Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

LGBT: Critical Mass?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LGBT: Critical Mass?

    This came up at lunch yesterday. It seems to me and the other men that this issue has rather suddenly reached a point at which the outcomes are inevitable. Whether it seems to any of us that gay marriage, gay leaders in the BSA or homosexuality in general is right or wrong, good for the country or not, it is going to change. A psychologist in the group pointed out the similarity to what happened to women in the late Seventies and the Eighties. People's attitudes about "a woman's place" just changed almost overnight.

    What do you guys think? I'm sure many will not agree, but it's an interesting thought.

  • #2
    The laws and their application evidently are changing rather quickly. I'm not so sure about people's attitudes. I think part of what we're seeing is a generational effect of young people who see things differently from their elders. But the elders are dying out and the young people are just beginning to flex their 'muscles'.

    This is one of the wonderful aspects of being a teacher: I get to have a far greater influence on society than merely my meager contribution to the gene pool.

    Comment


    • DigitalScout
      DigitalScout commented
      Editing a comment
      Some people's attitudes never change. In a poll taken in 2012, 29% of likely Republican voters in Mississippi feel that interracial marriage should be illegal. http://huff.to/wrfr8J [Huffington Post]

    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      DigitalScout, if you will take Scouter99's excellently-researched post and apply it here, you will see that almost exactly the same arguments and reasons explain the change regarding as well as concern/opposition about interracial marriage (actually nearly all aspect of racial integration). I remember it well. The same conspiracies, Biblical references, etc. It makes perfect sense.

  • #3
    Humanity has undergone more change in the last 100 years than it's first 10,000 years of existence. That rate of change has also increased during that time. The basic problem arises when that speed of change occurs without opportunity to assimilate the changes and what that may mean for the future. I'm thinking the eventual problem lies in the fact that humanity will collapse due to being overwhelmed by this problem. One cannot wake up every morning not knowing how to function in a world that is far different than yesterday. Critical mass is a good way of describing the process. I have no idea where we are in the process, but there is an increasing tempo of life that was never part of the human experience in the past. How long the species can tolerate that is anybody's guess. Evidence of this is already being experienced in the stress that seems so prevalent in the more "advanced" societies of the world. Ask anyone today whether they like the way things are and are going or would they want, if possible, return to a more simpler life.

    Comment


    • ghjim
      ghjim commented
      Editing a comment
      Isn't that the point that was made in the book "Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler.

  • #4
    Not sure about collapse, but the pace will continue to increase until there is a major shock to the system. And there are a bunch of them out there from political to societal and across the spectrum.

    Comment


    • #5
      Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.
      The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.
      Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.
      Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

      The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.
      What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)
      Last edited by Scouter99; 06-28-2013, 11:40 PM.

      Comment


      • DigitalScout
        DigitalScout commented
        Editing a comment
        Packsaddle, just to clarify, I don't believe Illuminati conspiracy theories. Many people are perfectly willing to accept crazy explanations when things happen which they don't understand. People don't like not knowing. They will believe just about any explanation if it wraps it up in a nice tidy package. Mysterious lights in the sky ... must be aliens. Unidentified animal making strange sounds ... must be Bigfoot. 2000 years ago, if there was lightning in the sky ... it must be an angry Zeus.

        For some people, believing that two adult people of the same sex can love each other is crazy. Now that that society is starting to accept gay marriage, the anti-gay people think, "well that is really nuts so there must be some kind of conspiracy in the works." To conspiracy theorists, the crazier the theory, the more rational it is to them.

      • packsaddle
        packsaddle commented
        Editing a comment
        Aw, now you're taking all the fun out. You DO know that bigfoot is real...right?
        Last edited by packsaddle; 07-02-2013, 08:21 PM.

      • King Ding Dong
        King Ding Dong commented
        Editing a comment
        Of course Sasquatch is real. I see him on the Jack Links commercials all the time.

        http://www.jacklinks.com/the-wild-side/commercials.aspx

    • #6
      I agree with packsaddle. I know that teenagers having babies out of wedlock in the last 50 years has changed from shuffling them off to a place far from home and putting the baby up for adoption so the girl can return and pretend nothing happened over the past six months of their absence, to making accommodations so the girls can stay in high school up until her due date. I have also heard that some schools who have a large population of unwed mothers have even setup a daycare for the children on the school grounds. Condoms and morning After pills can be obtained in the school also.. Now I know some republican governments are going back to only teaching abstinence in the high school health ed classes.. Which mean there high schools will need those daycares, especially as they make abortions harder to get.. So if he wanted to argue republican politics have gotten more conservative on the topic of sex, I would buy that.

      Also I would say the reaction this past year by society on the whole Sandusky and Penn State scandal, I would also say society was not accepting pedophiles as fine.. Now colleges corruptive practices of anything goes if it revolves around those in the football program, had a light shown on it in a negative way.. But, they were getting pretty complacent about this as well as heterosexual males who raped women.. So they were pretty even handed over issues of sex on all fronts, as well as theft, vandalism etc..

      Comment


      • packsaddle
        packsaddle commented
        Editing a comment
        Exactly. Contemporary events seem to contradict his claims.

      • Scouter99
        Scouter99 commented
        Editing a comment
        Packsaddles' use of the word pedophile is (purposefully) erroneous and does not reflect reality or my argument which is exactly the opposite: That relationships with sexually mature/maturing people is not pedophilia. I've replied to him above. In either event, Sandusky's case has no bearing on the tpoic, because it is non-consensual, and I have already made the distinction that we're talking about consensual relationships.
        Last edited by Scouter99; 06-30-2013, 02:23 PM.

    • #7
      Actually I brought up Sandusky, not Packsaddle.. So you are talking about Romeo & Juliet laws, which some states have and some do not.. Mostly because pedophiles laws are getting stronger and being enforced and even out of prison you are labeled for life with where you can live, and having to register publically to which then you get neighbors complaining about you moving into the neighborhood.. This is tough punishment for a boy that is only 6 months to a year older then his girlfriend and does not think about the consequence of that year/6 months when he becomes of age and she is still underage.. Before the victims never came forward, the parents did not want to prosecute, it was the father doing the abuse and was considered a "family matter" no one got involved in, or no one believed the child.. The Romeo & Juliet laws are trying to help young kids from being ruined for life for things that in the past no one would have prosecuted him for.

      Our own high school had one of these incidents, my son knew the two kids involved. The girls dad wanted to ruin the life of the boy who was 6 months older then the girl. and had been dating her for like 3 or 4 years. We did not have a Romeo & Juliet ruling, but the New Hampshire courts definitely did not want to throw the book at the boy.. I know there was a lot of counseling and mediating and finally something was settled out of court.. After that I know the law makers started looking into some governance around this, I don't know if anything was passed on it..

      Still I will maintain these exception clauses are springing up due to the fact that we as a society are coming up with very strict and harsh punishments for true pedophiles, where as in the past we ignored the crime, and while some deserve the book thrown at them, some do not.. It is not all that different from punishments doled out to a person who stole a loaf of bread and someone who broke into an electronics store and ran off with $10,000 worth of merchandise, which focus on the amount stolen to decide whether it is petty theft or Grand Theft.

      Comment


      • Scouter99
        Scouter99 commented
        Editing a comment
        To an extent, you are correct that these laws are coming from a desire to prosecute pedophiles. They are also mostly social attempts to control adolescent sexuality, which is something that large portions of the population is still uncomfortable with. There is a succinct article on the history of age of consent here: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230 Basically, the role of those laws began as a way to protect very young children (10 and under) then transformed to a means of (trying) to control teen sexuality as well as protect young people from older people.
        When a legislature enacts a law that negatively sanctions sex acts between teens, they are explicitly not protecting them from pedophiles, because by definition it is impossible that either party to the act is a pedophile. Those laws are social control laws, and, as your school found out the hard way (along with schoolkids all over the country every week) they don't work. They criminalize normal behavior between adolescents. Texas is one state which has been debating carving out exceptions to their sex and pornography laws for minors. Maybe National will move its HQ back to NY, or to California where the age of consent is even higher and more "conservative" :P

    • #8
      The carving out of the law into lessor crimes with the Romeo & Juliet laws to me still says society is accepting of teenage sex, (more like prefer you didn't, but I have to live in reality and accept that most likely you will.) While Teens having sex (consensual or not) with people who have a large age gap is still being considered not as teenage sex, but more of older adults finding easy prey out of gullible teenage kids.. The adults should be old enough to know better, and the teens can still do stupid things.. Therefore the adults are expected to protect the children from themselves if need be.. (Say a young girl who throws herself at her teacher..) To me this isn't teen sex at all, as one of the sexual partners is not a teen..

      I just looked up NH law, seems we have a rule that it is a misdemeanor if the age gap is no more the 4 years.. If you think about it, that is a very large range in years.. Since age of consent is 16 that means a 16yo would have to go after a 13yo to be labeled a pedophile..And you would need to be 19years old trying to date a 15yo to be a pedophile We use to have it as a 3 year gap in age, and moved it to a 4 year gap in age.. At those ages the gaps in years is very noticeable to young adults that they should feel that there is something wrong with a relationship with this age gap..

      If a state hasn't carved out a Romeo/Juliet law perhaps you could say it is to be used to scare teens away from teenage sex.. But, since more states are carving out these rules while making the penalties for true pedophiles stricter.. I guess I just don't see it as society trying to use the rules to scare teenagers away from sex amongst themselves.

      Comment


      • #9
        Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point (http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/) provides a really interesting analysis of how trends build slowly and then suddenly reach the critical mass needed to 'tip' and become mainstream. He uses the term 'social epidemic'. Much of what Gladwell describes in his book applies to the progress made in gay rights. I do not agree with Scouter99 that our society has been manipulated in some sinister way. We are seeing the recognition that essential human rights should not be denied to any group. When on man's rights are taken away, we all lose something.

        Much attention has been given to Nelson Mandela recently. In South Africa, where racial discrimination was law for decades, gay people can get married. How did South Africa get so far ahead of the United States?

        Comment


        • #10
          >>How did South Africa get so far ahead of the United States?<<

          I wouldn't describe it as "far ahead," nor do most people I know who have spent time in SA. However, they got there by rewriting their constitution. It's a plethora of specific rights guaranteed to the people, including right to health care, a roof over your head and on and on. Of course, SA can't pay for those things, so they have taxed the rich right out of the country.

          Comment


          • #11
            What we will see next is a push for the legalization of polygamy under similar equal protection arguments because it is, after all, between consenting adults. Then as Scouter 99 points out, we will see consent and "statutory" rape weakened. After all, an 18-year old woman pursuing a 14-year old girl just does not have the same ring to it as an 18 year old man and a 14 year old girl: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/fath..._charge_unfair. From that point, who knows? Everything moves faster when you're going downhill after all.

            Comment


            • King Ding Dong
              King Ding Dong commented
              Editing a comment
              I also call it the Ricky and Lucy Policy. (For you young ones, Ricky and Lucy slept in twin beds on the show) I prefer to call it the No Marriage Policy because they are essentially saying it is damaging to youth to see parents sleeping in the the same room. It is so much better if parents are split up.

              Cub camping is supposed to be family camping and we are supposed to promote camping in the program. So lets make families buy TWO tents. Everyone ignores the policy and laughs about it. I mean who is going to police such nonsense. Is the DE going to come around at 2 AM unzipping tents and rousing out these "dens of sin" ?
              Last edited by King Ding Dong; 07-02-2013, 08:52 AM.

            • Merlyn_LeRoy
              Merlyn_LeRoy commented
              Editing a comment
              "I Love Lucy" was a bit controversial when it started, as it was the first major TV show with a mixed marriage.

            • cubdadinnj
              cubdadinnj commented
              Editing a comment
              Equal marriage is about 2 adults -- not about multiple adults. So honestly, this is a total red herring!

          • #12
            Sorry Brew, I'm not going to go out on the extreme with you. Social progress is like this with a few steps forward and a step back, moving in lurches and not with predictable steadiness. I understand that some people oppose equal rights for certain groups of people. Some of these opponents even believe that their religious beliefs have legal relevance. Of all of our contemporary social topics, Jesus is quoted most often speaking about money. If he was as worried about homosexuality as today's conservatives would like to believe, I think that he would have had more to say about it.

            Despite all of the hype by Christianists about protecting the institute of marriage, Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. Some of those folks should look at gay people getting married as true conservatives and not religious zealots. I think that parents raising children in families with two parents in a stable and committed relationship is a good thing. I don't care if it sometimes happens that some of those parents are gay.

            Comment


            • packsaddle
              packsaddle commented
              Editing a comment
              Polygamy is still legal in the USA as well. Just not all at the same time. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

            • King Ding Dong
              King Ding Dong commented
              Editing a comment
              Can anybody explain how Newt is now a Catholic ? Is it because he wasn't one in his previous two marriages, so those do not count ?

            • Sentinel947
              Sentinel947 commented
              Editing a comment
              King Ding Dong: I always assumed he was Excommunicated. But looking at the actual facts, he was last married in 2000, and became a Catholic in 2009. The Catholic Church probably doesn't recognize his previous marriages. To Catholics, there is a difference between what the Government says is a marriage, and what we consider Holy Matrimony, (Marriage). I would be assuming (Which means I don't really know the answer) that the Church doesn't recognize his earlier marriages since it didn't have a part in them. (He was a Southern Baptist at the time.)



              Wikipedia says that his previous two marriages were considered annulled. (However there are no citations, so I can't verify the accuracy of the claim.) I'm not sure if he pulled some strings, or if that's common practice to annul old Marriages from people who convert to Catholicism and want to Marry a Catholic.

          • #13
            Look at the bright side: public schools can again sponsor Scouts, California police & fire can get re-involved with Learning for Life. Research biologists understand that the incidence of homosexuality increases as an area increases past its carrying capacity -- one of Gaia's pressure relief valves. We need to be very careful we (hetereo) don't treat gays as our forefathers treated post Civil War freed slaves

            Comment


            • Merlyn_LeRoy
              Merlyn_LeRoy commented
              Editing a comment
              Look at the bright side: public schools can again sponsor Scouts, California police & fire can get re-involved with Learning for Life.

              Not until atheists can join.

            • cubdadinnj
              cubdadinnj commented
              Editing a comment
              In our state, many school districts not only don't allow Scout troops to meet in school facilities, they would never allow PTAs/HSAs to be sponsoring organizations since there is still discrimination against gay Scout leaders.

          • #14
            Originally posted by moosetracker View Post
            Now I know some republican governments are going back to only teaching abstinence in the high school health ed classes.. Which mean there high schools will need those daycares, especially as they make abortions harder to get.
            Do you have any empirical data to suggest that abstinence-only sex education leads to more out-of-wedlock pregnancy than comprehensive sex ed, condoms, morning-after pills, and abortion?

            Comment


            • #15
              Well, wrong, to say "no" teenager is an absolute. All absolutes are false by definition. Next, this particular page is poor at best. First, there are no labels on the grids for the data other than teen pregnancy rates. What does a rate of 165 mean? Is that 165 pregnancies in 100,000 teens or 1000 teens? Second, there a really big assumption written into the first graph estimating the numbers of pregnancies that end in stillbirth or mis-carriage. Anytime there are estimates there are biases. Third, the graphics do little to explain states like WI, ND and NE which have low rates and no mandated programs. The article also doesn't address why CA is in the third highest rate category even though it does have mandated, medically accurate, no mention of religion sex ed. The cited article does nothing to deal with other possible cause/effect relationships such as the general state of education in those states, poverty rates, etc. Political web sites on both extremes are laughable.

              Comment


              • packsaddle
                packsaddle commented
                Editing a comment
                "All absolutes are false by definition."

                Except, of course, for this one, heh, heh.

              • dcsimmons
                dcsimmons commented
                Editing a comment
                Was wondering who'd call me out on that one .
            Working...
            X