the film because it will disgust me' or 'the film was pornographic' if he did see it?

Obviously that is a decision that every parent has to make in relation to their own children's upbringing. It is probably the same decision a parent has to make about allowing their children to go to a public beach or allowing them to watch cheerleaders at a high school football game dance provocatively.