Response to Stef's comments on gaydom

[Hsien Seong Cheong]

I recently found a couple of Stef's videos on YouTube where he made some comments on "gaydom". 

Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQa_NAwDQ9Y

Clearly anti-Stef propaganda that primarily serves to ignobly attack his reputation.

Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gzHR5GV8Zs

Stef's responses to criticism including an excerpt reading of an experiment performed on rats to investigate sexual orientation.

As a bisexual man and proud member of my local gay community, I found it hurtful to hear Stef say such ignorant things. (Now, I know my emotions have no causal effect on reality and the truth but please bear with me.) His suggestions; as always, are logically valid, but they are not sound due to limited experience and information. A big problem is as Stef himself said in a forum post:

"By seeking political solutions to their legitimate problems, the vocal gay community has become as corrupted as any other community that seeks to redress prejudice with power."

I fear that in the beginning stages of a free society, gay equality will suffer because society has been forced to accept us instead of being invited to understand us. Agendas, corruption and politics have clouded the relationship between homosexuality and public knowledge. Scientific studies on sexual orientation are corrupted by agendas and always will be for the following reason; it is extremely easy to manipulate the categorisation of self reported subjective data such as emotions, attraction and sexual desire. State funded scientists can assert their "findings" but in reality we have no unbiased truthful reporting on the prevalence of homosexuality or the genuine scientific complexities of sexual orientation. General public perception still holds the view that straight people fall in love and gay people have sex.

I wish I had a more objective objection but the best I have (in light of the above explanation) is this thought experiment:

Imagine if we lived in a dystopian future where a gene had mutated 90-95% of the population to be functionally sterile and homosexual. A world where children were produced from test tubes (think Aldous Huxley's Brave New World) and there was no need for procreational coitus. A religion has gained prominence that denounces heterosexuality and society dutifully oppresses it. Those born with the abnormality of opposite sex romantic desire live in danger and secrecy for centuries until religion eventually takes a backseat to an information age. There is a heterosexual rights revolution but unfortunately under a totalitarian government even the most grassroots organisations eventually become large, useless charities corrupted by political lobbying incentives. Straights gain legal "rights" but the journey to public understanding is painfully slow. Do you think in this society that:

1. There would be a lack of education, rigorous social science and rigorous biological science on the subject of heterosexuality.

2. The poorly educated masses of minority straight children (coming of age) would naively initiate sexual play with naive and improperly safeguarded gay children.

3. The poorly educated masses of minority straight adults would be wildly sexually irresponsible and promiscuous.

4. Straight people growing up horribly confused and persecuted would be more likely to be violent criminals (i.e. abusers of opposite sex children and prone to choosing careers that give them an unquestioned authority over opposite sex children).

5. Straight people would be hugely over-represented by the mainstream 'out' straight people who act in a way that the mainstream 'out' straight community expect of them, while a huge unreported demographic of non-stereotypical straight people keep their heads down to commit to their careers, find love discreetly (and with great difficulty) or worse; live a lie and pretend to be normal and gay.

Stef often says that to truly understand the free market you have to get out there as an entrepreneur. I think that some straight people; no matter how intelligent, philosophical or virtuous, will never shed misconceptions about the gay community because they will never have to experience what it's like or what actually goes on within it. Which is fair enough I guess... I just wish that I didn't have to hear one of my heroes say such socially misinformed things about something so dear to me.

If you're reading Stef; you may not understand the finer points of what it feels like to be me but you're beautiful and I still love you!

P.S. Hello free domain radio board, this is my first post! My next will definitely be on the introductions forum and I look forward to being a part of this wonderful community.

[empyblessing]

gay/straight is not the only orientation and i believer orientation to be defined by experience and not genetic. how else could you explain a shoe/foot fetish?

[Hsien Seong Cheong]

If you actually took the time read my post you wouldn't need to make your first statement... or any of the others come to think of it.

[Lowe D]

@ empyblessing

A sexual paraphilia is not a sexual orientation.  Research suggests that homosexuality, in its degrees, is caused by hormonal effects in utero.

Sexual paraphilias, like foot or bondage fetishes, are not well understood.  But I think it's fair to guess they come from adverse early childhood experiences.

[Hsien Seong Cheong]

 

Sexual paraphilias, like foot or bondage fetishes, are not well understood.  But I think it's fair to guess they come from adverse early childhood experiences.

 

Why is it fair to assume that paraphilias come from adverse childhood experiences? A lot of destructive and sociopathic behaviours come from ACEs but many fetishes can be enjoyed in healthy adult relationships. It's comparable to saying that it's fair to guess that someone who is into avant-garde music must have developed it from ACEs (since it is an odd taste that brings pleasure to the willing receiver and is non-mainstream). We should take care not to stereotype such private and subjective things that do no harm to others. After all, before Kinsey did his research, it was at a point in time where oral sex acts were considered; what we call today, "paraphilias". 

[MrCapitalism]

Welcome to FDR!

I fear that in the beginning stages of a free society, gay equality will suffer because society has been forced to accept us instead of being invited to understand us.

This shouldn't be any kind of problem in a free society. "gay equality" as a concept doesn't even make sense anyways. You're an individual who has property rights and self-ownership. Contract and exchange with whomever you want. Have relationships with whoever you want. Self-identify with whatever groups and interests that you want. The sexual orientation 'gay' doesn't have a right to the ambiguous term 'equality.'

Maybe some DRO's will be 'gay friendly.' Maybe some won't. I'm sure society can figure it out. If people don't understand your lifestyle, you can choose to inform them, or let them remain in ignorance.

 

Regarding your tables-turned example: Good for all those underreported straight people who live normal lives like the gay majority! Other people they don't know can think and say whatever they want. (except for those who feel they have to live a lie, that just isn't any way to live, especially if you're forgoing the opportunity to meet some fantastic heterosexual women)

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

The problem with your hypothesis is that it presupposes people in a free society would be like people today. This won't happen, because as long as the majority are bigoted, there will be no stateless society. Once there are enough peaceful, rational people in the world for statism to fall by the wayside, there won't be many people left who're scared of homosexuals. And since there will be so few, the occurance of discrimination will be as appalling to the average person as seeing a child being hit is to us today, so those who would hate against gays will be driven into the closet all the more quickly.

[robzrob]

I can understand your fears, but I'm also heartened by the way things are going, ie most people these days (in the 'West', anyway), don't really care much about a person's sexuality.  I think this might be because religious upbringings are fewer so there are fewer people being told outright that being gay is wrong, so they just look at and judge homosexuality neutrally and most conclude: 'So, what.'

I live in a very small, rural village in the SW of England and it used to be a Methodist stronghold, but the chapel closed decades ago and people go to car boot sales on Sundays now instead and I know of at least three gay couples who live here and they're accepted as ordinary neighbours like everybody else.

There's also the 'pink pound' thing, ie retailers putting a lot of investment into attracting gay people to buy certain things.  I don't think any society from now on could do without the pink pound (or pink Kruggerrand / Maple Leaf / etc).

Am I right or is this just wishful thinking?

[Erich vRundstedt]

 I just recently seen a video on youtube attacking Stef ..The person who made the video said Stef didnt like gay people.. But the video of Stef this guy was using was Stef talking about his personal experiences with a couple friends he lived with years ago and Stef only said nice things about them. The person who made the video wants everyone to think that Stef is Homophobic but anyone who watches that video and has any rational thought process at all will know right away what the truth is.. In my opinion the person who made the video just doesnt have the capacity to understand reality much higher than 2nd grade level so i didnt even respond to it.

[Nathan]

 

 I just recently seen a video on youtube attacking Stef ..The person who made the video said Stef didnt like gay people.. But the video of Stef this guy was using was Stef talking about his personal experiences with a couple friends he lived with years ago and Stef only said nice things about them. The person who made the video wants everyone to think that Stef is Homophobic but anyone who watches that video and has any rational thought process at all will know right away what the truth is.. In my opinion the person who made the video just doesnt have the capacity to understand reality much higher than 2nd grade level so i didnt even respond to it.

 

Not only that, but the video conveniently leaves out the following caveats prefacing statements he changed his mind about 5 years ago:

 

"This is certainly not any kind of scientific study, this is just something I've noticed about gay men and gay women. ...This is all just nonsense just take it however you will..."

 

 

This video, and a lot of memes and other nonsense out there on Facebook and Youtube are just a new, exasperating yet creative way to be a troll.

[robzrob]

 

 

 I just recently seen a video on youtube attacking Stef ..The person who made the video said Stef didnt like gay people.. But the video of Stef this guy was using was Stef talking about his personal experiences with a couple friends he lived with years ago and Stef only said nice things about them. The person who made the video wants everyone to think that Stef is Homophobic but anyone who watches that video and has any rational thought process at all will know right away what the truth is.. In my opinion the person who made the video just doesnt have the capacity to understand reality much higher than 2nd grade level so i didnt even respond to it.

 

Not only that, but the video conveniently leaves out the following caveats prefacing statements he changed his mind about 5 years ago:

 

"This is certainly not any kind of scientific study, this is just something I've noticed about gay men and gay women. ...This is all just nonsense just take it however you will..."

 

 

This video, and a lot of memes and other nonsense out there on Facebook and Youtube are just a new, exasperating yet creative way to be a troll.

 

 

 

Hmm, I don't know.  If something isn't scientific, or, to put it another way, isn't true, why mention it at all, if you're not only prepared for, but inviting criticism?

[Hsien Seong Cheong]

I'm really glad to see such moral optimism here!

@robzrob

I live in a small rural village in the SE of England that is under the boot of an incredibly deprived, state run town. Our village was once prosperous until an aristocrat took away the railways... just because he felt like it. The result has been a rise in crime, yob culture, child abused masses abusively raising children and needless to say, rampant social bigotry.

The pink pound will have such a strong position in a free market without government. For example, do you remember the malteser advert where there is a couple cuddling picking maltesers up with a straw? They made a gay male couple version of the advert to try to get in on the pink pound market. It was lobbied against by a government backed "family issues" group and the gay version was taken off TV immediately. Companies want to sell to the pink pound but our closeted anti-gay government will support whichever bigoted self interest group that shouts the loudest.

So I don't think at all that the pink pound is wishful thinking and thank you for opening my eyes to an important factor that would help end prejudice in a free market.

Unfortunately, while there is a state interfering with the market in the UK; the pink pound only shows up in Lady Gaga record sales *rage*.

 

[robzrob]

 

I'm really glad to see such moral optimism here!

@robzrob

I live in a small rural village in the SE of England that is under the boot of an incredibly deprived, state run town. Our village was once prosperous until an aristocrat took away the railways... just because he felt like it. The result has been a rise in crime, yob culture, child abused masses abusively raising children and needless to say, rampant social bigotry.

The pink pound will have such a strong position in a free market without government. For example, do you remember the malteser advert where there is a couple cuddling picking maltesers up with a straw? They made a gay male couple version of the advert to try to get in on the pink pound market. It was lobbied against by a government backed "family issues" group and the gay version was taken off TV immediately. Companies want to sell to the pink pound but our closeted anti-gay government will support whichever bigoted self interest group that shouts the loudest.

So I don't think at all that the pink pound is wishful thinking and thank you for opening my eyes to an important factor that would help end prejudice in a free market.

Unfortunately, while there is a state interfering with the market in the UK; the pink pound only shows up in Lady Gaga record sales *rage*.

 

 

 

Thanks.  Delighted to have opened somebody's eyes, don't think I've done that before!  Damn 'family issues' groups, they're nothing of the sort, just authoritarian nuts.

[Nathan]

Hmm, I don't know.  If something isn't scientific, or, to put it another way, isn't true, why mention it at all, if you're not only prepared for, but inviting criticism?

So people shouldn't state their opinions because they might be wrong or criticized? I guess I shouldn't have stated my opinions and skepticism about anarchism on this board back when I first discovered FDR, because now someone can go back and criticize my posts from 7 yrs ago.

[empyblessing]

First, I don't support gay rights because it already won. It's on the TV. The social change has already hit critical mass and the moral language has been pointed away from homophobes. It's over. You won. 

If you want to try and iniate change that actually needs to happen then support men's rights or children's rights. 

[empyblessing]

 

@ empyblessing

A sexual paraphilia is not a sexual orientation.  Research suggests that homosexuality, in its degrees, is caused by hormonal effects in utero.

Sexual paraphilias, like foot or bondage fetishes, are not well understood.  But I think it's fair to guess they come from adverse early childhood experiences.

 

 

BDSM and all other are variants of sexuality are as much an orientation as anything else. How could you accept that humans have an adaptable nature and not accept this into the realm of sex? 

[Hsien Seong Cheong]

First, I don't support gay rights because it already won. It's on the TV. The social change has already hit critical mass and the moral language has been pointed away from homophobes. It's over. You won. 

If you want to try and iniate change that actually needs to happen then support men's rights or children's rights. 

Oh my god, I had no idea that we won. You're absolutely right, there is no social discrimination towards the LGBT community anymore.

 

Someone call Uganda and tell them that the battle is over! We're on American TV baby!

 

I sure hope this logic means that corrective rape of lesbians all over the world is a thing of the past too.

 

Thank you for your mind blowing insight to LGBT struggles emptyblessing. I'm now going to call my family in Singapore and ask them if being gay has been made legal yet; now that the social change has hit the critical mass and all.

[robzrob]

 

Hmm, I don't know.  If something isn't scientific, or, to put it another way, isn't true, why mention it at all, if you're not only prepared for, but inviting criticism?

So people shouldn't state their opinions because they might be wrong or criticized? I guess I shouldn't have stated my opinions and skepticism about anarchism on this board back when I first discovered FDR, because now someone can go back and criticize my posts from 7 yrs ago.

 

 

Now I'm mixed up!  Let me get my brain straight.  Isn't there a difference between the two things, ie facts and opinions?  If we're talking about opinions, then, surely, whatever follows when an opinion is stated is a discussion, which involves criticism, which is what happened.  So isn't everything all right?

[robzrob]

 

First, I don't support gay rights because it already won. It's on the TV. The social change has already hit critical mass and the moral language has been pointed away from homophobes. It's over. You won. 

If you want to try and iniate change that actually needs to happen then support men's rights or children's rights. 

 

 

Does that mean that you would have supported gay rights if they hadn't already been won?  (Which I don't think they have universally, nor do I think anything like that can ever be said to have been 'won'.)

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Does that mean that you would have supported gay rights if they hadn't already been won?  (Which I don't think they have universally, nor do I think anything like that can ever be said to have been 'won'.)

 

 

Gay lefts have been won, not the rights, cuz there ain't no rights to win, it is just beggin leviathan for being a bit nicer.

 

Homophobes? You mean, Gay haters, those who hate gays rather than oppose them on irrational ground, right? The leftist media with its soft spot for anything but white males is not exactly an indicator for having something won.

 

What exactly is the benefit for leviathan to support gay "marriage"? A lower taxation rate for gay couples? The only advantage I can see takes place if those couples adopt todlers.