PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,307
- Reactions
- 2,407
You shouldn't be curious, you should be erudite. If causation of homosexuality and thus SSM was genetically determined, it would manifest itself as the same percentages in all cultures. This just ain't so.
It is not in nature to perform homosexual acts, but proclivity. There is no biological basis for homosexuality and it tends to have a cultural significance, thus why the SSM brigade have attacked the Anglo culture to remove it's norms from the argument. This points to lifestyle choices based on urges.
There is no scientific consensus for the reasons for hetero, homo, bi, etc sexuality. That's an absolute give, so the focus has to move to social stimuli. We also know that evolution isn't generally in the direction of non reproduction, so heterosexuality is the natural activity, the others unnatural.
The western culture finds itself in a dilemma, because historically homosexaulity was an act, but now it's a lifestyle. Even the upper class Greeks/Romans that SSM people like to bang on about were drawn to homosexuality as an extramarital loveless, albeit gratuitous act. The Romans accepted it as something that needed to be regulated to protect minors with the Lex Scantinia law. In Africa vast numbers of men still carry on with extramarital liaisons and bring AIDS back to their spouses.... the SSM brigade even hijacked this self evident truth and tried to blame the women instead.
The other nations away from the Anglocentric west are less inclined to pariah status. In relation to your assertion muslims are somehow pious abstainers, well you obviously haven't spent reasonable value time in the Arab countries, but that is not the focus on my observations. The further you move away from the soon to be defunct traditional Anglo cultures the closer there seems to be a cultural acceptance of homosexuality, regardless of residual colonial legal acts still in place. It's in part to the various base behaviours of the natives that gave rise to Colonial Empires stamping themselves as conquering by the grace of God and civilising barbarians.
In cultures with large family structures, it has been shown that separation anxiety has a strong, almost predictable correlation to androphilia/third gender persuasions. Pacific islander nations accept the fraternal order of more older brothers the more inclined the youngest is to androphilia. In islander culture the high carbs diet generally results in men dropping off their perch in their early fifties and those sons between 6 and 12 are prone to the separation anxiety from parental loss and consequent androphilia.
Similarly in cultures where females are devalued (even killed) and boys are in demand to work the farm, family business etc, you can see same family structures of diminishing heterosexuality as the faternity increases. Of course there is always going to be people who get on the bandwagon just for thrills too.
So I'm not going to provide the list, but you can see for yourself by studying Ford and Beach plus Broude and Greene . You will see who we are talking about and how culture aligns to the behaviours. Soon to be defunct in Oz, Christianity certainly imposed itself on many cultures and reduced, even eradicated it it in several generations. But some cultures have zip homosexuality regardless of religion, some have demonstrably more.
Have another look at those many pics and see if you can identify the Captain Obvious or two or three.
Thanks for that reply. Some good points there. I won't venture into the debate as to whether homosexuality is an inheritance or a lifestyle choice. As I'm not gay I don't know and I don't think anyone does at this point on time. It hasn't been proven either way yet. It certainly does appear to be promoted as a lifestyle choice to the young with the mardi-gras etc but it could be interpreted as "It's OK to be gay" or "It's OK to become gay". That's a debate for someone else to have
No I haven't been to any Arab countries nor have any intention to, but my original point was homosexuality is equally unacceptable to Islam as it is to Christianity. Groups that violate the faith can break the rules but they can't change them. It's a pity when you think about it... if these two faiths had actually dropped their prejudices against each other they could have formed a very strong NO campaign of their own simply by demonstrating their mutual opposition to SSM.
Instead we are subject to this Mediscare style campaign about becoming a communist state and obfuscation with left/right politics.. which, apart from being irrelevant isn't very prudent given right wing politics is a bit on the nose at the moment. Still, watch out for those "Reds
And then there's the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Indecent acts such as adultery are perfectly legal in this country, causing the breakup of marriage - leading to divorce followed by hardship for the parent(s) that miss out on seeing their kids - the kids themselves - not to mention the financial penalties involved. Yet we are complaining about changing a civil union to a marriage despite the physical difference being zip (I use that word advisedly
).None of this changes my own viewpoint about SSM. I do have a lot of respect for the basic argument that marriage is used to maintain integrity of the human race by legitimating offspring. If that's your GOLD standard... vote NO.
But I believe in freedom - a Christian establishment Conservative Govt regulating your love life in a country with secular values isn't freedom. Especially when it's not taken to the people to decide.
Anyway that's my view. Political sycophants can jump all over it as usual
