Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

So was segregation.

That's a fair call, but black culture has not posed any penetrating risk to the foundations of a community. They have no lingering habits which could be construed as offensive or debilitating to society. That debate should be more about common values and intergration. It's about people wanting to join and contribute to a particular society as it's already established. Gay culture on the other hand, has bled into society in almost a totally negative way.
I accept a limited need to open the closet a crack, to deter closet homosexuals from entering public institutions and using their position to unleash their private urges on those who trust them, particularly the young in schools and churches. Gay bars, for instance, are a perfectly legitimate way for homosexuals to meet eachother, and do whatever they want in private. But anyone, no matter their orientation, who is defined by a selfish, vulgar and loud urge to be constantly satisfied sexually, is a risk to the fabric of a great society.

 

[Iron]

For the Sambia, then, homosexuality is neither identity nor disease. In the Sambia world view, males must engage in homosexual activities in order for them to be considered "real men". Men who engage in the most homosexual activities with you boys are considered by their tribesmen to be "hyper-masculine".

Very good. Again, I stress difference between homosexual acts and homosexual orientation. Further, that practise in that society (which rightly ceased upon marriage) served to strengthen the community. It is perhaps unfortunate that in ours it serves to eat away at its edges.

 

[Iron]

If you're going to troll, at least take what degree you are doing out of your signature

Dont be intimidated brother, your trolling is as invalid as the next mans.

Im not trolling, because i've never liked that term.

 

[xeuyrawp]

If you're going to troll, at least take what degree you are doing out of your signature

He's totally not trolling... I think he's expressing the view (whether it's genuinely his or not) that I said a few pages back, where, for some unknown reason, queer culture has always accompanied seemingly unrelated norms like the typical party attitude with drugs, sex, and no care for one's own value and responsibility.

I wonder if any of it has to do with our culture, where most people can't even relate to homosexuality, therefore label it as unacceptable, whether they admit it or not. Queer people know this. Since they are already doing unacceptable things in private, why not do other things like drugs, etc?

That's why I think you'll find that it is only queer people who commit homosexual acts as well as orientation who are involved in the typical party culture, not people who just have a homosexual orientation.

I would definitely never argue this as a point, but I wonder if there's any merit in it.

 

[_dhj_]

Very good. Again, I stress difference between homosexual acts and homosexual orientation. Further, that practise in that society (which rightly ceased upon marriage) served to strengthen the community. It is perhaps unfortunate that in ours it serves to eat away at its edges.

I don't think homosexuality in Australia is at the stage where there are more declared homosexuals than there are 'natural' homosexuals, so to speak. Of course when the rights of a minority are emphasised there is an increased tendency for those in the minority to declare their minority status, and therefore marginally increase the effective and 'practising' population in the minority. But I think increases are realistically minimal. It seems to me that there's no negative influence by the homosexual minority on mainstream culture. Plus, if you look at causation, homosexual promiscuity and lack of commitment did not arise from the innate behaviours of homosexuals, but from society's historical marginalisation of homosexuals.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Further, it seems to me that there's no negative influence by the homosexual minority on mainstream culture.

Mainstream homosexual culture is unbelievably negative. Unwillingness to integrate is central to queer culture; for some unknown reason, homosexual culture encourages people to be loud and obnoxious without any sort of effort with regards to fitting into society. Because this is coming 'from the top', so to speak, they think this should be part of their identity.

As an example, I think the reason I finally left my volunteer position at ACON was because they were actively encouraging queer people to come out at work, and then sue their employers if there was any sort of problem.

There needs to be a balance between encouraging minorities to express their identity own, and encouraging minorities to actually contribute to society. It is only when minorities contribute to society that they get real recognition - look at any sucessful racial movement, and you'll see that their main appeal to the government is 'we work just as hard, if not harder, than most people here. We deserve to be here just as much as you,' or something along those lines.

By encouraging itself not to fit in, the queer community is continually shooting itself in the foot, imo.

 

[_dhj_]

I meant the actual influence of homosexual culture on straight mainstream culture is not negative.

But your point (which is separate) is also valid. Sometimes the less the mainstream suppresses a minority and the more it tolerates and acknowledges the existence, the more obnoxious and negative the minority becomes in response to the suppression. It is ironic because there is less suppression but more response - but we all know that history moves towards extremes, rather than towards centre. Perhaps the real determinant has always been fear. Previously it was gay person's fear of the reaction to coming out. Now it's straight person's fear of being labeled as a homophobe.

 

[Iron]

By encouraging itself not to fit in, the queer community is continually shooting itself in the foot, imo.

A welcome and worthy ally!

I agree. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, to give an American example. On its face, that program was an effort to engage with the mainstream. But dig a little deeper, and it appeared that it was merely a platform to validate their lifestyle with. They showed utter contempt for straight men, to the point of setting out to intentionally humiliate them - trampling through their lifestyle with automatic scorn and impossible rudeness.

Ive got a lot of love for dhj, but at this stage im not sure what he's on about.

 

[_dhj_]

A welcome and worthy ally!

I agree. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, to give an American example. On its face, that program was an effort to engage with the mainstream. But dig a little deeper, and it appeared that it was merely a platform to validate their lifestyle with. They showed utter contempt for straight men, to the point of setting out to intentionally humiliate them - trampling through their lifestyle with automatic scorn and impossible rudeness.

Ive got a lot of love for dhj, but at this stage im not sure what he's on about.

Well to take the Queer Eye example - what's wrong with straight men dressing neater as a result of gay culture influence? It seems like the actual gay influence, besides the homosexual intercourse aspect, does not damage society. It seems also that what we consider as damaging aspects of gay culture - e.g. promiscuity, are not caused by any actual physiological differences between straight and gay people but by historical restrictions imposed by straight society - e.g. no gay marriage.

 

[Iron]

Well to take the Queer Eye example - what's wrong with straight men dressing neater as a result of gay culture influence? It seems like the actual gay influence, besides the homosexual intercourse aspect, does not damage society. It seems also that what we consider as damaging aspects of gay culture - e.g. promiscuity, are not caused by any actual physiological differences between straight and gay people but by historical restrictions imposed by straight society - e.g. no gay marriage.

What's wrong, to my mind, is the arrogance that they come from a world so far removed from and superior to the mainstream. It's obviously the flip side of being told that their feelings were wrong etc.
Sex is the process which seals a relationship and begins life. It chains two people together through the mutual interest of their child. All homosexual sex necessarily slaps this idea in the face, but the flaunting of this - this debasing of sex, as a meaningless frequent occurence soley for the young and beautiful, has its roots with the rise of gay culture.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Sex is the process which seals a relationship and begins life. It chains two people together through the mutual interest of their child.

According to Freud, it's more the interest of a mutual orgasm, rather than a mutual interest in a child. I tend to feel that a relationship can be quite satisfying without a child, especially when you have no feelings towards one of the opposite sex.

I haven't read the context of this page, so forgive me if I've missed something.

 

[Graney]

this debasing of sex, as a meaningless frequent occurence soley for the young and beautiful, has its roots with the rise of gay culture.

Because meaningless sex never happens in heterosexual culture...

I reject any suggestion that mainstream heterosexual society would be significantly less sexualised without gay culture. The world's inevitably evolving to a liberal sexy place, gay or no gay.

I agree with you, that gay culture is often over-sexualised. It came from necessity however. To fight against prejudice, early gay rights campaigners, proudly proclaimed their sexuality as a banner. They had to be proud and confronting to end violence and discrimination. If you're sexuality becomes the dominant part of your identity, it naturally leads to a promiscuous culture.

What would be healthier, would be if being gay was considered as normal as being straight. As soon as gay is no longer an identity and a sub-culture, but just another boring way of life, promiscuity will decrease.

Already we are moving towards a more mature gay culture. A lot of older guys actually say, gay culture is dying. As it becomes socially acceptable to be gay, it becomes less a part of the identity and image for a gay guy. It becomes normalised. The promiscuity, drugs, lifestyle etc... are rarer. Gay guys are having relationships just like heterosexuals. Gay becomes just another part of who you are, same as being straight, rather than all you are.

 

[Iron]

Because meaningless sex never happens in heterosexual culture...

I reject any suggestion that mainstream heterosexual society would be significantly less sexualised without gay culture. The world's inevitably evolving to a liberal sexy place, gay or no gay.

I agree with you, that gay culture is often over-sexualised. It came from necessity however. To fight against prejudice, early gay rights campaigners, proudly proclaimed their sexuality as a banner. They had to be proud and confronting to end violence and discrimination. If you're sexuality becomes the dominant part of your identity, it naturally leads to a promiscuous culture.

What would be healthier, would be if being gay was considered as normal as being straight. As soon as gay is no longer an identity and a sub-culture, but just another boring way of life, promiscuity will decrease.

Already we are moving towards a more mature gay culture. A lot of older guys actually say, gay culture is dying. As it becomes socially acceptable to be gay, it becomes less a part of the identity and image for a gay guy. It becomes normalised. The promiscuity, drugs, lifestyle etc... are rarer. Gay guys are having relationships just like heterosexuals. Gay becomes just another part of who you are, same as being straight, rather than all you are.

I agree with most of these considered points. Perhaps your positive view of the future of gay culture is a little over-optimistic?
Im undecided on whether a homosexual relationship can ever be as full as a heterosexual one - just as a hard and unfortunate truth.

 

[_dhj_]

What's wrong, to my mind, is the arrogance that they come from a world so far removed from and superior to the mainstream. It's obviously the flip side of being told that their feelings were wrong etc.
Sex is the process which seals a relationship and begins life. It chains two people together through the mutual interest of their child. All homosexual sex necessarily slaps this idea in the face, but the flaunting of this - this debasing of sex, as a meaningless frequent occurence soley for the young and beautiful, has its roots with the rise of gay culture.

I think before we speculate on the potential of homosexual sex to destroy the notion of family we should bear in mind that homosexuality is physiologically confined. It is not like a religion which can 'spread'. There are a fixed number of 'natural' homosexuals and the acceptance of homosexuality, while may slightly increase the number of declared homosexuals, will not change heterosexual behaviour.

Graney made a valid point also.

 

[Iron]

I think before we speculate on the potential of homosexual sex to destroy the notion of family we should bear in mind that homosexuality is physiologically confined. It is not like a religion which can 'spread'. There are a fixed number of 'natural' homosexuals and the acceptance of homosexuality, while may slightly increase the number of declared homosexuals, will not change heterosexual behaviour.
.

Yeah, but i'm more concerned with the effect on the status quo, let alone making comparisons with the uncertain future of glorious 50s past.
Ultimately, when we say that homosexuals are now accepted by the community, I cant help but think that all that has been accomplished (along with globalisation) is that the community has shrunk down to the individual, who believes himself unaffected by such things.
But of course the bell tolls for thee etc. We all have a keen interest in these things. Our quality of life is diminished otherwise.

 

[_dhj_]

Yeah, but i'm more concerned with the effect on the status quo, let alone making comparisons with the uncertain future of glorious 50s past.
Ultimately, when we say that homosexuals are now accepted by the community, I cant help but think that all that has been accomplished (along with globalisation) is that the community has shrunk down to the individual, who believes himself unaffected by such things.
But of course the bell tolls for thee etc. We all have a keen interest in these things. Our quality of life is diminished otherwise.

Sure but it seems a bit far fetched to identify acceptance of homosexuality as a significant cause (as opposed from consequence) of the change in the status quo since the 50s. I agree that sexualisation in the 60s may be a major cause of the change, but then acceptance of homosexuality is caused by, rather than a cause of the sexualisation. I think a larger problem than all this sexualisation business is consumerism. Whereas sexualisation increased pleasure, increased the production of great art, music and film, consumerism decreased utility and the quality of art. During periods of classicism and romanticism in history, there is either achievement of equilibrium and harmony (classicism), or conflict and spontaneity (romanticism). What worries me is the current state of society - this banal consumerism and suburban sprawl - a period apparently of continued economic growth, but in fact of increased quantity and decreased quality in production and social connection (look at technology such as msn and facebook these days - you interact with more people but the quality of interaction is reduced). Okay I deviated a bit from the topic but acceptance of homosexuality it seems is not a major cause of this phenomenon.

 

[KFunk]

Sex is the process which seals a relationship and begins life. It chains two people together through the mutual interest of their child. All homosexual sex necessarily slaps this idea in the face, but the flaunting of this - this debasing of sex, as a meaningless frequent occurence soley for the young and beautiful, has its roots with the rise of gay culture.

I can understand if you feel that the casual/hedonistic approach to sex debases its meaning for you but I'm not sure whether I see what is wrong with such behavior beyond offending individuals who share these traditional sexual values. If people want to be all Dionysian about sex then so be it!

 

[Iron]

Sure but it seems a bit far fetched to identify acceptance of homosexuality as a significant cause (as opposed from consequence) of the change in the status quo since the 50s. I agree that sexualisation in the 60s may be a major cause of the change, but then acceptance of homosexuality is caused by, rather than a cause of the sexualisation. I think a larger problem than all this sexualisation business is consumerism. Whereas sexualisation increased pleasure, increased the production of great art, music and film, consumerism decreased utility and the quality of art. During periods of classicism and romanticism in history, there is either achievement of equilibrium and harmony (classicism), or conflict and spontaneity (romanticism). What worries me is the current state of society - this banal consumerism and suburban sprawl - a period apparently of continued economic growth, but in fact of increased quantity and decreased quality in production and social connection (look at technology such as msn and facebook these days - you interact with more people but the quality of interaction is reduced). Okay I deviated a bit from the topic but acceptance of homosexuality it seems is not a major cause of this phenomenon.

Great post dhj. I love it when you talk general. I fully agree with such conspiracy theory, and admit the problem of cause and effect.
I may properly battle you tomorrow though.

 

[Iron]

I can understand if you feel that the casual/hedonistic approach to sex debases its meaning for you but I'm not sure whether I see what is wrong with such behavior beyond offending individuals who share these traditional sexual values. If people want to be all Dionysian about sex then so be it!

Well (not going into it too much at this time), it subsequently debases relationships, and therefore fosters a totally selfish world-view which leads to increased isolation and less community.
Sexual relationships expressed through the institution of a genuine marriage (or something close to it) are the foundations of society, and the building blocks of trust/faith in fellow human beings.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, to give an American example. On its face, that program was an effort to engage with the mainstream. But dig a little deeper, and it appeared that it was merely a platform to validate their lifestyle with. They showed utter contempt for straight men, to the point of setting out to intentionally humiliate them - trampling through their lifestyle with automatic scorn and impossible rudeness.

Yes, thank you!

When the show first came out, I thought 'Great! a) Promote queers as positive members of society, and b) a cool lifestyle show.' But of course, you're totally right, it was a complete reinforcement of what higher gay culture expects from the gay community - slim, dumb, campy, superficial, consumeristic, hetrophobic, misogynistic, etc. The Aussie version did not take off simply because they tried to get different normal hosts, which, of course noone wants to see because the whole premise to the show, as I now realise, is to have these characters (not humans) come into some abnormal person's life and act like clowns with their hollow and ridiculous advice.

I mean, the show wasn't only making a judgment of what gay culture should be, but what straight culture is. It's like every straight man out there is an insensitive slob who couldn't be bothered picking up his own trash off the floor. All he needs, of course, is for a gay guy to come in and sort out his whole life!

Queer Eye's treatment of Carsen was also terrible, if you've heard him speak normally, you'll know what I mean. He's an extraordinarily talented and intelligent person and yet on the show, they told him to essentially be a dumb blonde - eg that 'accidental slip' about him being some minister. Before he went on the show, I used to love reading his articles on fashion culture, because they were so quirky, hilarious, and not at all pretentious.

/sad.