Каждый не очень образованный в биологии человек тоже имеет право верить избирательно, в том числе и я.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomer
Но равноправие, справедливость и милосердие существуют для всех.
Printable View
Каждый не очень образованный в биологии человек тоже имеет право верить избирательно, в том числе и я.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomer
Но равноправие, справедливость и милосердие существуют для всех.
А я читал, что в семьях, где всё наоборот, процент отклонений у детей увеличивается с 2% примерно до 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
Реальные маугли, воспитанные волками, не умеют говорить, ходить на двух ногах, улыбаться, испытывать человеческие эмоции и т.д. То есть многое в нашей жизни зависит от усвоенного поведения, а не от генетики.
конечно может, а каждый образованный человек может объяснить необразованному, где тот не правQuote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
теперь вы это знаете, так что не надо повторять неправду как прописную истину, чтобы не плодить еще больше необразованных
Igor, the thing is - we have already discussed so many of the things that you brought up! You even said you did not read through the entire thread. I think you should try to read through the thread before you criticize Lampada for "not reading" your post. To be honest, I had the same reaction as Lampada when I saw what you wrote. I don't think it's fair to make statements about her "personal feelings," etc. Let's not make this personal about anyone's ability to understand, read, etc. When people start insulting each other, a rational discussion is no longer possible.Quote:
iCake: Did you even read my post? Or better say did you try to understand what I wrote? The law doesn't say that it's possible to make someone gay nor does it say that it's impossible. That just states that telling a juvenile to become gay is illegal. Can you ever try to abstract from your personal feelings when judging something or trying to prove something? As I said I wrote that text at my own risk to become hated and unpopular by who advocate gay rights here. So it seems that risk has come to pass. I'm so dissapointed. But please, take a look at my post again. Did I state there that I dissaprove/approve of gays? Well, it seems I didn't. What a pity.
I have been opposed to a boycott all along. I very much doubt that Russia is going to arrest foreigners in Sochi, because if they arrest everyone who wears a rainbow or paints their nails like rainbows, they would have to arrest thousands of people and they are not going to have the manpower or facilities for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iCake
I also think that Russia needs these Games. They need the tourism and money the Games will generate for the Russian economy, and they need the prestige of the Games because Russia plans to hold more international competitions in the future.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised if there are some overzealous police officers who DO arrest foreigners during the Olympics and cause a huge scandal. The very fact that this law has been created, and the fact that there has been so much back-and-forth with officials in Russia and on the International Olympic Committee about how and to what degree the laws will be enforced during the games, has led to a lot of concern and outrage in the west. I think because people are so outraged about the law, Russia might as well have said "Hey! All you queers! Come on over and show us how you feel about this law!" I think you can expect to see a LOT of protest during the Games, and it is going to be very interesting how Russia will respond to that.
There is no way to foresee the future, but I predict that there will be a lot of foreigners protesting the laws.
Alex posted the entire text of the law and we have discussed it at some length already.Quote:
Second of all, did somebody here actually examine the law? All it says is that it's prohibited to popularize the notion among juveniles that being a gay is utterly great, awesome and so much better than being dully straight. In other words it's illegal to tell juveniles that they should be gay or to incline them to be gay by any means. And it undoubtly doesn't prohibit anyone from being gay, also it doesn't prohibit anyone from telling an adult that to be gay is great, doesn't prohibit gay clubs as long as they host adults only, doesn't prohibit so called "pride parades" as long as no juveniles are involved and it doesn't prohibit any gay symbolics. Still more it doesn't prohibit a whole load of other gay activities but I think it's enough for now because you've most likely got the point already.
You can't turn a child gay. A child is either gay or not gay. Unfortunately, with this law in place, gay children will not receive any support or understanding from society. They will feel alone, misunderstood, and afraid to admit who they really are. Some will learn to wear a mask, to pretend they are not gay. They may even grow up, have families and kids of their own - and have gay love affairs on the side the whole time. This happens frequently in conservative religious societies where homosexuality is viewed as a "sin." When their wives and kids find out about their secret gay lovers, there is a great deal of pain and suffering for everyone involved, and the cycle just keeps repeating itself. The wife and children will (understandably) no longer trust the husband/father who had a gay lover all this time. The wife will probably divorce the husband, and then the kids will have no father. And ALL of this will happen because the child was not allowed to be openly gay in the first place, and did not have the support of society.Quote:
As far as I see it now this law is not against gays it's against turning our children into gays or somehow inclining them to become one. It definitely doesn't deprive gays of their normal life, that just impose some limits om their interactions with children. And if you ask me I'd say all persons, be they straight or gay, have some certain limits on how they're allowed to interact with children.
I don't think that people are looking at the long-term consequences of these laws. The laws are a band-aid solution to a problem which really requires skilled surgery and intensive care. The law is nothing but an appeal to populist ideals, and a distraction from more serious issues.
Yes, I understand that this is Russia's right to do as it pleases and that my opinion as a "foreigner" is not welcome or appreciated. But I think, over the next ten or twenty years, Russia will slowly come to understand what I have just said here. I guess Russia will have to follow its own path, and find out on its own. It took America and Europe many decades to get to the place where we decided to protect gay people and support them in society, and we are still evolving. Even with all of our protections and support in place, people are still discriminated against, beaten, and killed because they are gay. So even in the west, we have a long way to go.
Okay, I see. I tried to be as distant about gays as I could and then I got nothing but a personal based biased view thrown back at me. Sorry for asking to be as distant in your views as I tried to be. Sorry for asking not to completely distort the gist of what I said. Sorry for being such a jerk who definitely doesn't support homosexuality, although I didn't even said that. Sorry for trying to express my thoughts while holding on to only facts and I'm most definitely sorry for expecting a reply based on facts as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
As for the rational conversation I don't see one and I don't think I will.
Nice chatting about gay rights and great job backing each other up ;)
And now who is allowing personal feelings to get in the way? Come on, Igor, I didn't even accuse you of any of those things. I just thought it was unfair how you (and Doomer) ganged up on Lampada and made statements about her not understanding. So, is it ok for you two to "back each other up" but not ok for me to back up Lampada?Quote:
Originally Posted by iCake
Let's just get away from all the personal stuff. What I mean by personal is not our opinions regarding gay rights, but people's individual personalities. Let's not turn this into a flame-fest! The discussion actually has been quite civil so far. Not everyone is agreeing with each other of course, but for the most part, we are not attacking each other on a personal level.
No one is throwing their opinions in your face anymore than you have thrown your opinions out here. Everyone has a right to agree or disagree. I am just asking that we not start attacking people's individual personalities or making statements about their personal faults, etc, etc. Once the insults start flying, there can no longer be a civilized discussion.
Дебора, в Международном Олимпийском Комитете (МОК) есть статья, запрещающая любую политическую или социальную пропаганду. МОК уже отреагировал, как и российские спортсмены. ...Кстати, на универсиаде и чемпионате по лёгкой атлетике никаких протестов и провокаций не было.
Если говорить более серьезно — русские прекрасно осознают, что это шаг в сторону пропасти. Это исходит от самих людей, у нас прививка от этой напасти.
Человек, который стал геем или лесбиянкой должен искать помощи прежде всего у психолога, поскольку что-то сломало его естественную (природную) программу. В результате, и в пределе возможно только два варианта:Quote:
Unfortunately, with this law in place, gay children will not receive any support or understanding from society. They will feel alone, misunderstood, and afraid to admit who they really are. Some will learn to wear a mask, to pretend they are not gay. ... ...
1. Добровольное или принудительное свидание с психотерапевтом, если человек не сможет переосмыслить свою ориентацию самостоятельно.
2. Человек остается наедине со своей проблемой и никому её не показывает до тех пор, пока не сможет переосмыслить свою ориентацию самостоятельно.
Итак. Человек имеет право на нетрадиционную сексуальную ориентацию, но он не имеет права её пропагандировать и продвигать.
Дебора, понятно почему, или пояснить дополнительно (это не угроза, а аппеляция к знаниям по биологии и социологии)?
On the subject of "are they born gay or did they choose to be gay" - we can all post links to support our point of view on this. But the actual scientific studies which have been done (as opposed to wikipedia articles or links to homophobic websites) show that gay people have no choice. It's actually in their DNA.
Religious people in the west believe gays can be "cured." That has been proven wrong again and again with disastrous results. All that this supposed "therapy" does is indoctrinate people with Bible scriptures showing that homosexuality is a sin, thus shaming the people who are gay to the point where they believe there is something wrong with them. They will then wear a mask, pretend to be straight, and they will wind up not only deceiving themselves but many other people as well. Many of the subjects of this "therapy" also commit suicide from all of the shame that is heaped upon them.
In fact, the largest organization in the US dedicated to so-called "conversion therapy" has closed its doors because it was so unsuccessful, and its leader has even admitted he was wrong.
The Downfall of Exodus International Signals Change | Mia Norton
From this article:
Quote:
The concepts taught by Exodus International have been backed by flawed scientific "evidence" that the anti-gay community has used to justify its agenda. In 2003 Dr. Robert L. Spitzer produced a study claiming that in interviewing 200 graduates of reparative therapy, all claimed to have had a decrease in or a complete reversal of homosexual attractions. Exodus International, Focus on the Family and other Christian-right group have clung to this slim shred of documentation that "gays can be cured." Even after Spitzer renounced that position and admitted that the study was not conclusive on the matter, these groups have continued to base their damaging treatments on his flawed and incomplete data. Exodus International has been revered by the Christian right as the leading reparative therapy group in the nation, spurring many splinter groups to crop up and follow in its likeness. Christian organizations have relied heavily on the work of Exodus International to fuel the misconception that homosexuality is a choice and a sin, and that it can and should be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eledhwen
The idea that gay people can be "cured" is, as I have now noted multiple times, outdated and erroneous. Many psychological studies have already been done to prove this, but I can see that Russia will have to figure this out for itself. Talk to me about this again in twenty years, if I am still alive then. Meanwhile, nothing you are saying here is "new" to me. Americans used to believe the same way back in the 1950's. Religious conservatives in America still do believe this way. But the psychology community, the scientific community, agrees that being gay is not a "bad habit" or a "sin" or something that can be "cured."
Откуда такая информация? Ты точно уверена в её достоверности?
Если это действительно мутация, то ей нельзя позволить заразить нормальных людей. Не так ли (без эмоций)? В природе такие всегда отфильтровывались (и не только по этой причине) естественным или биологическим отбором.
I'm trying to use facts, you trying to use social studies which are not factsQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
And all I'm saying that there is NO PROOF for either of theories. But you saying: "oh, well, there is no proof, so we make up our own conclusion and that's gonna be the truth". I mean that is exactly what the Church was trying to do to you when you were younger and sadly this is what you are doing now. You supporting your believes with fakes to make yourself feel better.
Well, actually there are no facts confirming that being gay is genetic disorder. It's only "believes" and no proofQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
And now you are getting personal and making implications about my level of intelligence/understanding, etc. Sorry, but I am not going to get into this with you. I did not reference "social studies" - I am referencing psychological studies and scientific studies. Whereas, you are just voicing your opinion. You will choose what to believe in, I guess. But as long as you are going after me with veiled insults, I am not going to respond to you further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomer
As I said, I guess you will just have to find out for yourself. Come back to me in 20 years and we can discuss it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eledhwen
Meanwhile, gay people can not "infect" anyone. Being gay is not "contagious." LOL
А я с ним абсолютно согласен. Дебора, не обижайся, никто тебя не оскорблял. Просто расти над собой, если собираешься жить дальше, даже если что-то кажется непоколебимой догмой.
У меня тоже проблем хватает, которые надо решать.
Could you please point me to the article that confirms that being gay is a genetic disorder, because that's what you said earlierQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
psychological studies cannot confirm the medical fact of genetic disorder because psychological studies can only be done on people who actually can respond i.e. not on babies. Thus they might confirm that "gayness" cannot be "cured" but they cannot confirm that people born with it. And that's a big issue and big question. Because if that's either environmental or social then it can be prevented in some cases and people should now that they might have a choice for their children and this is very important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
The Real Story on Gay Genes | DiscoverMagazine.com
Quote:
Methylation turns off certain sections of genetic code. So even though we inherit two copies of every gene—one from our mother, one from our father—whether the gene is methylated often determines which of the two genes will be turned on. Methylation is inherited, just as DNA is. But unlike DNA, which has an enzyme that proofreads both the original and the copy to minimize errors, methylation has no built-in checks. It can change from one generation to the next and may be influenced by diet or environment. It’s in this mutability that Bocklandt hopes to find the secret, by seeing which flipped genetic switches correlate with homosexuality.
A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome an... [Science. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI
http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/1...homosexuality/Quote:
The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.
Quote:
To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific. Gavrilets and his colleagues believe that gene expression may regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone, the all-important male sex hormone. They further argue that epi-marks may help to buffer a female fetus from high levels of testosterone by suppressing receptors that respond to testosterone, for example, (thus ensuring normal fetal development even in the presence of a lot of testosterone) or to buffer a male fetus from low levels of testosterone by upregulating receptors that bind to the hormone (ensuring normal fetal development even in the absence of high levels of testosterone). Normally, these epi-marks are erased after they are activated, but if those marks are passed down to the next generation, the same epi-marks that protected a man in utero may cause oversensitivity to testosterone among his daughters, and the epi-marks that protected a woman in utero may lead to undersensitivity to testosterone among her sons.
I'm sorry, but it does offend me when people make this a personal issue and start attacking me personally, rather than stick to the facts. Of course, I will not allow this to ruin my day or anything. But if people start insulting me, I am not going to continue discussing the subject with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eledhwen
Проверим.
Но в любом случае, если это действительно мутация, то ей нельзя позволить распространиться на нормальных людей. Иначе это приведет к вырождению, а всё начинается именно с толерантности (безвольности).
Yes, Hitler thought the same thing. He thought that everyone who was a "mutant" should be rounded up and "weeded out." And when we start deciding what is a "mutant" and what is "normal" - where does it end up? For now, you call gay people "mutants." What about autistic kids? Should be also weed them out? What about kids who are born with no legs and no arms? Should we round them up and put them in concentration camps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eledhwen
Where does it end?
Стоп-стоп. Я говорил о запрете пропаганды. Если кто-то — человек нетрадиционной сексуальной ориентации — это его дело, но не надо перекладывать с больной головы на здоровую.
You specifically stated that you think "mutants" should not be allowed to exist. I simply replied that Hitler thought the same way. There is no shifting of blame to anyone. I was certainly not "blaming" anyone - but it seemed to me that you are blaming people for being gay, and insisting that it's some kind of "disease" or "mutation" which can be fixed and cured. I'm just asking you to re-examine your own thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eledhwen
I will not "стоп-стоп" supporting gay rights in my country. And if Russia has laws which make it illegal for me to wear something as innocent as a rainbow on my nails, I probably won't travel there any time soon. It makes me sad, because I love Russia. But at the same time, I have friends who are gay and I support them. I am not ever going to stop supporting them.
In my younger years, I was as homophobic as you are. I also thought it was a sickness, or something they could change. My thinking evolved. Like I said, talk to me again in 20 years.
Thank you but there is still no proof. I read the articles and they were long but if you also read the whole thing you will find what I'm talking aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Here is an example
You quoting article
And later the same articles saysQuote:
Methylation turns off certain sections of genetic code. So even though we inherit two copies of every gene—one from our mother, one from our father—whether the gene is methylated often determines which of the two genes will be turned on. Methylation is inherited, just as DNA is. But unlike DNA, which has an enzyme that proofreads both the original and the copy to minimize errors, methylation has no built-in checks. It can change from one generation to the next and may be influenced by diet or environment. It’s in this mutability that Bocklandt hopes to find the secret, by seeing which flipped genetic switches correlate with homosexuality.
So again it's a theory that might be true and might be not true. And all I'm saying that until it is true you shouldn't say otherwise and that's all I'm saying in this regardQuote:
Ideally, Bocklandt would scan the genome of each individual, looking for a methylation pattern anywhere on any chromosome that shows up repeatedly in the gay member of each twin pair. Unfortunately, at the moment it costs about $10 million a person to map out every base pair of the 46 chromosomes, so Bocklandt is looking only where he suspects to unearth genetic gold. If he finds a pattern, then he will look at the DNA beneath the methylation.
Moreover he's studying twins, specifically , to prove that it is beyond DNA. Because twins have the same DNA and one of the twins can be straight while the other is gay. And this is a strong argument against "born this way" nature of the cause. However it is also a strong argument against environmental cause, so there is a chance that it is social(for example one of the twins dominating the other) but again, no proof
PS: However if it is social the Russian law seems to be quite reasonable. I believe some gay people would like to be "not-gay" if they could. If being gay is not genetic but acquired during brain development then it can be prevented. As well as some kids require psychological help to give them a better chance in life (I'm not talking about gays here but rather special eds )
But it's OK for you to state adamantly that people are NOT born gay, right? Just not OK for me to say they they ARE born gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomer
Look, you are entitled to your opinion, Doomer. And I am entitled to mine. Just because I am not a geneticist does not mean I am wrong. And just because this is a science which is still evolving, does not make you right either.
We will agree to disagree. But do not try to shout me down and call my opinions BULLSHIT when you cannot "prove" anything either.
No, you are incorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
I did not say that people are not born gay, I said that's it is wrong to say that they are. And again because there is no proof. And because it is a sensitive topic these small details matter.
I am not calling them bullshit I'm calling them conclusions that are not based on facts but rather on personal believes. So it is a religion but not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
PS: you don't like to be criticized but it seems to me that you think it is appropriate to criticize the others. I think you should play fair if you want to see respect to your opinions .
You've made the statement many times, Doomer. I am not just responding to your latest comment, but to the many, many times you have said that it's "bullshit."Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomer
It isn't "religion" - that's just silly. I'm about as far from "religious" as you can get.
There is more evidence to support that people are born gay, than there is evidence to support that they are not. How you choose to interpret that evidence, or completely ignore it, is your choice.
It isn't criticizing you personally to tell you to stop shouting me down. It's setting boundaries. Criticizing you personally, would be to make some remark about your intelligence or your emotional control, which I have not, and will not, do.
Why A Video Of A 15-Year-Old Russian Kid Facing Homophobic Bullying Is So Horrific - SFGate
From this article:
Warning, video includes strong language and abuse.Quote:
In the video, which appears to have been shot in the winter in the suburbs of a Russian city, a 15-year-old boy has been lured to a meeting place by the fictional online persona "Uncle Dima." However, once he is there he is met by a gang of young men and women. These young men and women apparently created a fake "Uncle Dima" account on VK, a Russian social network similar to Facebook, to lure the young boy to the meeting place.
They imply — though it is difficult to trust them — that the boy was planning to have some kind of sexual conduct with "Uncle Dima" in return for the money to buy a laptop.
Clearly under duress, the 15-year-old is then forced to "confess" to being a homosexual. He is forced to reveal his full name, the school he goes to, his parents' names, home address, etc.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about the video is that the gang that attacks the boy clearly feels proud of their actions. A number appear clearly in the video, and while one does wear a mask at one point, this may be more for intimidation. At another point an older lady comes into the frame, and she commends the gang for their actions, and tells the boy to be ashamed of himself.
http://vimeo.com/71187966#at=0
Радугу никто не запрещал.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
It is pointless to make an argument about something which is not here IMHO. As well as accusing me with itQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Well if you have a better word for it then use it. I guess I can be silly, or was that another accusation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Again, where is the proof to that? I'm getting tired of these statementsQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Well, I wasn't criticizing you I was just making boundaries, everything else is just your interpretations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
Gays arrested in Russia for wearing rainbow suspenders - AMERICAblog
reality checkQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Quote:
After 7 hours of detention, activists were not charged with “propaganda”, but with articles of St. Petersburg administrative code 19.3 (non-compliance with police requests) and 20.2 (participation in illegal demonstration) and released.
del
Warning, phallic images and uncontrollable laughter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbnDr_IbdIU
Really? Where does it say that? Here's the actual text of Part 1 and the beginning of part 2, as already posted by alexsms (the rest of the law details the different amounts of the fines, depending on the circumstances):Quote:
Originally Posted by iCake
1. Пропаганда нетрадиционных сексуальных отношений среди несовершеннолетних, выразившаяся в распространении информации, направленной на формирование у несовершеннолетних нетрадиционных сексуальных установок, привлекательности нетрадиционных сексуальных отношений, искаженного представления о социальной равноценности традиционных и нетрадиционных сексуальных отношений, либо навязывание информации о нетрадиционных сексуальных отношениях, вызывающей интерес к таким отношениям, если эти действия не содержат уголовно наказуемого деяния, -влечет наложение административного штрафа на граждан в размере от четырех тысяч до пяти тысяч рублей; на должностных лиц - от сорока тысяч до пятидесяти тысяч рублей; на юридических лиц - от восьмисот тысяч до одного миллиона рублей либо административное приостановление деятельности на срок до девяноста суток.
2. Действия, предусмотренные частью 1 настоящей статьи, совершенные с применением средств массовой информации и (или) информационно-телекоммуникационных сетей (в том числе сети "Интернет"), если эти действия не содержат уголовно наказуемого деяния [...]
Where does it say ANYTHING about "telling a juvenile to become gay"? The law, if enforced as written, seemingly makes it illegal to publish a written opinion in a newspaper that gay people can lead happy, healthy, and psychologically well-adjusted lives. Because, presumably, the opinion that "gays can be happy" relates to the привлекательность нетрадиционных сексуальных отношений -- and ANYTHING published in a newspaper -- or posted to a non-pay website -- must be considered, in principle, доступно несовершеннолетним. As written, it comes close to the Orwellian concept of "thoughtcrime," since it prohibits the public expression of certain ideas.
I would say, rather, that there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that sexual orientation -- homo or hetero -- tends to develop long before the beginning of puberty. But whether children are literally "born gay", or whether they "become this way" very early in childhood, is an altogether different question.Quote:
There is more evidence to support that people are born gay, than there is evidence to support that they are not.
And I would point out, by the way, that the acquisition of one's native language -- English, Russian, Chinese, or whatever -- is not the result of genes, nor of fetal hormones; it's something learned very early in childhood. Yet the fact that one's native language is learned from the childhood environment does not make it unlearnable or "correctable."
I'm a native English speaker, and even if someday I miraculously obtain "near-native" ability in Russian (стучать по дереву!) I will still be a native English speaker -- the grammar of English will always be more familiar to me. (And, under torture, I would say "f*cking Chr*st!" or "I want my mommy!", depending on the degree of pain -- but I'd scream it in English, not Russian!)
It's also possible, in theory, that a homosexual can learn to enjoy sexual activity with the opposite sex, and thus become "more bisexual" rather than strictly homosexual. But that doesn't mean they lose their same-sex attractions and become heterosexual. (I think that people can probably "shift a bit" on the Kinsey Scale, but there's little evidence that people can move from the extreme homosexual end to the extreme heterosexual end, or vice versa.)
As far as I know, there's only one SURE way for a gay person to become an "ex-homosexual," or for a straight person to become "ex-heterosexual," or for a native English speaker to become an "ex-native-English-speaker" -- горбатого могила исправит!
This link was probably one of the scientific articles that i've read about this article so far, Are People Born Gay? Genetics and Homosexuality
But anyways, this is how they "are" now, whether they born this way or not.
I personally think saying gay people shouldn't be gay, is like, for example saying someone should not like ice cream while he/she actually do like it and enjoy it.
It's their personal business.
And it's the majority of society who (if possible) can change anything in a country. But it definitely needs time depending on the culture of the country.
Just like majority of Sweden, Holland, Norway, Denmark, and..... Supported this idea so now the minority of them who do not support can't do anything but at least they can don't care about it, can't they?! And if they can't respect, at least don't disrespect them "just" because they're gay.
By the way, for people who think this is only about the behavior of foreigners at the Sochi Olympics, I would point out that if Lampada were posting from a Russian Internet account instead of a US one, she would now be liable for fines of at least a few thousand dollars, by my estimate, just for this thread alone! (Again, I'm assuming that the law were to be enforced exactly as it's written -- in reality, I expect that since Lampada is only a "blog commenter" and not a "blog owner," it's unlikely she would be fined, even if she were living in Russia. But why should Russians in Russia be fined for creating a blog that challenges homophobic ideas, and presents gay-supportive ideas instead, just because "minors might read it"?)
~97% of teenage boys would think you were insane if you told them "naked women aren't sexy; naked men are sexy!" To them, and to their brains, it's it's SELF-EVIDENTLY OBVIOUS that naked men are sexually unattractive, but naked women are the most beautiful sight in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by MISSFOXYSWEETCHERRY
~3% of teenage boys are "wired the opposite way"; their subjective and unconscious definition of what "sexy" means is backwards.
And trying to tell either group how they SHOULD define "sexy" is as much a waste of time as telling people they should like raspberry ice cream more than chocolate ice cream.