Homosexuality

[Tatterdemalion]

No just poeple who lived in japan and China talking about it

Well, there you go right there. The entire point I've been trying to make is that oftentimes attitudes towards what is "traditional" say more about our own modern views than they do about actual history. So my point about ancient China and Japan stands.

[Fat1Fared]

yes but sources are just as bias, if you believe most history books, victorians, were so pissy, they put cloth over legs of pianos

All that was rubbish and as far as I can tell from reading of their cultures, it was not majorly rised point, which leads me to conclude that if accepted there would be more on it

[Tatterdemalion]

yes but sources are just as bias, if you believe most history books, victorians, were so pissy, they put cloth over legs of pianos

All that was rubbish and as far as I can tell from reading of their cultures, it was not majorly rised point, which leads me to conclude that if accepted there would be more on it

That's the second time you've given an excerpt from QI which, as entertaining a show as it is, is not the sort of show you should use to do research.

And please, don't insult me by suggesting that I can't do proper research. If you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuality was a taboo as you claim it to be in ancient China and Japan, please show me. Otherwise, all you're doing is spouting off hot air.

Your only argument is that you've never read anything to suggest that homosexuality was prominent in Japan and China. So you're not even saying that evidence doesn't exist (and I know it does exist, because I've read about it), you're just saying that we should assume it's not significant simply because you yourself haven't read anything on the subject.

Which doesn't count.

[Fat1Fared]

no I did one QI reference, but what was second, time (ps the info on there is true as well)

PS I have not said you cannot do proper research, but you must take all history with pinch of salt and realise that all sources are bais, so best you can do is try to make a balance view, with both Primary and Secondary sources of info

PS I also realise you mis-understood what meant by out-cast, didn't mean kicked out, just lost respect

As for my research, I have found little on it, so best way to find info is ask people who know about their OWN culture, as no offense it is arrogant to think we know more about China and Japan than people who really come from that culture, because we read bais western books about them

Ps have you got any reseach to show, as seem to have same problem there, PS not really asking for sources here, as think this is for fun, not real essay or anything, just making a point

[Revenge]

let gays be gays.

don't go off insulting them, beating them, etc. as some people do.

[Tatterdemalion]

Ps have you got any reseach to show, as seem to have same problem there, PS not really asking for sources here, as think this is for fun, not real essay or anything, just making a point

Well, to begin with there's a book called The Construction of Homosexuality, by David F. Greenberg, which deals with the history of th idea of homosexuality throughout the world, and there's another book, but its exact title eludes me for the moment.

Also, on the subject of the whole Buddhism business, I did find this article that addresses the matter.

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com...sexuality.html

Anyway, moving on

As for my research, I have found little on it, so best way to find info is ask people who know about their OWN culture, as no offense it is arrogant to think we know more about China and Japan than people who really come from that culture, because we read bais western books about them

Hey, I'm not saying that I know more about Japanese or Chinese culture than people from China or Japan, but keep in mind that there is a difference between culture and history. Simply coming from a culture doesn't make you an expert on the details of cultural attitudes that existed hundreds to thousands of years ago. I'm an American, for example, but that doesn't make me an expert on American history. I mean, I'm somewhat interested in American history, so I'd like to think I have at least a basic understanding (which is more than can be said for a lot of people), but at the same time, I'm not going to suggest that somehow I'm a reliable or authoritative spokesperson for the history of American culture simply because I live here. And anything that I am familiar with regarding American history is from study of what you call the "biased Western sources," not just a general knowledge of history that comes from being American. And that beind said, I'm not going to say that a non-American author on American history is somehow less qualified or accurate in his work simply because he isn't American. To be honest, half of what Americans assume to be historical isn't even accurate. That's the way history works, in a particular culture populaf attitudes towards history say a great deal about the way a culture sees itself, but much less about the way things actually happened.

Also, you make it sound as though somehow Western sources are less biased than Eastern sources. Keep in mind that Japan and China have both over the past century had tremendous propaganda campaigns involved with remolding the modern view of history, that to this day still can be observed. There are still Japanese history textbooks which suggest that the Rape of Nanking never happened.

So yeah, I don't think I'm overreaching.

[Fat1Fared]

[QUOTE=
Hey, I'm not saying that I know more about Japanese or Chinese culture than people from China or Japan, but keep in mind that there is a difference between culture and history. Simply coming from a culture doesn't make you an expert on the details of cultural attitudes that existed hundreds to thousands of years ago. I'm an American, for example, but that doesn't make me an expert on American history. I mean, I'm somewhat interested in American history, so I'd like to think I have at least a basic understanding (which is more than can be said for a lot of people), but at the same time, I'm not going to suggest that somehow I'm a reliable or authoritative spokesperson for the history of American culture simply because I live here. And anything that I am familiar with regarding American history is from study of what you call the "biased Western sources," not just a general knowledge of history that comes from being American. And that beind said, I'm not going to say that a non-American author on American history is somehow less qualified or accurate in his work simply because he isn't American. To be honest, half of what Americans assume to be historical isn't even accurate. That's the way history works, in a particular culture populaf attitudes towards history say a great deal about the way a culture sees itself, but much less about the way things actually happened.

Also, you make it sound as though somehow Western sources are less biased than Eastern sources. Keep in mind that Japan and China have both over the past century had tremendous propaganda campaigns involved with remolding the modern view of history, that to this day still can be observed. There are still Japanese history textbooks which suggest that the Rape of Nanking never happened.

So yeah, I don't think I'm overreaching.[/QUOTE]

First, like said i do not want any info really, just think you are taking way to serious

Secondly, I never said Eastern writers were less bais, there not, however your sources are western and so though probably not bais on purpose (which in this case eastern writers probably are), but like you said there is different history and culture, and so when someone writes from outside culture, they cannot help but misunderstand it, so though the people from that culture may also be bais at lest they understand it.

My point was basically, when reading history, aspecially on socially subjective points, do not be so trusting to your sources just because have nice stamp of approval on them.

PS you also won't know more about their history ether, as you will have been tort American history like I was tort English

Though I did do my A-Level coursework on History of Chinese Revolution

And it was in A-level history they teach you about the bias in historical writing, a good example is Romans on English, the English spent the last few hundred years thinking we were mindless savages before Romans came because of Roman writing, however it turns out we were one of more advanced European countries, just no where near Romans and so the Roman writers just put us down as Savages

[Tatterdemalion]

Secondly, I never said Eastern writers were less bais, there not, however your sources are western and so though probably not bais on purpose (which in this case eastern writers probably are), but like you said there is different history and culture, and so when someone writes from outside culture, they cannot help but misunderstand it, so though the people from that culture may also be bais at lest they understand it.

My point was basically, when reading history, aspecially on socially subjective points, do not be so trusting to your sources just because have nice stamp of approval on them.

That's a nice disclaimer, which should probably apply to all research, not just historical, but at the same time you're making it sound as though there is no such thing as a reliable source, which is just not true. That's the entire point of history and anthropolog. If it wasn't possible for sources to be objective, comprehensive and authoritative, there would be no point in studying historyor anthropology in the first place.

I appreciate your concern that sources be reliable, I really do, but at the same time that doesn't justify dismissing all sources simply because they exist. I'm sure we agree thatthere is an objective way to conduct research, as well as an objective way to interpret research. Likewise, if we consider, as you said, a combination of primary and secondary sources, multiple sources and multiple instances of the same conclusions drawn from the same sources, as well as the whole peer review system, we see that it is indeed possible for sources to be academically reliable and authoritative.

I'm not saying that people don't have a tendency to look at things through a cultural lens. But at the same time, you have to admit that people still can distance themselves from their own cultural perspective in order to research, analyze and publish information in an objective way. Because if you don't. then you're essentially dismissing all of Western academia as biased hogwash. Which it's not.

[Fat1Fared]

Not western, worldwide lol, but yes I am being hard on it, your right, however this is because of the area we are looking at, why'll no source is full proof, in socially sensitive or culturally subjective areas, they are worse

And I have come across nothing to say your point and when dealing with areas like gayness in society, that is because usually only done in their own books and usually the people who write those books are trying to prove something, whether it is for or against,

cannot say about your books as not read them, but general rule is use it, but remember it can only be taken so far

I failed that coursework because even though the essay and info A grade standard, I was not hard enough on my sources

PS no one can ever be unbias, you give me someone unbias, I will give you golden egg

Also history is not 100% way to judge whether to do something anyway, though we can learn from it, our ansesters where not as godly as like to think. I mean we use to drink and shit in same river and never use to have sewers, are these good ideas

[Tatterdemalion]

I mean we use to drink and shit in same river and never use to have sewers, are these good ideas

You know who did have a very comprehansive system of sanitation? The Japanese.

[Fat1Fared]

lol, very true, aspecially with hair I believe

I was on about English <doh>

[Kanariya674]

..So yeah. About homosexuality.

I think Revenge basically said it. Let gays be gays. Someone mentioned it earlier that as living creatures, both us and other animals exhibit homosexuality. It's just something we as creatures do. It's been around for...a long time, and I really don't think it's that big of a deal. To hurt or kill someone for liking the same sex is unjustifiable in my books. That's like denying ourselves as part of nature. Quite impossible.

[Fat1Fared]

I agree with revenge

and concur with your avate Kan (ps who is she)

[Kanariya674]

and concur with your avate Kan (ps who is she)

Who is who?

On another note, about homosexuality. It really bothers me to see some people go to these places, whether it be churches or camps, and try to make themselves 'not gay'. I mean, you could probably fool yourself for a little while, but I don't think it's possible you can't be 'gay' anymore.

It's kind of sad to watch it happen. To watch people go to these places, and want to be 'fixed'...it's depressing.

[Fat1Fared]

sorry meant your avatar, who is she, as looks like a model I know of

However, Kan you are right, but if society tells poeple something is wrong, then some will try to get rid of it, even if it is part of them

However it is getting better, only 20 years ago they were using shock therapy on gay poeple, which to us now will seem almost barbaric

But still only 20yr's

[Kanariya674]

Oh, it's Ayumi Hamasaki.

Well, I believe it's getting better. My generation, at least the people I know around me, are pretty open-minded on the idea of homosexuality. It'll get better as time passes, but there will always be those several people who will refuse the idea. It'll be harder considering the topic is homosexuality, because religion ties in with it. And once religion ties in, you really have to be careful. It can get pretty ugly.

I mean, some people still believe blacks are an inferior race. So that's an example right there, of some ideas just staying around, despite it being proven blacks really aren't any different at all. It's even better when some whites will refuse to believe that we all originated in the area of Africa.

>>

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by Kanariya674

Oh, it's Ayumi Hamasaki.

Well, I believe it's getting better. My generation, at least the people I know around me, are pretty open-minded on the idea of homosexuality. It'll get better as time passes, but there will always be those several people who will refuse the idea. It'll be harder considering the topic is homosexuality, because religion ties in with it. And once religion ties in, you really have to be careful. It can get pretty ugly.

I mean, some people still believe blacks are an inferior race. So that's an example right there, of some ideas just staying around, despite it being proven blacks really aren't any different at all. It's even better when some whites will refuse to believe that we all originated in the area of Africa.

>>

Thought so, my friend is major fan of her, he even has her on facebook lol, I think she is one Misa is based on personally lol

Anyway, yes it is getting better and poeple are getting more liberal, however if looking at history has tort me anything it is that we like to go round in circles and it would not take much to turn back other way, still at lest we are going right way at min

[Tatterdemalion]

Anyway, yes it is getting better and poeple are getting more liberal, however if looking at history has tort me anything it is that we like to go round in circles and it would not take much to turn back other way, still at lest we are going right way at min

But remember, you can't trust history, because all sources are biased.

[Fat1Fared]

oh come now, stop being pedantic, you what I meant

You cannot trust history in socially sensitive areas

And history is bias, that does not main it is all useless and there is not at lest basic truth of what happened in there, just means you must remember, to treat them carefully and look at all angles

[HolyShadow]

Personally, I dislike gays. I find what they do together behind closed doors to be quite disgusting, am revolted by what they may do in public, and feel extremely uncomfortable when they even lay their eyes on me, whether they be male or female.

However, despite my dislike, I accept their right to do so. I think that reasons like, "It's wrong because we say so," are childish and reek of false superiority. I believe that because homosexuality exists in nature, and we humans are animals, then it stands to reason that homosexuality can happen in us naturally, in some cases. (Especially since we as humans have a sense of personal desire with our heightened intelligence, which can lead to this and that)

However, I don't approve at all of pretenders. If a girl is kissing another girl just because she can, I absolutely hate her and would like to spit on her face, because she's nothing more than trash to me. Homosexuality is something that shouldn't be explored just because. It has to come from the heart... or, in some cases, the pants. Experimenting, as a concept, annoys me, as well.

While I do use homosexuality to harass others and make others feel uncomfortable, that's different, because it's funny (to me, and no one else).

Now, cross-dressing... that's something I don't mind. I'd love to wear a dress and look pretty.


This is my opinion. Don't flame me. I'm allowed to have my opinion.

[Fat1Fared]

Holy though I do not agree with some of your points, you are right you are allowed them, as your opinion is part of being human, however if you are allowed to hate gays and girls like Kan who as you put it Experiment, they should be allowed to hate for hating their beliefs kind of like catch 22

PS i know this is an Inarticulate way of putting it, so if anyone else can do it better, feel free

[lilliejean]

While I do use homosexuality to harass others and make others feel uncomfortable, that's different, because it's funny (to me, and no one else).

An opinion is fine, but this involves other people so it becomes something else.
I don't see anything wrong with kissing someone because you can, as long as it's not just to grab attention. (Irritating is probably a better word for it than "wrong").
The most homophobic setting I've known has been primary school- though that was probably down to ignorance. So overall I think most people don't care about it nowadays.

[Tatterdemalion]

Personally, I dislike gays. I find what they do together behind closed doors to be quite disgusting, am revolted by what they may do in public, and feel extremely uncomfortable when they even lay their eyes on me, whether they be male or female.

Well that's a pretty silly reason to dislike someone. I mean, to think of same sex intercourse as disgusting, although rather an odd perspective, is still your own sentiment and one you're entitled to, I don't see how that logically leads to disliking people who are homosexual.

I mean, I for one think string beans are disgusting. Really, I've always absolutely hated the thought of eating string beans. At the same time, I don't dislike anyone who does eat string beans. Because that would just be silly.

And don't feel so uncomfortable. Not that I'm saying you're not allowed to, it's just a bit of helpful advice. Because you'll probably be a lot happier if you learn to come to terms with your own sexuality and the sexuality of others.

However, I don't approve at all of pretenders. If a girl is kissing another girl just because she can, I absolutely hate her and would like to spit on her face, because she's nothing more than trash to me. Homosexuality is something that shouldn't be explored just because. It has to come from the heart... or, in some cases, the pants. Experimenting, as a concept, annoys me, as well.

Keep in mind that experimentation is the key to discovery. There's a tremendous difference between experimenting and pretending. Experimenting is trying something new, whereas pretending is doing something purely for the sake of making a misleading impression on others.

Pretending, which you can say is bad, is a form of dishonesty. Experimentation is a form of exploration. Like Green Eggs and Ham.

Two completely different things.

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion

Well that's a pretty silly reason to dislike someone. I mean, to think of same sex intercourse as disgusting, although rather an odd perspective, is still your own sentiment and one you're entitled to, I don't see how that logically leads to disliking people who are homosexual.

I mean, I for one think string beans are disgusting. Really, I've always absolutely hated the thought of eating string beans. At the same time, I don't dislike anyone who does eat string beans. Because that would just be silly.

And don't feel so uncomfortable. Not that I'm saying you're not allowed to, it's just a bit of helpful advice. Because you'll probably be a lot happier if you learn to come to terms with your own sexuality and the sexuality of others.



Keep in mind that experimentation is the key to discovery. There's a tremendous difference between experimenting and pretending. Experimenting is trying something new, whereas pretending is doing something purely for the sake of making a misleading impression on others.

Pretending, which you can say is bad, is a form of dishonesty. Experimentation is a form of exploration. Like Green Eggs and Ham.

Two completely different things.

It's not odd. It's normal. I accept gays. I just don't like what they do, and am a bit biased toward having them as friends.

Be that as it may, as long as a person is kind to me, I'm kind to them, and that goes for homosexuals as well.

As for coming to terms with sexuality... I wouldn't mind wearing a bright pink dress to school and carrying a purse. It would make me look pretty, and not any less straight, since I'd still constantly talk about the glory of the female body.

And my definition of pretending isn't quite as wholesome as you try to make it. Pretending means a guy kissing another guy just to get back at daddy because daddy would hate them or something like that. Or, even more so, just to make themselves feel like they have no problem with homosexuality. I've seen these little stories around me, and I felt like telling them to go fuck off. These are not good reasons, yet they're serious about them.

Experimenting can be bad. Suppose a person isn't gay, but their first kiss goes to a man. They find that they were actually straight. I think they'd regret that kiss their whole life. Don't treat experimenting like it's all good. Sometimes, searching for something new can have disastrous consequences.

Also, I hate it when people go, "You're entitled to your own viewpoint... but (your viewpoint is wrong and) here's a (, or even more accurately, the right way to look at it, because the way you think is wrong, rather than just) different way of seeing this."

Or, at least that's the vibe I get from a lot of people in talks like these.

[Tatterdemalion]

Experimenting can be bad. Suppose a person isn't gay, but their first kiss goes to a man. They find that they were actually straight. I think they'd regret that kiss their whole life. Don't treat experimenting like it's all good. Sometimes, searching for something new can have disastrous consequences.

Yes, but suppoes a person is gay, but their first kiss, and every kiss thereafter, goes to a woman/women, because they're afraid of experimenting. Which is worse? Keep in mind, kissing a person one time isn't that much of a problem. So you kissed a guy once, and later on you decided you weren't that into it. Big deal. It's not exactly something to lose sleep over.

On the other hand, the consequences of never experimenting could be much worse, if you go all or much of your life without exploring something that really is for you simply because you're afraid of experimentation.

So yes, experimenting is good. If something works out for you, that's great. If it's not for you, then don't do it anymore and move on. But either way, you can't know until you try. So unless you're experimenting with something dangerous, like cocaine, then no, there's no real harm in it.

Also, I hate it when people go, "You're entitled to your own viewpoint... but (your viewpoint is wrong and) here's a (, or even more accurately, the right way to look at it, because the way you think is wrong, rather than just) different way of seeing this."

Or, at least that's the vibe I get from a lot of people in talks like these.

Odd, I hate it when people act as though the fact that they're entitled to their own views means that others shouldn't disagree with them.

Yes, you're entitled to your own viewpoint. And I'm equally entitled to tell you if I think something you're saying is complete bollocks. And I'm entitled to tell you in detail why I think so. Then once I'm done, you can listen to what I'm saying, think about it, and then decide whether or not anything I've said has any relevance to or influence on your ideas.

You have the right to say and think anything you want, but that right doesn't make you immune to criticism.

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion

Yes, but suppoes a person is gay, but their first kiss, and every kiss thereafter, goes to a woman/women, because they're afraid of experimenting. Which is worse? Keep in mind, kissing a person one time isn't that much of a problem. So you kissed a guy once, and later on you decided you weren't that into it. Big deal. It's not exactly something to lose sleep over.

On the other hand, the consequences of never experimenting could be much worse, if you go all or much of your life without exploring something that really is for you simply because you're afraid of experimentation.

So yes, experimenting is good. If something works out for you, that's great. If it's not for you, then don't do it anymore and move on. But either way, you can't know until you try. So unless you're experimenting with something dangerous, like cocaine, then no, there's no real harm in it.

I agree with what you say to some extent, I must admit.

Though, I can say this: No two situations are exactly the same. While what you say could happen, it depends on the person. What you think may not be a big deal may be an incredible problem to someone else.

Fear is a good thing. It prevents us from doing stupid things. After all, if you don't fear driving with your ass, you're much more likely to do that. Fear is there to protect us, and if we're afraid of experimenting, then maybe experimenting really isn't for us.

And as I said, experimenting isn't always good. While it may be good in specific circumstances, depending on the person, it may also be something to kill yourself or others over. You never know.

______________

Odd, I hate it when people act as though the fact that they're entitled to their own views means that others shouldn't disagree with them.

Yes, you're entitled to your own viewpoint. And I'm equally entitled to tell you if I think something you're saying is complete bollocks. And I'm entitled to tell you in detail why I think so. Then once I'm done, you can listen to what I'm saying, think about it, and then decide whether or not anything I've said has any relevance to or influence on your ideas.

You have the right to say and think anything you want, but that right doesn't make you immune to criticism.

While I say all of this, I do agree with the validity of most of what you say, but basically, this part of your post seemed as unnecessary as the part of mine that you replied to there, so I may as well say unnecessary things with this.

What I was trying to say with the part of my post you replied to with this was basically that I don't mind if a person says, "Here's another way of looking at it."

I also don't mind if they say, "Your opinion is completely wrong, and this is the right way of looking at it."

But I dislike when a person says, "Here's another way of looking at it." and means "Your opinion is wrong."

Criticism helps me reevaluate things, despite how difficult it is for me to flat-out change my perspective. Different factors here and there make me more prepared for this and that.

[Tatterdemalion]

Fear is a good thing. It prevents us from doing stupid things. After all, if you don't fear driving with your ass, you're much more likely to do that. Fear is there to protect us, and if we're afraid of experimenting, then maybe experimenting really isn't for us.

Yes, but keep in mind that you initially said that experimenting was a bad thing. And if someone is fain to experiment, then clearly they are not afraid of it.

And overall I'd say that while fear may be good in some cases, fear can also be irrational. For example, driving with your ass isn't a good idea, but what if you're afraid of, say for example, flying in a plane? Or going to the dentist? These are things a great deal of people are afraid of, but that doesn't mean that they're bad ideas, or that no one should do them. Oftentimes it's wiser to try to overcome a fear, for better or worse, than to submit to it.

And as I said, experimenting isn't always good. While it may be good in specific circumstances, depending on the person, it may also be something to kill yourself or others over. You never know.

Someone who goes on a killing spree because they kissed another boy has problems. I mean, that's certainly not a reasonable reaction, not by a long shot.

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion

Someone who goes on a killing spree because they kissed another boy has problems. I mean, that's certainly not a reasonable reaction, not by a long shot.

You're assuming that all humans are reasonable creatures. This is definitely not the case.

[redpheonix]

I have nothing against Homosexuality, I do not have any friends who are but if I did i would love them just the same, ya know :)

[Apple]

same here and i love shows about gay relationships too, its something that is between the person and it is not for us to judge