[Donna]

There's no practical reason for homosexuality to be tolerated.

Of course there is. The alternative is insurrection.

[Daktoria]

Of course [there's practical reason]. The alternative is insurrection.

...only from a working or middle class perspective.

Gay tolerance and militancy is something encouraged by the upper class to preserve social status, and the very first social network you're born into is your family. If you have to endure homosexual parents or siblings, that's another obstacle to establishing a reliable social network.

As a heterosexually mature species, homosexuality would inhibit social networking further by making it difficult to assume same sex people aren't interested and opposite sex are interested.

[Rei Murasame]

Westerners don't know about queers strengthening their extended family by contributing time and energy without distraction, and queers being over-represented in the civil services and government agencies.

"No practical use" until you realise what you've lost.

[Daktoria]

Westerners don't know about queers strengthening their extended family by contributing time and energy without distraction, and queers being over-represented in the civil services and government agencies.

"No practical use" until you realise what you've lost.

Distraction is a good thing though. An organic community is about having everyone distracted the same way.

A practical society would have as little bureaucracy as possible. The folk community would be able to take care of itself.

[R_G]

No, allowed

Supposedly there are already ways of telling if a fetus will have homosexual tendencies but I tend to think it would only identity extremely flamboyant gays.

I wouldn't abort any of my children personally but I believe an argument towards fetal defect could be made by an individual sufficiently that it would be admissible, however I'd lean towards them paying for the abortion themselves.


For reference to those confused, if we're looking at a family that is staunchly against gay rights, they may see the child as mentally handicapped and fight against a mentally handicapped child of theirs being allowed to live which should be their right to do so.


But then again, it's a very grey area. Can a homosexual be argued as mentally handicap and a misogynist not?

But it depends how late the pregnancy is, I doubt there could be a system to tell the child's mental development in the area of sexual preference early enough for this not be considered borderline infanticide.

[jaycola]

No, Allowed.

I wouldn't wish homosexuality on my kids but I wouldn't want to lose them if they were gay. I'd love them and do my best to ensure they had happy, healthy and successful lives.

I'm not against abortion (1st term) and it's no-ones business why someone chooses to abort their child.

[Arkady2009]

I would not abort a fetus that was homosexual, but it should be allowed. Abortion is abortion, after all.

[Donna]

...only from a working or middle class perspective.

Gay tolerance and militancy is something encouraged by the upper class to preserve social status, and the very first social network you're born into is your family. If you have to endure homosexual parents or siblings, that's another obstacle to establishing a reliable social network.

As a heterosexually mature species, homosexuality would inhibit social networking further by making it difficult to assume same sex people aren't interested and opposite sex are interested.

You're missing the point. It is not possible to suppress homosexuality in the West without a totalitarian and anti-egalitarian (fascistic) negation of liberalism. This is worth mentioning since you are a liberal in a very broad sense (you're opposed to violent revolutionary transformation, whether from the right or the left and please don't explain why).

I'm not especially interested in what you or anyone else thinks of homosexuality, whether as part of a theory of decadence or defense of civilization or as something that throws up your lunch, since I more or less regard the personal experience of homosexual emancipation as paradoxical: where as the personal was political during the phase of liberation in the 1970's (unanimous regard for homosexuality as a perversion or deviancy had an erotic and even romantic dimension for queers), this isn't really the case anymore. Is this relevant at all to political universe of homosexuality? Not at all. The construction of homosexual identity was not initiated by practitioners of male sodomy, so whatever problems or contradictions that exist subsequently of this emancipation cannot really change without the consent of homosexuals.

[Daktoria]

You're missing the point. It is not possible to suppress homosexuality in the West without a totalitarian and anti-egalitarian (fascistic) negation of liberalism. This is worth mentioning since you are a liberal in a very broad sense (you're opposed to violent revolutionary transformation, whether from the right or the left and please don't explain why).

I'm not especially interested in what you or anyone else thinks of homosexuality, whether as part of a theory of decadence or defense of civilization or as something that throws up your lunch, since I more or less regard the personal experience of homosexual emancipation as paradoxical: where as the personal was political during the phase of liberation in the 1970's (unanimous regard for homosexuality as a perversion or deviancy had an erotic and even romantic dimension for queers), this isn't really the case anymore. Is this relevant at all to political universe of homosexuality? Not at all. The construction of homosexual identity was not initiated by practitioners of male sodomy, so whatever problems or contradictions that exist subsequently of this emancipation cannot really change without the consent of homosexuals.

Donald, we're talking about pragmatic tolerance out of deterring insurrection.

Why would the upper class want to deter insurrection, homosexual or not? The upper class wants insurrection because it creates civil instability which makes the upper class appear more necessary to exert control. It also disables social mobility which preserves the present upper class' social status.

On the other hand, the working and middle classes want as much social mobility as possible. Pragmatically speaking, this would mean being intolerant of homosexuals for being sexually incompatible and making social networking a pain.

The only way homosexual tolerance can happen is through idealism, not pragmatism.

[Far-Right Sage]

No, allowed.

This is a bit of a personal question and no such technology or scientific expertise was made available at the time my wife was having our boys.

I am indeed also in favor of allowing sex-selective abortions.

[Donna]

Why would the upper class want to deter insurrection, homosexual or not? The upper class wants insurrection because it creates civil instability which makes the upper class appear more necessary to exert control.

I'm not sure how you would remotely demonstrate that as true without coming off as a conspiracy theorist.

[Daktoria]

I'm not sure how you would remotely demonstrate that as true without coming off as a conspiracy theorist.

Well yes, that's the pragmatic attitude the upper class would take. It wants empirical evidence for things which are intuitively true. Plausible deniability is how the upper class stays in power. It also wants social aspirations to work as hard as possible to prove themselves. Not only is the struggle entertaining, but the harder the standard, the more exclusive upper class attendance becomes.

The working and middle class don't care for all of this though. They just want simple explanations. We call it "common sense".

[Godstud]

No, Not allowed.

Should we be allowed to abort fetuses that aren't going to have IQs of 140+. or have the correct hair/skin colour, next?

[Donna]

The working and middle class don't care for all of this though. They just want simple explanations. We call it "common sense".

Being part of the working class does not impart any kind of enlightening experience or knowledge.

[Plaro]

Yes, Allowed: Saves all the social suffering.

[Takkon]

No, not allowed.

[Far-Right Sage]

Should we be allowed to abort fetuses that aren't going to have IQs of 140+. or have the correct hair/skin colour, next?

Liberals are insufferable.

A woman could have the facts presented to her and still make such a decision without divulging the reason. If a woman becomes intoxicated and sleeps with a Guatemalan delivery boy, and then chooses to abort the child because the thought of raising a child tainted by Hispanic blood nauseates her, she has no obligation to divulge her reason to the Liberal/PC brigade, and no one will be the wiser.

[Plaro]

Should we be allowed to abort fetuses that aren't going to have IQs of 140+. or have the correct hair/skin colour, next?

IQ is not necessary, I do not really believe in it.

[Godstud]

So what? Others think it's necessary and so that's what is important, isn't it?

[Daktoria]

Being part of the working class does not impart any kind of enlightening experience or knowledge.

I never said being part of the working (or middle) class does. Common sense is pragmatic, not idealistic.

Furthermore, doesn't that prove the illegitimacy of a dictatorship of the proletariat?