GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"  (Read 27409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #45 on: Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 07:56 »

While I can't be sure what your reasons for refusing to accept this are, I suspect they have something to do with your gay nation agenda. Clearly, gay citizens having children might lead to a reduction and eventually eradication of any gay majority in such a nation. In your mind, gay procreation might therefore constitute a threat, and this could account for your hostility to it (at least, as you state, until it can be guaranteed to produce a 90% or more gay ratio) and your trivilization of its contributions to our social development. You might also find it threatening that gay parents would love their straight children, and consequently not distrust heterosexuals enough for your taste - which would further undermine your agenda of a gay nation by reducing the number of potential recruits or supporters. [..]

Jeff, you underscore me both intellectually and morally. Whereas I can understand, that it is very convenient for you in a debate to attach me some additional extremist views and believe they were truly mine, you shouldn't give in to this temptation.

Through all our discussions in this forum I constantly propagated the idea that in any future gay state it should be a basic human right of citizens to have children, if they wish so. I also do not regard any gay parenting as a serious danger for such a state – simply because the effect would be below any percentile significance, in my eyes. Why do you make it that simple for you – either one is with or against you? I do not regard your "agenda" as threatening or harmful, no am I intended to impose my ideas upon someone. I simply don't share your views on the subject – you shouldn't be offended if I do not find your arguments convincing and clearly explain my reasons for not doing so.

As for the numbers of supporters and similar primitive or dishonest motivations – time alone will show whether the idea will prove to be of some use for our people or not. The idea of a gay state is not my personal invention, neither am I thinking of my humble self as being a kind of messias - I am simply trying to contribute my share.

Come on, Vicky. Look around you. Do you seriously expect large amounts of people to choose the sort of militant propaganda your proposing over integration and a possible family life? People are sick and tired of this Us vs. Them paranoia. I know I am.

Do you seriously live in such fear? I mean, where do you live, man? Tehran? Poll after poll reveals (and reality verifies) that tolerance AND acceptance of gays is growing among the young. As the older, less-tolerant generations die out, this acceptance will continue to rise.

Jeff, do we live on the same planet? You generalize your private cosy experiences (made in a very limited geographical and social space) upon the entire world, and additionally extrapolate them into the future, basing your entire argumentation upon the very narrow time slot - last 50 years in the western civilization. Whereas it is certainly true that in some countries and areas some progresses were made, it is also true that in some countries and areas the situation has gotten significantly worse. Your request upon K6 living in Tehran reveals that you are well aware of the situation of gays there, but dismiss this knowledge as irrelevant for the debate – why? Are those unhappy creatures not a part of the gay people? Or is the truth too much disturbing for your comfortable world view?

Now, of course, nothing is guaranteed but the reversal of this trend would take some incredibly dramatic development - such as, for instance, the start-up of a discriminatory ‘gay' nation where only homosexuals are legally permitted to be citizens. This might cause some previously fair-minded heterosexuals to reassess their view of their gay fellow citizens.

Oh yes, of course. I refer you to Denneny's "Fourth Proposition: Internalized Homophobia." As next you will tell us that all those leather-men, queens and  dykes are themeself provoking homophobia and bring us all in danger through their indecent behaviour. As well as those who are flaunting their homosexuality –"is all these kissing and hand-keeping in public really necessary?" Not this way, Jeff.

If I may, I would like to stress Theodor Herzl once again:

"However, the fact that I draw this conclusion ingenuously and guided only by the truth will probably net me the opposition and enmity of those Jews who are in comfortable circumstances. [..] But from the outset I wish to keep any erroneous ideas from arising, particularly the notion that Jewish property might be harmed if this plan ever materialized. [..] If, on the other hand, my plan never becomes anything but a piece of literature, things will remain as they are anyway."
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #44 on: Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 23:37 »


The problem here, I think, is that your definition of homosexuality is simply outdated. It's old-school homosexuality. Gay people ARE starting families. Gay people ARE having children. Gay and straight people ARE taking the first steps in starting to learn how to live together.

Undertaking a tour of the 193 existing independent countries would soon correct that rosy perception and picture.Anyone who has retained
any parental authority in most places did so by compromising with some hethro demographic regime whose purpose is to produce heterosexuals
only.Not to mention the compromission with the hethro lifestyle itself which sheds doubts over the gayness of anyone who is a parent.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #43 on: Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 17:09 »

K6,
Do you seriously live in such fear?

I fear nothing and no one,while I am in the service of the gay people and of its heroic youth.How could I perish,as a component of an eternal struggle for gay self-determination ? I was nothing,my gay people is everything.I stand on the side of the future gay generations,my sole
judges,in their consequent choice and pursuit of self-determination in a sovereign gay country of ours.I beg for their forgiveness for not having done all I could do in year 2006.

K6

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #42 on: Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 16:49 »

Children - if you have children - could turn against you.Do not say that it could not happen.There are already conflicts of that sort between children and parents as ordinary blood relatives without peripheral homosexual tendencies among the parents.Peripheral homosexual tendencies in so-called gay parents only add a factor of potential,further and serious conflict fueled by the surrounding social environment,which by historical and geographical standards is and will remain generally hostile to homosexuality and to gays.It would take only some societal pressure on the children to turn against their so-called gay parents.And even less would be required in the case of the grandchildren and members of ensuing generations who,in a context which remains generally homophobic,would not like to be reminded of their so-called gay parents or ancestors.

K6,
Do you seriously live in such fear? I mean, where do you live, man? Tehran? Poll after poll reveals (and reality verifies) that tolerance AND acceptance of gays is growing among the young. As the older, less-tolerant generations die out, this acceptance will continue to rise. Now, of course, nothing is guaranteed but the reversal of this trend would take some incredibly dramatic development - such as, for instance, the start-up of a discriminatory ‘gay' nation where only homosexuals are legally permitted to be citizens. This might cause some previously fair-minded heterosexuals to reassess their view of their gay fellow citizens.

You don't fight discrimination with discrimination. And you certainly don't fight intolerance with intolerance. Civil rights campaigns require a lot of things, but mostly they require engagement.

Jeff

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #41 on: Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 16:42 »

Jeff, you apparently absolutely didn't understand what I actually have said. Neither do I oppose anyone have straight or gay children, nor do I oppose gay people having children.

I solely oppose that motion of you, that raising children has something to do with gay emancipation or gay culture.

Gay procreation contributes to both gay emancipation and gay culture (and many other areas) by contributing to gay development.

Vicky, I've said all this before. I'll try to restate it here briefly. The way I see it there are three dimensions to sexuality identity. By sexuality identity I mean those who identify as one of the three primary sexualities: homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. These three dimensions are the sexual dimension, the social dimension, and the cultural dimension. The sexual dimension (sexual attraction) provides the furnace; it's the driving force, the engine. The social dimension is the community and family organization; how we interact as a people. And the cultural dimension incorporates the arts and entertainment; it's the civilizing force, the creative and intellectual exploration of oneself and one's people. It's the intermeshing of these three areas which brings a three-dimensional structure to life. Gay people are not inferior to heterosexuals, they are simply less developed. Not so much in the sexual area, but in the social and cultural areas.

Therefore, one of our most primary goals should be to encourage and achieve this group development as fully as possible. Not for the purpose of mimicking anyone, but for our own benefit as individuals, as couples, as families, as communities, and as a people.

The area of social development can be said to include structures that encourage (or at the very least provide an institution for) love, marriage, family, and community. All of these add further options that each individual can choose from. They're additional choices. They expand the range of possibilities, and by doing so they expand the group's scope of development. Gay procreation falls under the social development dimension. It clearly would represent another option, and therefore an expansion of gay development. And since developing ourselves to our full potential is the goal, gay procreation would help us in this respect. Not pursuing gay procreation, on the other hand, would represent a limitation of gay social development. This is just basic common sense.

While I can't be sure what your reasons for refusing to accept this are, I suspect they have something to do with your gay nation agenda. Clearly, gay citizens having children might lead to a reduction and eventually eradication of any gay majority in such a nation. In your mind, gay procreation might therefore constitute a threat, and this could account for your hostility to it (at least, as you state, until it can be guaranteed to produce a 90% or more gay ratio) and your trivilization of its contributions to our social development. You might also find it threatening that gay parents would love their straight children, and consequently not distrust heterosexuals enough for your taste - which would further undermine your agenda of a gay nation by reducing the number of potential recruits or supporters.

The problem here, I think, is that your definition of homosexuality is simply outdated. It's old-school homosexuality. Gay people ARE starting families. Gay people ARE having children. Gay and straight people ARE taking the first steps in starting to learn how to live together. This is not speculative. I think a further problem might be your contention that reproduction is a heterosexual event rather than a human event. Since gay people are able to reproduce, and are reproducing, your definition here is flawed as well. By engaging the natural order of procreation, gay people only enhance their position as a legitimate people - since one of the requirements of such a people is the ability to self-replicate and self-sustain oneself. What further sign of gay emancipation do you need than the emancipation of our dependency on heterosexuals to produce and raise us? Only by gay procreation can we achieve this level of emancipation. It also frees us from having to count on adoption (with its required heterosexual approval) as our sole source of children for child rearing.

Come on, Vicky. Look around you. Do you seriously expect large amounts of people to choose the sort of militant propaganda your proposing over integration and a possible family life? People are sick and tired of this Us vs. Them paranoia. I know I am. You, of course, are free to think and believe and advocate what you wish. That is your choice. But closing one eye to the gay world around you does not mean that your vision is enhanced. Or accurate.

A quick P.S.: As far as misunderstanding what you wrote, your words were very clear. You might have misstated your position, but as it was written - I understood it quite well.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #40 on: Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 11:05 »

It doesn't just influence the children. It also influences the future spouses of those children, and the children of those children.

Children - if you have children - could turn against you.Do not say that it could not happen.There are already conflicts of that sort between children and parents as ordinary blood relatives without peripheral homosexual tendencies among the parents.Peripheral homosexual tendencies in so-called gay parents only add a factor of potential,further and serious conflict fueled by the surrounding social environment,which by historical and geographical standards is and will remain generally hostile to homosexuality and to gays.It would take only some societal pressure on the children to turn against their so-called gay parents.And even less would be required in the case of the grandchildren and members of ensuing generations who,in a context which remains generally homophobic,would not like to be reminded of their so-called gay parents or ancestors.The parenting which you call gay has probably and always existed.Yet,it hasn`t changed the world in the sense you indicate.Gays cannot remain a further 2,000 years under hethro yoke only to demonstrate something which is already demonstrated and which they already know,that is the general hostility to homosexuality in history and geography.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #39 on: Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 08:18 »

Jeff, you apparently absolutely didn't understand what I actually have said. Neither do I oppose anyone have straight or gay children, nor do I oppose gay people having children.

I solely oppose that motion of you, that raising children has something to do with gay emancipation or gay culture. Look, when I devote myself to protection of the rain forests in Brasilia, it would be a wonderfull thing and certainly do good to my personal developement and do people in Brasilia some good. It is also very probable, that I would gain respect from a lot of people. But in what way, if you please, does this honorable occupation have something to do with the gay people?

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #38 on: Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 06:15 »

I most certainly do disagree with this statement. This is the contentious point of the debate. While raising, nurturing and education of the next generation of a people is certainly a progress, the biological procreation itself is not. By participation in biological procreation a particular gay can certainly find his private luck (which is good), but he most likely doesn't contribute any member to the gay people. All the talk about higher tolerance is true, but it hardly matters for the social impact. Let's say we make 10% of society, and 10% of us get kids, this would make than 0.10 * 0.10 * 100% = 1% of the entire population (under condition, that each gay couple has 4 children). Do you think it matters that much for us as a whole, whether 1% of society is more tolerant and accepting?

It doesn't just influence the children. It also influences the future spouses of those children, and the children of those children. It influences friends and neighbors of those families. It influences fellow workers. It influences distant relatives and acquaintances. It influences complete strangers who observe gay couples with children. It influences everyone who reads about these families in the paper, or sees a news story about them on TV. In all these countless ways it influences the larger society, which in time influences the politicians who must get elected by that society. I fear, Vicky, that at times your ideology clouds your understanding of these issues. Love and decency are not as scarce as you seem to want to believe.

As a people, we are namely different from other people's of the world: we do not need to reproduce ourselves biologically - straights do it for us. To be sure, we define the gay people as a people consisting of homosexuals. Consequently, a straight child is an "alien" in the homosexual family - as a gay child is an "alien" in the hetero-family. Straights as a people can cope with breeding 10% aliens among them, whereas it still seems to be a bad luck for any particular straight family. Gays as a people can't afford breeding 90% aliens among them, be it a private luck for the concerned gay family.

Good lord, Vicky. Listen to yourself. Aliens? How dare you use terms like that to describe the parent-child bond? That is truly shameful.

What we instead need as a people is a strategy of securing our cultural goods and history and granting access to them to our own youth. It's not like there are not enough gay kids born to this world - but they are often being murdered or kill themselves or lead a life far from being bearable. This requires our engagement, these kids are in need of our help and protection. How can we reach them at an early stage and let them participate in our culture as early as possible? How can we help them to develop an integer and healthy gay personality?

How? Well we could start by raising some of them ourselves. On the one hand you state that "we do not need to reproduce ourselves biologically - straights do it for us." And then just a couple paragraphs later you bemoan the ill fate that befalls some gay kids after being raised by heterosexuals. You can't have it both ways, Vicky. You can't promote the abdication of all gay participation in child rearing and then criticize parents for the way they're rearing their gay children. No one is going to take you seriously. They might, however, take a gay parent seriously.

If one day the biological origins of homosexuality are sufficiently investigated and would allow us to have 90% queer kids among us - then, yes, I will agree with you that we could come to a higher stage as a people and will be able to abandon the stage of being brood parasites as we are.

You're all over the board here, Vicky. With this statement it becomes clear that you are not opposed to gay procreation (as you previously implied) you are opposed to gays producing heterosexual children. If they produced homosexual children that would be just fine in your book. There is nothing different in this viewpoint than the homophobic parent railing that he or she won't tolerate having a gay child. Your attitudes are identical, only the sides you argue from are different. You disappoint me, Vicky. What right have you to ask for acceptance if you're unwilling to offer the same?

More generally, the controversy of the subject is not that much due to the dispute between "good" and "evil" - it's a question of the goals or purposes one individual or a group of individuals is aiming. We can discuss about whether a particular suggestion is suitable or or less suitable for achievement of a particular goal or the other. But it would be foolish to fiercefully discuss the usefullness of a particular suggestion, if in truth we are discordant about the goals! Jeff - you are finally aiming the integration, I am propagating separation - both destinations being very different in the choice of means for their realization.

I have never hid or denied that I am an integrationist. You were well aware of that when you asked me to join this forum. Of course we disagree on the goal. We always have. What I've written here in these recent postings is not in connection to this forum's primary goal (intentional segregation) but rather to the overall good of gay folks everywhere. That is the point at which I re-entered the debate here - specifically in response to a post which claimed that gays will end up as losers in any policy of integration. I felt it necessary to state my view - which I did. I will now go back to more productive pursuits. Thank you.

Jeff

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #37 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 22:52 »


What we instead need as a people is a strategy of securing our cultural goods and history and granting access to them to our own your youth. It's not like there are not enough gay kids born to this world - but they are often being murdered or kill themselves or lead a life far from being bearable. This requires our engagement, these kids are in need of our help and protection. How can we reach them at an early stage and let them participate in our culture as early as possible? How can we help them to develop an integer and healthy gay personality?


That could hardly be effected on any large scale under a hethro regime,even a benevolent one.In order to enjoy a normal moral authority over
our youth,we would need to be politically independent.A gay State,of which we may dream,is actually not for us as individuals or as a given generation.It is actually to save our youth,and spare it a life of misery under foreign hethro rule.If we do so and succeed,some future generation of gays having spent most of their lives in an independent gay country shall write books of history.And in those books,the ones among us who
have conceived the idea of political independence or carried it out shall be the heroes.A way among others to live eternally,that is in the glory of a gratefull nation.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #36 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 22:35 »

I most certainly do disagree with this statement. This is the contentious point of the debate. While raising, nurturing and education of the next generation of a people is certainly a progress, the biological procreation itself is not. By participation in biological procreation a particular gay can certainly find his private luck (which is good), but he most likely doesn't contribute any member to the gay people. All the talk about higher tolerance is true, but it hardly matters for the social impact. Let's say we make 10% of society, and 10% of us get kids, this would make than 0.10 * 0.10 * 100% = 1% of the entire population (under condition, that each gay couple has 4 children). Do you think it matters that much for us as a whole, whether 1% of society is more tolerant and accepting?


I think that the line of reasoning of Jemiko is similar to the one of those heterosexuals in some third world countries who proliferate like rabbits.Their kids are their insurance for and in old life,in countries which have little or no developped social services,where no help is to be expected from the State.Where actually the family performs social services which would otherwise rendered by the State.So-called gay parents surround themselves with heterosexual descendants,with the idea of not being excluded by them because of the blood ties.Or not to end up alone towards the end of their lives.Which is not exactly as things might turn out.They could end up in a senior`s home,abandonned by their
descendants as happens to many heterosexual parents in affluent countries.If kids can abandon their parents that way,they can also disown
so-called gay parents and leave them in the lurch wether society pressures them or not to do so.And for the same callous and apparently apolitical reasons: their carreer,their own families,which they are not likely to put in jeopardy for the sake of a parent with peripheral homosexual tendencies.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #35 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 21:56 »

And my motivation for writing this is not to be recognized as ‘equal' to heterosexuals. My motivation, as always, is to encourage and facilitate the social (love, marriage, family, community) and cultural (arts & entertainment) development of gay people. Certainly, the achievement of family life (particularly, biological) is a more developed state for a people than being non-procreative. Do you disagree with this?

I most certainly do disagree with this statement. This is the contentious point of the debate. While raising, nurturing and education of the next generation of a people is certainly a progress, the biological procreation itself is not. By participation in biological procreation a particular gay can certainly find his private luck (which is good), but he most likely doesn't contribute any member to the gay people. All the talk about higher tolerance is true, but it hardly matters for the social impact. Let's say we make 10% of society, and 10% of us get kids, this would make than 0.10 * 0.10 * 100% = 1% of the entire population (under condition, that each gay couple has 4 children). Do you think it matters that much for us as a whole, whether 1% of society is more tolerant and accepting?

As a people, we are namely different from other people's of the world: we do not need to reproduce ourselves biologically - straights do it for us. To be sure, we define the gay people as a people consisting of homosexuals. Consequently, a straight child is an "alien" in the homosexual family - as a gay child is an "alien" in the hetero-family. Straights as a people can cope with breeding 10% aliens among them, whereas it still seems to be a bad luck for any particular straight family. Gays as a people can't afford breeding 90% aliens among them, be it a private luck for the concerned gay family. Investing time and devotion in growing up children, which will be in 9 of 10 cases straight, is in no way a great service for us as a people. Whereas a Dunnock certainly loves the Cuckoo's children it is raising in hist nest, there is no use for it's own species deriving from this action. There is no logical reason for us to serve as a host species for straights, and certainly not the way to ensure our future as a people.

What we instead need as a people is a strategy of securing our cultural goods and history and granting access to them to our own youth. It's not like there are not enough gay kids born to this world - but they are often being murdered or kill themselves or lead a life far from being bearable. This requires our engagement, these kids are in need of our help and protection. How can we reach them at an early stage and let them participate in our culture as early as possible? How can we help them to develop an integer and healthy gay personality?

If one day the biological origins of homosexuality are sufficiently investigated and would allow us to have 90% queer kids among us - then, yes, I will agree with you that we could come to a higher stage as a people and will be able to abandon the stage of being brood parasites as we are. And that time will be probably the best and the last opportunity to start with biological reproduction, as vice versa the straights will begin to eliminate us in the stage of embryos.

More generally, the controversy of the subject is not that much due to the dispute between "good" and "evil" - it's a question of the goals or purposes one individual or a group of individuals is aiming. We can discuss about whether a particular suggestion is suitable or or less suitable for achievement of a particular goal or the other. But it would be foolish to fiercefully discuss the usefullness of a particular suggestion, if in truth we are discordant about the goals! Jeff - you are finally aiming the integration, I am propagating separation - both destinations being very different in the choice of means for their realization. In certain respects, e.g. concerning cultural progress and propagation of art we certainly have more in common, regardless of our other differences. Agreed?
« Last Edit: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 23:43 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #34 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 17:30 »


5) Now, if the mitochondrial DNA is responsible for generation of let's say 30% gay male kids among the offspring of a certain female line, this would not at all prohibit this female line from reproduction. The female herself, as her daughters are, is fertile - only some of her boys are gay. They will most probably not build their own families and instead stay with the clan and help to rise their brothers/sisters and nephews and therefore provide an evolutionary advantage to the female family with the "gay gene".


This trend of thinking is difficult to reconcile with an idea of gay self-determination which would make of us gays the sole agents of our existence,survival and ultimately political independence.It leaves too much to others,whose interests are differential.It dilutes and minimizes our responsibility,as sole and ultimate defenders of our culture and people.In a country of ours,and in history books of the future by which way other generations of gays would be instructed of their tasks and duties,there would be this sentence: "From the beginning,and since the origins of mankind and of recorded human history,our gay people stood alone,as nobody else would have saved us but ourselves".

K6

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #33 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 15:42 »

The mentioned political implication of not-having children classifying an individual as inferior arises in that moment, when the enterprise of having children is being suggested to be important for us as a social group. As a social group, we are not the one known to be designed for procreation by natural means. Your argumentation in the post before clearly states that you regard the overcome infertility as a valid argumentation for being recognized equal with heterosexuals. The logical revert of this argument is that you admit that not-overcome infertility is a valid argument for us being recognized as not equal with heterosexuals. Additionally, gay men with a child wish are entirely at the grace of other people - be it lesbians with child wish or commercial breeders. This renders the supposed baby-boom in homosexual (male) relationships as not very likely prospective, whereas lesbians, of course, are more qualified for becoming parents on their own (and actually use this possibility).

I'm not sure what you mean by ‘social group.' The local bridge club could be referred to as a social group. Or the local Garden Club or bowling league. I view homosexuals as something deeper, as a unique ‘people.' And as such, having children IS important for us as a people. It's important for EVERY group who consider themselves a people. I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with this, but to be a legitimate people a form of generational reproduction must be present, or able to be present. Otherwise, we merely are, as you suggest, a ‘social group.'

And my motivation for writing this is not to be recognized as ‘equal' to heterosexuals. My motivation, as always, is to encourage and facilitate the social (love, marriage, family, community) and cultural (arts & entertainment) development of gay people. Certainly, the achievement of family life (particularly, biological) is a more developed state for a people than being non-procreative. Do you disagree with this?

Choosing not to reproduce does not make a person inferior. Nor does it place upon that individual a stigma. At least not in my mind. If it elicits this response in the individual, than it has more to do with that person's own insecurities than any social disapproval. Even heterosexual society has long disbanded any stigma on those who choose not to have children. What I'm saying is that gay people in general (not each and every individual homosexual) need to join the cycle of life. We need to add our genes to the global genetic pool. Not only will it make many of us happier, it will change the world - and our situation - for the better.

As far as the mechanics of gay procreation, I don't expect any real gay baby-boom in the near future. This is something that will begin as a trickle (which is what is happening) and then continue to grow. If I had to choose one course of gay procreation as my potential favorite I would likely select the super-family model (one gay male couple producing and raising biological children with one gay female couple). This, I assume, you know since it was featured in my book.

It's my preference mainly because it's more practical and inexpensive than the alternatives: sperm banks, surrogate mothers. It also allows the children to be raised by both of their biological parents. There are a string of additional arguments for it which are in the book and which I won't go through here as it's not the focus of this post. The point is, what is lacking is not any special technology, merely the social structure. The institution, if you will. And as I always stress, this type of family unit is not for everyone. It, as well, will find only a handful of initial advocates, but I believe in time, as the benefits are seen, more couples will decide to try it. I think perhaps the greatest growth will probably come from gay children who are born and raised in these types of families. Many might choose to form such families of their own. But regardless, it will take several generations before it takes hold (if ever); and it will never be the sole gay family structure.

Now before I get my head bit off, I'm not saying other forms of gay families are no good or inadequate or inferior. Only that in my opinion this offers us the most stable, practical avenue towards gay procreation.

But even if some "gay genes" are located on the chromosomes, this not necessarily must cause homosexuality of their carrier - for example, if 2 gay genes were required for causing a mostly homosexual individual. Therefore all the carrier of only 1 gay gene would be heterosexuals and would transfer it to some of their offsprings - the gay gene surviving over generations and leading to no impact in overall reproduction statistics.

I read this carefully, and from what I make out it only seems to support my initial supposition: that the biological children of a gay male and a gay female might have a higher incidence of homosexuality (however tiny it might be) than the children of heterosexual parents. If there are gay genes present, they will have a greater chance of being passed on through gay parents. And if it requires two gay genes for a child to be gay (as you suggest might be a requirement) the chances for this will most often occur if the two parents themselves are gay. You're also overlooking the other half of the equation: the nurture, or environmental factor. Living in a gay-friendly family environment will lead more children to openly announce their homosexuality or bisexuality, rather than hide it and form unfullfilling (but more socially acceptable) heterosexual unions. Most literature I've read on this matter - and I admit it's been limited - seems to conclude that homosexuality is most likely brought about by a mix of these genetic and environmental factors. Not just one or the other. But again, at this stage, it is still unknown. And whether or not the children are gay is relatively unimportant; what is far more important is that they will have very little likelihood of growing up to be Straight Supremacists.

Jeff

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #32 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 11:46 »


But again, these scientific stuff is not necessary for any justifications of homosexuality or the homosexual as a person. The previous generations of homosexuals were doing pretty fine without any knowledge about genetics, though they also were making certain speculations about the origins of human sexuality - the already quoted passage in Plato's "Symposium" is testifying this. 
:L

If the genetic homosexuality remains a merely potential one,which most of the time does not translate into deeds,it is of little interest to a consequent gay political organization.A gay political organization needs individuals who act like gays.It could achieve nothing with merely
theoretical or potential gays.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #31 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 11:37 »

Hell, K6 - you are frightening me by times! Your arbitrary re-definition of gayness may bring you prematurely into grave one day. The way a single gay manages his life is of no state interest - only group dynamics have impact of some relevance. Whether someone has children or not, doesn't qualify this person for the high treason

There is no treason in having children.Merely,it indicates - in most cases - that the individual is not a gay person.Liberal and individualistic algebra
could demonstrate that such an individual is gay.Whereas arithmetics - which I prefer to algebra - would demonstrate that he isn`t.In arithmetics,one takes into consideration the contribution of that individual to homosexuality as a cultural and political interest and historical continuity. Undoubtedly such a contribution exists in the case of so-called gay parents.Perhaps 75 years based on an average life span.But one must also substract the contribution to the heterosexual political body by way of mostly heterosexual descendants,which will amount in centuries,if not millenia.One must further add,in the minus and negative column,any harm some of those descendants will cause to future gays,for which the so-called gay parents and ancestors are responsible.Or at the very least,do not care about,since they dwell in an apolitical attitude which is actually and highly political.Obviously,the so-called gay parents are deep in the red with the gay community.They contribute
less to the gay side than to the hetro one,purposedly.

K6
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up