Thread: Гендерные меньшинства

Originally Posted by hddscan

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гомосексуальность

But now we know that those studies were wrong.
The link you posted does not prove your point of view, because you, yourself said that sexual minorities are norm and now you actually disapproving your words with that link

Педофилия нигде и никак не включается в список сексуальных/гендерных меньшинств. Это болезнь/психическое расстройство и реальная трагедия. Не будем здесь её обсуждать.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Педофилия нигде и никак не включается в список сексуальных/гендерных меньшинств. Это болезнь/психическое расстройство и реальная трагедия. Не будем здесь её обсуждать.

ok, let's not to use the actual word pedophilia but let's check the definition of sexual minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_minority

Others referred to as "sexual minorities" include fetishists and practitioners in of BDSM.[7] The term may also include asexuals[8][9] and people who may be strictly heterosexual and whose choice of actual sex acts may be vanilla, but whose choice of partner or partners is atypical, such as swingers (although this is debated),[10] polyamorists[11] or people in other nonmonogamous relationships, people who strongly prefer sex partners of a disparate age[12] or people who engage in mixed race relationships.

I highlighted a controversial phrase for you.
Now a question for you, if there are people who would only prefer sex with people who are 30-40 years younger then them should we call it a norm, a divination from norm or physiological disorder. That's a question number one.
A second question. There are nonmonogamous relationships in the world, in some countries it's legal in some it is not, the question is, shouldn't those people have the same social rights as anybody else?
And finally third question. There are people who practice polyamory (i.e. free love) should their sexual views be widely spread and accepted in society and should those people have the same social rights as anybody else?

I'm eager to hear your answers.

Originally Posted by hddscan

ok, let's not to use the actual word pedophilia but let's check the definition of sexual minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_minority

I highlighted a controversial phrase for you.
Now a question for you, if there are people who would only prefer sex with people who are 30-40 years younger then them should we call it a norm, a divination from norm or physiological disorder. That's a question number one.
A second question. There are nonmonogamous relationships in the world, in some countries it's legal in some it is not, the question is, shouldn't those people have the same social rights as anybody else?
And finally third question. There are people who practice polyamory (i.e. free love) should their sexual views be widely spread and accepted in society and should those people have the same social rights as anybody else?

I'm eager to hear your answers.

It's all off-topic.

Originally Posted by Lampada

It's all off-topic.

On the contrary it's very "on-topic", you brought sexual minorities term here and I think it is very important to understand what it is.
When anybody starts talking about sexual minorities the first thing that comes to mind is gay people, it's a hot topic in modern societies. However if anybody acknowledges that gay people are sexual minority and they should have same social right as heterosexuals(I believe you , Lampada, is one of so called "pro-gay" people) it begs a question, what about other sexual minorities? Should they have the same social rights as gays? And if no then why not? If no then wouldn't it mean that gays are somewhat superior than other sexual minorities? Wouldn't it be hypocrisy? And if gays are "socially superior" wouldn't it endanger other sexual minorities and maybe eventually the majority too?

Originally Posted by hddscan

On the contrary it's very "on-topic", you brought sexual minorities term here and I think it is very important to understand what it is.
When anybody starts talking about sexual minorities the first thing that comes to mind is gay people, it's a hot topic in modern societies. However if anybody acknowledges that gay people are sexual minority and they should have same social right as heterosexuals(I believe you , Lampada, is one of so called "pro-gay" people) it begs a question, what about other sexual minorities? Should they have the same social rights as gays? And if no then why not? If no then wouldn't it mean that gays are somewhat superior than other sexual minorities? Wouldn't it be hypocrisy? And if gays are "socially superior" wouldn't it endanger other sexual minorities and maybe eventually the majority too?

All of your questions are easily resolved if we assume that,

a) Family in legal terms is represented by a couple of two, of the age of consent or higher.
b) The sexual orientation of anyone (either gay or straight) is what they're born with, with no possibility to ever change it.

A lot of social and biological studies conclude a) to be the optimal pick, and prove b) correct.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

All of your questions are easily resolved if we assume that,

a) Family in legal terms is represented by a couple of two, of the age of consent or higher.

why?
I mean why two and why age limit? Both of these statements are not true for some countries. Also some countries state that family is only possible between a man and a woman.
So why anybody would need to accept exactly your statement and not a statement of other social groups.
In other words who gets to decide the universal true answer on such a question: what is a family?

I'll give you a real life example:
There are European countries that allow gay marriages and gay people have no discrimination whatsoever in such countries.
There was an event in Chechnya recently where about 50 years old man took a second wife who was 17 years old. That event got highlighted even in Western press.
Those European countries are genuinely shocked: the age difference, the second wife, it's all unacceptable in those countries. When they are told that it's ok in Chechnya they call it barbaric.
The question is if Chechens call European countries barbaric because such countries have wide gay rights, who is truly correct in this? European countries or Chechnya and who gets to decide?

Originally Posted by hddscan

I'll give you a real life example:
There was an event in Chechnya recently where about 50 years old man took a second wife who was 17 years old. That event got highlighted even in Western press.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Russia does have a law prohibiting polygamy.

Do you not see a little flaw in your logic here?
Maybe Western press highlighted this event because this marriage was against the law (Russian law) and law did nothing about it. Does Russia allow everybody to flout its laws, or do only select few can do it? Who is responsible for enforcing this law in Russia and how is it enforced in this particular case?

Originally Posted by hddscan

why?
I mean why two and why age limit? Both of these statements are not true for some countries. Also some countries state that family is only possible between a man and a woman.
So why anybody would need to accept exactly your statement and not a statement of other social groups.
In other words who gets to decide the universal true answer on such a question: what is a family?

I'll give you a real life example:
There are European countries that allow gay marriages and gay people have no discrimination whatsoever in such countries.
There was an event in Chechnya recently where about 50 years old man took a second wife who was 17 years old. That event got highlighted even in Western press.
Those European countries are genuinely shocked: the age difference, the second wife, it's all unacceptable in those countries. When they are told that it's ok in Chechnya they call it barbaric.
The question is if Chechens call European countries barbaric because such countries have wide gay rights, who is truly correct in this? European countries or Chechnya and who gets to decide?

I see what you're trying to say, and I agree with you and Croc. I did push my personal opinion on this, which I shouldn't have done after all. Alright, if we were to restate it this way, that "a family is an union of n people of the age of consent or higher, (where n belongs in [1; infinity), each of which is willingly and knowingly part of it", would it be closer to what it should be? =))

As for your example, I think what's causing so many talks in the media is that,

1. The girl is underage.
2. A lot of people would doubt it's her good will to marry that guy, unless she specifically likes old men.
3. Although it might be completely legal by the local law, many just find it so unusual (even realizing it might be legal), that they can't help discussing it everywhere.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

All of your questions are easily resolved if we assume that,

a) Family in legal terms is represented by a couple of two, of the age of consent or higher.
b) The sexual orientation of anyone (either gay or straight) is what they're born with, with no possibility to ever change it.

A lot of social and biological studies conclude a) to be the optimal pick, and prove b) correct.

I think both assumptions are arbitrary and alas can't serve a basis to anything, really. With respect to A, if more than two persons of the age of consent want to be a familty, what makes you rule them out in such conclusive manner? With respect to B, please have a look at Bisexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to widen your horizonts a bit.