On the Nature of Things | Forum

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:43 am
Sounds like you guys haven't met a lot of gay guys. In the professional (and very liberal) world I inhabit, it can be extremely hard to tell. A progressivist cabal does not, in fact, regulate their behavior. My former boss, for example, is openly gay. I only found out after months of knowing him when a coworker asked about his wife when he was telling a story about his kids, prompting a quick correction: "you mean husband. I'm gay." He's Australian, doesn't have a stylish bone in his body, no"gay affect", and at the office is all business all the time. He's a committed father to his children. And he's not some weird outlier, either.

Ironically, the gayest person on my team turned out to be straight.

Apollonius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:31 pm
Is this a version of "some of my best friends are gay"?

Apollonius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:31 pm
Zack, I've met hundreds, no thousands, of gay men. I've even gotten to know a lot of the girls. Rural gay events are overwhelmingly female because what they are looking for is a social gathering. Gay men are often looking to hook-up, complicated in the country. I once attended a major event where it was two of us guys against two hundred lesbians.

I detect no active hostility or discrimination at my location. Quite the contrary, I think we're made to feel we're somehow a little special, and anyway there are lots of us here. This place is sometimes known as Queer Island.

What Chadwick Moore tells us parallels my experience with gay organizations in the city, which are no longer interested in gay. They have other priorities.

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:43 am
Ironically, the gayest person on my team turned out to be straight.

Apollonius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:31 pm

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:43 am
Sounds like you guys haven't met a lot of gay guys. In the professional (and very liberal) world I inhabit, it can be extremely hard to tell. A progressivist cabal does not, in fact, regulate their behavior. My former boss, for example, is openly gay. I only found out after months of knowing him when a coworker asked about his wife when he was telling a story about his kids, prompting a quick correction: "you mean husband. I'm gay." He's Australian, doesn't have a stylish bone in his body, no"gay affect", and at the office is all business all the time. He's a committed father to his children. And he's not some weird outlier, either.

Ironically, the gayest person on my team turned out to be straight.

Is this a version of "some of my best friends are gay"?

Zack, I've met hundreds, no thousands, of gay men. I've even gotten to know a lot of the girls. Rural gay events are overwhelmingly female because what they are looking for is a social gathering. Gay men are often looking to hook-up, complicated in the country. I once attended a major event where it was two of us guys against two hundred lesbians.

I detect no active hostility or discrimination at my location. Quite the contrary, I think we're made to feel we're somehow a little special, and anyway there are lots of us here. This place is sometimes known as Queer Island.

What Chadwick Moore tells us parallels my experience with gay organizations in the city, which are no longer interested in gay. They have other priorities.

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:08 am

Apollonius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:31 pm

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:43 am
Sounds like you guys haven't met a lot of gay guys. In the professional (and very liberal) world I inhabit, it can be extremely hard to tell. A progressivist cabal does not, in fact, regulate their behavior. My former boss, for example, is openly gay. I only found out after months of knowing him when a coworker asked about his wife when he was telling a story about his kids, prompting a quick correction: "you mean husband. I'm gay." He's Australian, doesn't have a stylish bone in his body, no"gay affect", and at the office is all business all the time. He's a committed father to his children. And he's not some weird outlier, either.

Ironically, the gayest person on my team turned out to be straight.

Is this a version of "some of my best friends are gay"?

Zack, I've met hundreds, no thousands, of gay men. I've even gotten to know a lot of the girls. Rural gay events are overwhelmingly female because what they are looking for is a social gathering. Gay men are often looking to hook-up, complicated in the country. I once attended a major event where it was two of us guys against two hundred lesbians.

I detect no active hostility or discrimination at my location. Quite the contrary, I think we're made to feel we're somehow a little special, and anyway there are lots of us here. This place is sometimes known as Queer Island.

What Chadwick Moore tells us parallels my experience with gay organizations in the city, which are no longer interested in gay. They have other priorities.

We are in a phase of human development now where being gay just isn't important anymore. That's a good thing.

Apollonius wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:41 pm

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:08 am

Apollonius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:31 pm

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:43 am
Sounds like you guys haven't met a lot of gay guys. In the professional (and very liberal) world I inhabit, it can be extremely hard to tell. A progressivist cabal does not, in fact, regulate their behavior. My former boss, for example, is openly gay. I only found out after months of knowing him when a coworker asked about his wife when he was telling a story about his kids, prompting a quick correction: "you mean husband. I'm gay." He's Australian, doesn't have a stylish bone in his body, no"gay affect", and at the office is all business all the time. He's a committed father to his children. And he's not some weird outlier, either.

Ironically, the gayest person on my team turned out to be straight.

Is this a version of "some of my best friends are gay"?

Zack, I've met hundreds, no thousands, of gay men. I've even gotten to know a lot of the girls. Rural gay events are overwhelmingly female because what they are looking for is a social gathering. Gay men are often looking to hook-up, complicated in the country. I once attended a major event where it was two of us guys against two hundred lesbians.

I detect no active hostility or discrimination at my location. Quite the contrary, I think we're made to feel we're somehow a little special, and anyway there are lots of us here. This place is sometimes known as Queer Island.

What Chadwick Moore tells us parallels my experience with gay organizations in the city, which are no longer interested in gay. They have other priorities.

We are in a phase of human development now where being gay just isn't important anymore. That's a good thing.

These organizations should disband. They not only do not help gay people, by now they are actually helping to foster negative attitudes.

Many Christians today are embarrassed by traditional Christian sexual teaching, and see it as a ball and chain that the church needs to lose so it can appeal to contemporary people. Why is this wrong?

It is wrong because it assumes that Christian sexual teaching is simply about behavior and, as such, can be relativized as a function of the conventions of particular societies, with no universal significance. Yet that is incorrect both theologically and anthropologically. Theologically, it fails to see that sex is an analogue of Christ and the church. Anthropologically, it fails to see that our sexual ethics are directly related to our understanding of what it means to be a human person. To buy into the contemporary sexual narrative is to buy into two (not obviously consistent) notions: that sexual desire constitutes our identity; and that sexual activity is nothing more than recreation, the morality of which is not intrinsic to the act but merely determined by the giving or withholding of consent. Neither of these is compatible with orthodox Christian notions of human personhood. The former trivializes what it means to be human; the latter trivializes what sex represents. No Christian can do either of these things and maintain that they still represent orthodoxy.

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:14 am Rod Dreher interviews an author of a very important book.......

Many Christians today are embarrassed by traditional Christian sexual teaching, and see it as a ball and chain that the church needs to lose so it can appeal to contemporary people. Why is this wrong?

It is wrong because it assumes that Christian sexual teaching is simply about behavior and, as such, can be relativized as a function of the conventions of particular societies, with no universal significance. Yet that is incorrect both theologically and anthropologically. Theologically, it fails to see that sex is an analogue of Christ and the church. Anthropologically, it fails to see that our sexual ethics are directly related to our understanding of what it means to be a human person. To buy into the contemporary sexual narrative is to buy into two (not obviously consistent) notions: that sexual desire constitutes our identity; and that sexual activity is nothing more than recreation, the morality of which is not intrinsic to the act but merely determined by the giving or withholding of consent. Neither of these is compatible with orthodox Christian notions of human personhood. The former trivializes what it means to be human; the latter trivializes what sex represents. No Christian can do either of these things and maintain that they still represent orthodoxy.

So as I see it, identity is the core of the modern self. Desire is its primary expression and subjective feeling is its foundation. It calls the first liberated autonomy and the latter rationality. It is shallow and historically illiterate. Christianity can't find a foothold in modernity because Christians themselves are shallow and historically illiterate, in short they're moderns too.....'>......

noddy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:46 am without the context of the history for it - being proud in having genitals and being prepared to use them is an awfully sillly thing.

you would hope its got a short lifespan, in generational terms.

Nonc Hilaire wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:26 am

noddy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:46 am without the context of the history for it - being proud in having genitals and being prepared to use them is an awfully sillly thing.

you would hope its got a short lifespan, in generational terms.

No, the original Pride movement was an anti-shame protest and a positive force all around. I thought it functioned well as a critique and updating of traditional morés.

The degeneration of the movement began when the movement demanded forced acceptance of their half-baked opinions. The potentially rich conversation about different viewpoints on love and sex was skipped entirely in favor of strident intolerance and it has been cascading downhill ever since.

Nonc Hilaire wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:26 am

noddy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:46 am without the context of the history for it - being proud in having genitals and being prepared to use them is an awfully sillly thing.

you would hope its got a short lifespan, in generational terms.

No, the original Pride movement was an anti-shame protest and a positive force all around. I thought it functioned well as a critique and updating of traditional morés.

noddy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:02 am

Nonc Hilaire wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:26 am

noddy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:46 am without the context of the history for it - being proud in having genitals and being prepared to use them is an awfully sillly thing.

you would hope its got a short lifespan, in generational terms.

No, the original Pride movement was an anti-shame protest and a positive force all around. I thought it functioned well as a critique and updating of traditional morés.

no argument there - im old enough to remember how gay folks were treated by the rules and i believe it was still illegal in some states for the first half of my life.

without the context of it being a reaction to the previous bad politics, its an absurd thing, this whole identity of genitals world.

.. but we did have the absurd thing of making people illegal for it, so we have what we have.

It’s headline news at the New York Times: television is getting less gay! ...



Of course, it’s 2021, not 2013, so the Times isn’t satisfied with pushing one identity-group grievance at a time. Instead, the paper is tracking all kinds of headcounts. Not only is TV too straight by showing gays merely two and a half times as often as they appear in real life. It’s also (recite these words like a prayer and you will understand them better) Too White and Too Male:

‘Representation of women remained unchanged at 46 percent of series regulars on broadcast television, but they are still underrepresented, as they make up 51 percent of the US population, according to the Census Bureau.

The percentage of Black characters on broadcast television remained about the same at 22 percent (slightly down from last season’s 23 percent), while the percentage of Latino characters decreased, to 7 percent from 9 percent.’


Cockburn appreciates that the Times felt it necessary to cite Census Bureau data to remind its readers that, yes, women are about half of the population. Easy to forget! For some mysterious reason, though, the Times does not feel obliged to mention that black Americans are just 13.5 percent of the American population, and thus healthily overrepresented on the nation’s screens. Asians, meanwhile, are so irrelevant to the Times that they aren’t even mentioned at all.

Apollonius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:32 pm Television isn't gay enough says the New York Times - Cockburn, The Spectator, 16 January 2021
https://spectator.us/topic/television-g ... ork-times/

It’s headline news at the New York Times: television is getting less gay! ...



Of course, it’s 2021, not 2013, so the Times isn’t satisfied with pushing one identity-group grievance at a time. Instead, the paper is tracking all kinds of headcounts. Not only is TV too straight by showing gays merely two and a half times as often as they appear in real life. It’s also (recite these words like a prayer and you will understand them better) Too White and Too Male:

‘Representation of women remained unchanged at 46 percent of series regulars on broadcast television, but they are still underrepresented, as they make up 51 percent of the US population, according to the Census Bureau.

The percentage of Black characters on broadcast television remained about the same at 22 percent (slightly down from last season’s 23 percent), while the percentage of Latino characters decreased, to 7 percent from 9 percent.’


Cockburn appreciates that the Times felt it necessary to cite Census Bureau data to remind its readers that, yes, women are about half of the population. Easy to forget! For some mysterious reason, though, the Times does not feel obliged to mention that black Americans are just 13.5 percent of the American population, and thus healthily overrepresented on the nation’s screens. Asians, meanwhile, are so irrelevant to the Times that they aren’t even mentioned at all.

Colonel Sun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:20 am NY Post | Homosexuality can be classified as a mental health disorder, rules PR Chinese court

Simple Minded wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:34 pm

Colonel Sun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:20 am NY Post | Homosexuality can be classified as a mental health disorder, rules PR Chinese court

The Chi-Coms are catching up to the woke west. First step, declare yourself a victim!!! Then you can bitch at the rest of humanity while petitioning them for a cure and/or special privilege.

There's probably a vaccine in the works to cure homosexuality......

Nothing cures "excessive specialness" like "too much attention!"

F**k me! I'll bet big money that COVID-20 will cure wokeness, blackness, gayness, butthurt, and in-yer-faceness......

"Hey China, I got a favor to ask......"