US Significant changes-split from"Why men are afraid of plant based meat"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nekodaiden

Forum Legend
Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Reaction score
1,209
Age
50
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
Take this as a perspective of a male who lived half his life in the USA,
but lives abroad now.

Over the course of the last 30 (I'm 46) years, I've watched, first from within,
then from without, some significant changes in the country. This is
a personal opinion from observation, although some statistical analysis
I have gone over plays a part in some of that observation.

- Homosexuality has gone from marginalized and (largely) tolerated, to being
pushed in schools and particular to pre-teen children in public education.
It is far more prevelant on talk shows, in sit-coms, and in movies and
is largely cast in either a neutral or positive light. Many sjw's will
say that it is part of the new enlightenment of tolerance and even forward
thinking or human progression, sort of like ending slavery or (some) white
men's bias against other men who are not white.

Although there is some truth in this, I feel on the whole it is way
overstated. Even when I lived in the USA I became acutely aware that
violence against homosexuals made the media far more often than violence
by homosexuals against non-homosexuals and particularly against children.

- The media bias (all media: news, television, entertainment and even internet) has reached such a point that even speaking out for a conservative view (such as that homosexuality is a sin or unnatural) on Facebook can attract a huge amount of negative attention, accusations of 'homophobia' and has even cost some people their jobs)

- Gay marriage is now a thing. If one is opposed to this, you are, by and
large, labeled derogatory titles in the media.

- Under Obama, transgenderism has seen some of the same changes both in
how it's portrayed in media and even in the law. In some areas, to
ridiculous degrees.

- The rise of 3rd wave Feminism, the trampling of men's rights in divorce,
and the MGTOW movement that has partly resulted from these things.

- Men are often portrayed negatively in media focusing on families. They
are consistently seen as bafoons and oafs, or they are stereotyped at
the opposite extreme, as women bashers. Even though a substantial percentage
of domestic violence is initiated by, and executed by women, there is
little public recognition of this. There are no men's shelters. In
domestic violence cases it is assumed the man was the aggressor.
Poor parenting and even abuse by women towards men or to children
rarely makes the news and if it does, it rarely garners national
attention, usually just local.



Given this backdrop, I can understand a man's cynicism and distrust of
veganism. It may not be so much a clinging to so called "manly values",
but rather seen as yet one more way in which their very gender is being
marginalized to the point of being irrelevant. Of course this is irrational
and stems in part from ignorance and exaggerated fear (such as illustrated
in the article about soy and breasts), but it exists in the backdrop of
the things I mentioned above. If none of the aforementioned things were
present, I think many more men would be open to being vegan.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Hog
Take this as a perspective of a male who lived half his life in the USA,
but lives abroad now.

Over the course of the last 30 (I'm 46) years, I've watched, first from within,
then from without, some significant changes in the country. This is
a personal opinion from observation, although some statistical analysis
I have gone over plays a part in some of that observation.

I've read the entirety of your post. We are all free to say what we want, of course. However, your use of the sarcastic "SJW" insult doesn't belong on this forum.

You are incorrect to claim that the media ignores male abuse of male children. The Michael Jackson case, and Cory Feldman's recent publicity, received plenty of media attention. You're presenting a grossly biased view, likely reinforced by the kinds of websites that use terms like "SJW" and "MGTOW".

You can express this attitude on other forums.

Probably better if you stay abroad.
.
 
Last edited:
In these kind of discussions, it's often helpful to site sources/provide links for every claim made.

Also, one example/counter example can not be used to represent an entire population.

Also, it's up to the mods or Owner to determine what words/terms are acceptable here.

The problem with some people is that everything is offensive, (even with neutral and/or ambiguous words),so having a reasonable discussion is impossible.
 
In these kind of discussions, it's often helpful to site sources/provide links for every claim made.

Also, one example/counter example can not be used to represent an entire population.

Also, it's up to the mods or Owner to determine what words/terms are acceptable here.

The problem with some people is that everything is offensive, (even with neutral and/or ambiguous words),so having a reasonable discussion is impossible.

There's no ambiguity about the term "SJW". It's a sarcastic insult, "Social Justice Warrior", always used for insulting progressive activists. This can be immediately clarified by doing a search for forums that use the terms "SJW" and "MGTOW".
.
 
There's no ambiguity about the term "SJW". It's a sarcastic insult, "Social Justice Warrior", always used for insulting progressive activists. This can be immediately clarified by doing a search for forums that use the terms "SJW" and "MGTOW".

I'm not talking about "SJW". I mean words like "all".

But that really doesn't matter. Like I said, it's up to the mods/Owner to decide which words/terms are not appropriate.
 
There's a lot to unpack in this post.

- Homosexuality has gone from marginalized and (largely) tolerated, to being
pushed in schools and particular to pre-teen children in public education.

Do you think that it's O.K. for people to be merely "tolerated" if they are born with certain attributes? For instance, should we tolerate blue eyed people, or should we accept them?


Could you provide examples of how homosexuality is being "pushed"? I suspect you view acceptance of homosexuality as "pushing" it.

It is far more prevelant on talk shows, in sit-coms, and in movies and
is largely cast in either a neutral or positive light.

How is this any different than how heterosexuality has been treated during our lifetimes?


violence against homosexuals made the media far more often than violence
by homosexuals against non-homosexuals and particularly against children.

Oh really? Do you have any sources at all for this, other than your own biases?

- The media bias (all media: news, television, entertainment and even internet) has reached such a point that even speaking out for a conservative view (such as that homosexuality is a sin or unnatural) on Facebook can attract a huge amount of negative attention, accusations of 'homophobia' and has even cost some people their jobs)
Acceptance does not equal bias, no matter how much you wish it did.

- Gay marriage is now a thing. If one is opposed to this, you are, by and
large, labeled derogatory titles in the media.
And quite rightly so, just as if you're opposed to people of different races marrying.

- Under Obama, transgenderism has seen some of the same changes both in
how it's portrayed in media and even in the law. In some areas, to
ridiculous degrees.
Ah, yes. Because Obama is actually gay and Michelle is actually a man.

What is your objection to transgendered individuals? Can you explain?

the trampling of men's rights in divorce,

The laws regarding division of property, maintenance, and child support are actually completely gender neutral now in every state of which I have knowledge, and have been fir quite some time. You should educate yourself.



- Men are often portrayed negatively in media focusing on families. They
are consistently seen as bafoons and oafs, or they are stereotyped at
the opposite extreme, as women bashers.

And women are portrayed as golddiggers, superficial twits, helpless, etc. What's your point?

Even though a substantial percentage
of domestic violence is initiated by, and executed by women, there is
little public recognition of this. There are no men's shelters. In
domestic violence cases it is assumed the man was the aggressor.
Actually, no to all of this.

Poor parenting and even abuse by women towards men or to children
rarely makes the news and if it does, it rarely garners national
attention, usually just local.

Really, in what alternate universe are you living?!?! When a woman kills her children, it becomes a national scandal, and is in the news everwhere.
 
Last edited:
Take this as a perspective of a male who lived half his life in the USA,
but lives abroad now.

Over the course of the last 30 (I'm 46) years, I've watched, first from within,
then from without, some significant changes in the country. This is
a personal opinion from observation, although some statistical analysis
I have gone over plays a part in some of that observation.

- Homosexuality has gone from marginalized and (largely) tolerated, to being
pushed in schools and particular to pre-teen children in public education.
It is far more prevelant on talk shows, in sit-coms, and in movies and
is largely cast in either a neutral or positive light. Many sjw's will
say that it is part of the new enlightenment of tolerance and even forward
thinking or human progression, sort of like ending slavery or (some) white
men's bias against other men who are not white.

Although there is some truth in this, I feel on the whole it is way
overstated. Even when I lived in the USA I became acutely aware that
violence against homosexuals made the media far more often than violence
by homosexuals against non-homosexuals and particularly against children.

- The media bias (all media: news, television, entertainment and even internet) has reached such a point that even speaking out for a conservative view (such as that homosexuality is a sin or unnatural) on Facebook can attract a huge amount of negative attention, accusations of 'homophobia' and has even cost some people their jobs)

- Gay marriage is now a thing. If one is opposed to this, you are, by and
large, labeled derogatory titles in the media.

- Under Obama, transgenderism has seen some of the same changes both in
how it's portrayed in media and even in the law. In some areas, to
ridiculous degrees.

- The rise of 3rd wave Feminism, the trampling of men's rights in divorce,
and the MGTOW movement that has partly resulted from these things.

- Men are often portrayed negatively in media focusing on families. They
are consistently seen as bafoons and oafs, or they are stereotyped at
the opposite extreme, as women bashers. Even though a substantial percentage
of domestic violence is initiated by, and executed by women, there is
little public recognition of this. There are no men's shelters. In
domestic violence cases it is assumed the man was the aggressor.
Poor parenting and even abuse by women towards men or to children
rarely makes the news and if it does, it rarely garners national
attention, usually just local.



Given this backdrop, I can understand a man's cynicism and distrust of
veganism. It may not be so much a clinging to so called "manly values",
but rather seen as yet one more way in which their very gender is being
marginalized to the point of being irrelevant. Of course this is irrational
and stems in part from ignorance and exaggerated fear (such as illustrated
in the article about soy and breasts), but it exists in the backdrop of
the things I mentioned above. If none of the aforementioned things were
present, I think many more men would be open to being vegan.

I want to add that I see a general lack of understanding of the nature of sexual predation underlying much of your post.

I suspect that you think that any man who sexually abuses a boy is homosexual. That's simply not true, just as the male prisoners who rape other male prisoners by and large are not homosexuals.

The perpetrators in both instances are predators who rape those who are (a) vulnerable and (b) readily available to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy_T and PTree15
Also, it's up to the mods or Owner to determine what words/terms are acceptable here.
SJW - if that's the word you mean - clearly has a derogatory meaning, but we don't have a rule against it. Neko's post could have been improved by replacing that word with 'social justice activists' or similar.
 
I've read the entirety of your post. We are all free to say what we want, of course. However, your use of the sarcastic "SJW" insult doesn't belong on this forum.

You are incorrect to claim that the media ignores male abuse of male children. The Michael Jackson case, and Cory Feldman's recent publicity, received plenty of media attention. You're presenting a grossly biased view, likely reinforced by the kinds of websites that use terms like "SJW" and "MGTOW".

You can express this attitude on other forums.

Probably better if you stay abroad.
.

Michael Jackson and Cory Feldman are very recognized names/persons. Allegations of sexual misconduct by such persons does not equate to fair reporting on such an issue, when by "fair" I mean reporting in the aggregate on so called mainstream or corporate news. The vast majority of (national - at least in the US when I lived there) focused on violence against homosexual persons, and minimized reporting on issues such as gay/gay violence, gay/heterosexual violence, and gay/children violence. Of course such reports did exist, what I'm saying is that they did not get national attention and press coverage.

Last time I checked, using the term "SJW" wasn't part of the rules here. If you want to enact the thought police on this forum outside of the subject we can all agree on (being vegan), then go right ahead. Push for it. This board's membership will drop like a rock. Instead, why not either respond intelligently or ignore? Bullying people for having a different opinion is the position of the weak.
 
SJW - if that's the word you mean - clearly has a derogatory meaning, but we don't have a rule against it. Neko's post could have been improved by replacing that word with 'social justice activists' or similar.
As far as I'm concerned, the use of "SJW" isn't the issue with the post. It just confirms that the post wasn't written from a position of naive ignorance, but rather from a certain established viewpoint.

My concern is what the post expresses about non -heterosexual and non- cis individuals. What message do you think it sends to members of this board who happen to be other than heterosexual and cis? What message about this board does it send to nonmembers who visit and read it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy_T
There's a lot to unpack in this post.



Do you think that it's O.K. for people to be merely "tolerated" if they are born with certain attributes? For instance, should we tolerate blue eyed people, or should we accept them?

The idea of an inborn, or "born with" trait of homosexual attraction is about as proven as an inborn trait of trying to shove vegetables into my armpit in order to receive sustenance.

Could you provide examples of how homosexuality is being "pushed"? I suspect you view acceptance of homosexuality as "pushing" it.

In some ways it's very much like antisemitism. Criticize Israel and you'll be labeled as an anti-semite by some. Also, pointing out the fact that corporate media is largely jew owned will also earn one the label, even though it is true. You may be a Nazi wishing for the holocaust reborn simply for holding these views.

In a similar manner, because of the media frenzy on heterosexual to homosexual violence (and the focus on it in national media and programs, along with the minimization of the opposite), saying one doesn't agree with homosexuality (either as a lifestyle or inborn trait) elicits an assumption among many that one is prone to violence against them due to hatred.

It is further pushed (in the US at least) in government schools. Young children are indoctrinated with programs aimed at promoting homosexuality as normal. This was completely absent when I went to government school. However it is now part of the agenda.

Holding gay pride parades is considered normal, but if one wants to hold a heterosexual pride parade this is considered 'homophobic' or 'racist' or 'hateful'. Yes, this has happened.

In media such as television shows, how often do we get a picture of what is in fact a reality for many people who engage in homosexual acts? Statistically these persons have many more partners over a shorter period than the average heterosexual, and yet in media they always seem to be the monogamous oppressed ones, beaten up or threatened by the violent heterosexual bigot.

Church - now, I do not attend any more, but I used to when I lived in the USA. The church I went to (a Lutheran one) was actually ORDERED from the higher ups in the church hierarchy to start promoting homosexuality and gay marriage. The pastor of said church even got defrocked because of the issue, because he refused. However, he was re-instated by the congregation and the church as far as I am aware had to break away from the higher organization to which it belonged.

So yes, considering all these things and others that don't immediately come to mind, it is my view that homosexuality is in fact pushed, especially in the USA, and this drive trickles down to other nations like the one I'm in now. Without the push in the USA, for example, Australia is unlikely to have followed suit in area of same sex marriage.


How is this any different than how heterosexuality has been treated during our lifetimes?

It's different because heterosexuality is not only the historical norm, it is the basis on which we pro-create and survive as a species. On this latter basis, it is the base norm. It is a social norm primarily on this basis also. One can argue that homosexuality may need to be "normalized" because of the violence by some individuals against others, or because one believes it is inborn or whatever, but it is in point of fact encroaching on the base norm, not just a social norm.

I might add that historically, it is used to demoralize nations, as it was used pre WW2 to demoralize Germany prior to the Nazi rise to power.


Oh really? Do you have any sources at all for this, other than your own biases?

You mean statistically? I don't have the research at hand, or am aware of any such research, which may or may not exist. But sure, I'll tell you one from my own 'bias'. Matthew Shepherd. Huge story in the national news. Made all sorts of headlines. Around the same time the violence against Shepherd happened, the story of a pre-teen boy was seduced, raped and chocked to death with his own underwear by 2 homosexual men. This story didn't get any national coverage. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jesse_Dirkhising#Media_coverage

And quite rightly so, just as if you're opposed to people of different races marrying.

I believe this is a false equivalence and have already alluded to that in an earlier response.

Ah, yes. Because Obama is actually gay and Michelle is actually a man.

What is your objection to transgendered individuals? Can you explain?

Uh, I didn't state that Michelle is a man, although it's possible. This is a straw man.

My objection is similar to my objection to homosexuality. I reject the idea it is natural/normal and that it should be pushed because we have been taught to believe that not doing so results in violence. Sometimes it does result in violence, and I do not condone that. That being said, in prison a large amount of hate and violence is exercised against convicted child molesters by other prisoners. Perhaps on this basis we should normalize pedophilia? I think the argument here is much the same and relies on a strictly emotional response that is pushed by pro-homosexual groups just like the pro-Israel groups bring up the holocaust.


The laws regarding division of property, maintenance, and child support are actually completely gender neutral now in every state of which I have knowledge, and have been fir quite some time. You should educate yourself.

No they aren't, but I'm not going to go into a long list here. Men's rights groups (talking here from within heterosexual marriage and divorce) would not exist if they were equitable as you claim.
 
Last edited:
Holding gay pride parades is considered normal, but if one wants to hold a heterosexual pride parade this is considered 'homophobic' or 'racist' or 'hateful'. Yes, this has happened.

That's too bad, I would love to see a hetero pride parade. How would you decorate your float, Neko?
 
VeggieBoards went defunct because it tolerated trollery like this.

Is this a LGBT-welcoming forum, or is it not?

I don't come here to read anti-gay rants.
.

So if one doesn't agree with your opinion, one is a troll? You may consider opposition to your opinion "trollery" and "ranting", but at the same time have you considered that individuals who don't agree with your opinion may not "come here to read pro-gay(or insert here any view on which divisive opinions exist) rants"?

Difference: I can handle opinions different than mine, even if they might be the majority opinion of the group. You appear to not be able to, so resort to group bullying based on an assumed agreement among readers, members and non-members alike.
 
VeggieBoards went defunct because it tolerated trollery like this.

Is this a LGBT-welcoming forum, or is it not?

I don't come here to read anti-gay rants.

VeggieBoards is still around. It went defunct in its original format because Michael sold it.

You know, I just checked. You posted on VB fairly recently.... How can you claim it's defunct?
 
So if one doesn't agree with your opinion, one is a troll? You may consider opposition to your opinion "trollery" and "ranting", but at the same time have you considered that individuals who don't agree with your opinion may not "come here to read pro-gay(or insert here any view on which divisive opinions exist) rants"?

Difference: I can handle opinions different than mine, even if they might be the majority opinion of the group. You appear to not be able to, so resort to group bullying based on an assumed agreement among readers, members and non-members alike.

LOL.

Nope nope nope.

Your words are transparently those of a troll, like many I've seen before.

I am not bullying anyone. I am insisting on civility.

If a person were to insistently criticize inter-ethnic marriage, while attending a party with inter-ethnic couples, that person would be asked to leave. Is this bullying? It this an unfair refusal to hear differing opinions? No. It is civility, informed by 21st century sensibilities.

In the United States, 83% of people ages 18-29 approve of gay marriage: https://news.gallup.com/poll/257705/support-gay-marriage-stable.aspx. My co-workers include several people in their 20s - most straight, a few gay. These kids socialize with complete comfort. The "gay" thing is not even an issue with them. Your anti-gay sentiments are the sad relics of previous decades.

If you are a participant in MGTOW culture, then I say this: I'm sorry that you had the misfortune of dealing with an abusive mother, wife, or sister. Your anger at them is natural, but your generalized rage is not acceptable.

If you are against gay people, then I say this: I'm sorry that you had the misfortune of running into a psychotic, abusive man. However, it's not fair to resent the entire gay community.

The focus of this forum is veganism. You, however, are trying to cause a shitstorm by attracting attention and resentment. This can't be allowed to continue. I trust that the moderators know this.
 
VeggieBoards is still around. It went defunct in its original format because Michael sold it.

You know, I just checked. You posted on VB fairly recently.... How can you claim it's defunct?

Because its volume of posts is 90% lower than it used to be. I have 3000+ posts on VeggieBoards.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: silva
Because its volume of posts is 90% lower than it used to be. I have 3000+ posts on VeggieBoards.
.
A lot of the activity on the old VB was troll post and people reacting to troll post. When Michael sold it, many people left because they didn't care for the new owner. I also suspect, a lot of the trolls moved on with Michael.

Also...
 
Your words are transparently those of a troll, like many I've seen before.

I am not bullying anyone. I am insisting on civility.

The focus of this forum is veganism. You, however, are trying to cause a shitstorm by attracting attention and resentment. This can't be allowed to continue. I trust that the moderators know this.

:) No, you're not bullying anyone in your mind, because it's apparent you can live with obvious contradictions like the above. Merely by expressing my views you assume ulterior motives, you call me a troll, and you are basically asking for me to be banned. But you're not bullying anyone. LOL.

If a person were to insistently criticize inter-ethnic marriage, while attending a party with inter-ethnic couples, that person would be asked to leave. Is this bullying? It this an unfair refusal to hear differing opinions? No. It is civility, informed by 21st century sensibilities.

False equivalence. This is a vegan forum where veganism is promoted. It is not a gay vegan forum, or a heterosexual vegan forum, or an ethnic vegan forum, or a Republican vegan forum, or a Liberal vegan forum, or a Democratic vegan forum. It is not a Communist Vegan forum, or a Capitalist Vegan forum or a Vegan forum for National Socialists. It is not a Jewish Vegan forum, or a Christian Vegan forum, or an Atheist Vegan forum, or a Buddhist Vegan forum or a Deist Vegan forum. But any one of these people may be present, a member, or reading this forum.

In the United States, 83% of people ages 18-29 approve of gay marriage: https://news.gallup.com/poll/257705/support-gay-marriage-stable.aspx. My co-workers include several people in their 20s - most straight, a few gay. These kids socialize with complete comfort. The "gay" thing is not even an issue with them. Your anti-gay sentiments are the sad relics of previous decades.

Hate to break it to ya, but this is not a United States Vegan forum either. Also, it doesn't matter if a certain percentage /age group holds some opinion within a certain region of the world. That doesn't make it either moral or true. Your reasoning so reflects the fact that many people cannot handle that the internet is an INTERNATIONAL medium, and we don't necessarily give a **** about what some people in your country think. I suggest you turn it off and go back to your CNN/Fox news programming if you can't handle it.


If you are a participant in MGTOW culture, then I say this: I'm sorry that you had the misfortune of dealing with an abusive mother, wife, or sister. Your anger at them is natural, but your generalized rage is not acceptable.

I was married to a good and kind hearted woman (now deceased), I have no sisters, my mother is not abusive, nor do I have significant abusive females in the past. I am not MGTOW, but on many levels I do understand where they are coming from. Oh, and I'm not full of rage. However it's clear to me that you are a manipulator and rely on generalizations and assumptions to make your points.

If you are against gay people, then I say this: I'm sorry that you had the misfortune of running into a psychotic, abusive man. However, it's not fair to resent the entire gay community.

Wrong again. There are no psychotic, abusive men in my past. I've never been raped, or even abused by men. This sounds like you projecting to me while trying to use it to paint the picture of me you want - a reflection of YOUR rage and hatred.
 
The idea of an inborn, or "born with" trait of homosexual attraction is about as proven as an inborn trait of trying to shove vegetables into my armpit in order to receive sustenance.

I guess the same is true of heterosexual attraction. It's just your choice.



In some ways it's very much like antisemitism. Criticize Israel and you'll be labeled as an anti-semite by some. Also, pointing out the fact that corporate media is largely jew owned will also earn one the label, even though it is true. You may be a Nazi wishing for the holocaust reborn simply for holding these views.

I've never heard the phrase "jew owned" from anyone who isn't a raging anti-Semite.

In a similar manner, because of the media frenzy on heterosexual to homosexual violence (and the focus on it in national media and programs, along with the minimization of the opposite), saying one doesn't agree with homosexuality (either as a lifestyle or inborn trait) elicits an assumption among many that one is prone to violence against them due to hatred.

Let me be clear about your position: Are you saying that you don't "agree with homosexuality (either as a lifestyle or inborn trait) "?

It is further pushed (in the US at least) in government schools. Young children are indoctrinated with programs aimed at promoting homosexuality as normal. This was completely absent when I went to government school. However it is now part of the agenda.

I gather it's your position that homosexuality is "abnormal"? Come on, come right out and say what you believe, or are you ashamed to do so?

Holding gay pride parades is considered normal, but if one wants to hold a heterosexual pride parade this is considered 'homophobic' or 'racist' or 'hateful'. Yes, this has happened.

Ah, you probably also think it's awful that white pride parades are considered racist.

In media such as television shows, how often do we get a picture of what is in fact a reality for many people who engage in homosexual acts? Statistically these persons have many more partners over a shorter period than the average heterosexual, and yet in media they always seem to be the monogamous oppressed ones, beaten up or threatened by the violent heterosexual bigot.

Your sense of victimization is really astonishing and fantasy fueled.

Church - now, I do not attend any more, but I used to when I lived in the USA. The church I went to (a Lutheran one) was actually ORDERED from the higher ups in the church hierarchy to start promoting homosexuality and gay marriage. The pastor of said church even got defrocked because of the issue, because he refused. However, he was re-instated by the congregation and the church as far as I am aware had to break away from the higher organization to which it belonged.

Now this is really a crock of excrement. I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which is the most liberal of the Lutheran denominations in America, and the only one which allows ordination of women. The ELCA only recently (within the past decade) voted to allow the ordination of gay clergy and the sanctification of same sex marriages. (Neither of which, btw, constitutes "promoting" homosexuality. )

So yes, considering all these things and others that don't immediately come to mind, it is my view that homosexuality is in fact pushed, especially in the USA, and this drive trickles down to other nations like the one I'm in now. Without the push in the USA, for example, Australia is unlikely to have followed suit in area of same sex marriage.




It's different because heterosexuality is not only the historical norm, it is the basis on which we pro-create and survive as a species. On this latter basis, it is the base norm. It is a social norm primarily on this basis also. One can argue that homosexuality may need to be "normalized" because of the violence by some individuals against others, or because one believes it is inborn or whatever, but it is in point of fact encroaching on the base norm, not just a social norm.

Ah, a variant on the old "same sex marriage endangers heterosexual marriage" complaint, which no one has ever adequately explained. How does couple A's marriage in any way endanger couple B's marriage? How does the fact that your neighbor is homosexual encroach on your heterosexuality?


I might add that historically, it is used to demoralize nations, as it was used pre WW2 to demoralize Germany prior to the Nazi rise to power.

What in holy hell are you talking about here?! I was born in Germany, almost all my family still live there, my mother was born in 1919 and lived there through the war, and I can assure you that none of them were demoralized by the existence of homosexuality. (My mother didn't even know it existed until my sister was college aged and explained it to her.)

I have things to do and frankly am sickened by your viewpoints, so I will leave addressing the rest of your post until later.


Indian Summer and/or any mods who may look at this thread:

I hope you will have the decency to not delete these posts. If anything were to be deleted, it should have been done when these hateful viewpoints were first posted. Since no action was taken, I'ved spent time responding, and those responses should stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silva and Andy_T
Status
Not open for further replies.