Woke is alive and well

Stirlingsays said:
Ernst Röhm was gay and headed the SA, the Nazi paramilitary wing.

He wasn't Jewish but you can't have everything.

Eventually he had him shot.

Again, you can't have everything.
Click to expand...

Great - that doesn't change the fact that Hitler and the Nazi regime were strongly opposed to homosexuality, and gay men in particular.

Early Nazism had some exceptions, like Röhm, but as you acknowledge, this was violently ended and the repression intensified over time.

Hitler also wasn't vegan.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Great - that doesn't change the fact that Hitler and the Nazi regime were strongly opposed to homosexuality, and gay men in particular.
Click to expand...

We can definitely say he certainly over did most of the things he was opposed to.

However, being opposed to homosexuality in practical terms is just supporting the continuation of the human race.

But that doesn't mean you have to be against individuals or their private lives.

CPFCSaturn said:
Early Nazism had some exceptions, like Röhm, but as you acknowledge, this was violently ended and the repression intensified over time.
Click to expand...

It was, but it wasn't ended because he was homosexual.......Röhm was gay but he was also a social conservative, which is more common than people think.

CPFCSaturn said:
Hitler also wasn't vegan.
Click to expand...

I know, he was a vegetarian for medical reasons.
 
Stirlingsays said:
However, being opposed to homosexuality in practical terms is just supporting the continuation of the human race.

But that doesn't mean you have to be against individuals or their private lives.
Click to expand...

Gay people existing doesn't threaten the continuation of the human race - straight people aren't going to stop having kids because homosexuality is accepted.

It's also very hard to say you’re “opposed to homosexuality in practical terms” but not against individuals - those two things aren’t separate.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Gay people existing doesn't threaten the continuation of the human race - straight people aren't going to stop having kids because homosexuality is accepted.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned existing? That's your language. Propagating and expanding (as has happened) does reduce birth rates (especially importantly amongst females who are more prone to bisexuality) and that does factor in.

The reason homosexuality was always opposed was hardly down to a dislike of males with fashion sense.

CPFCSaturn said:
It's also very hard to say you’re “opposed to homosexuality in practical terms” but not against individuals - those two things aren’t separate.
Click to expand...

Well there is a difference, one is about how a topic is treated in media and education and the other involves direct intervention into people's lives.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Who mentioned existing? That's your language. Propagating and expanding (as has happened) does reduce birth rates (especially importantly amongst females who are more prone to bisexuality) and that does factor in.

The reason homosexuality was always opposed was hardly down to a dislike of males with fashion sense.



Well there is a difference, one is about how a topic is treated in media and education and the other involves direct intervention into people's lives.
Click to expand...

There are much simpler, and far more impactful levers we can pull to address declining birth rates - the existence of bisexual women is barely a consideration to any real discussion of that topic.

The reason homosexuality has historically been opposed also had very little to do with birth rates.

How a topic is treated in media and education inevitably impacts people’s lives, which is my point - you can’t so easily separate the two.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
There are much simpler, and far more impactful levers we can pull to address declining birth rates - the existence of bisexual women is barely a consideration to any real discussion of that topic.
Click to expand...

Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.

Again, I find this use of the word, 'existence' troubling as no one is being destroyed here, no male or female is lost. Whereas this isn't the case with birth rates below replacement.

CPFCSaturn said:
The reason homosexuality has historically been opposed also had very little to do with birth rates.
Click to expand...

Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.

CPFCSaturn said:
How a topic is treated in media and education inevitably impacts people’s lives, which is my point - you can’t so easily separate the two.
Click to expand...

It does but indirectly, which I implied anyway.

Also, the change in favour of homosexuality also affected those who disapproved for the reasons stated plus others. So why the consideration only going one way? But again, I'm interested in hearing your argument.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.



Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.



It does but indirectly, which I what I implied anyway.

Also, the change in favour of homosexuality also affected those who disapproved for the reasons stated plus others. So why the consideration only going one way? But again, I'm interested in hearing your argument.
Click to expand...

Well birth rates are predominantly an economic problem, although there are obviously cultural factors - the most consistent correlations across countries are the cost of living, higher female education levels and urbanisation. There is huge decline in heterosexual couples having children - that can’t be explained by anything to do with homosexuality.


The core resistance to homosexuality historically is surely a religious/moral one - religious texts and doctrine shaped laws and social norms for centuries.

I may be wrong, but tracking of fertility rates seems a fairly new thing, and I don’t think it was much, if any, of a consideration in most of the historic resistance to homophobia.


I accept that social change around homosexuality hasn’t only affected one side of the argument, but I don’t think those impacts are equal - you’re weighing off criminalisation, violence and worse against people feeling socially uncomfortable.
 
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Well birth rates are predominantly an economic problem, although there are obviously cultural factors - the most consistent correlations across countries are the cost of living, higher female education levels and urbanisation. There is huge decline in heterosexual couples having children - that can’t be explained by anything to do with homosexuality.
Click to expand...

No, it's a factor, though not in the way you appear to say, but even then it's only one factor.

The rather stunning obvious refutation of this is that in significantly poorer countries the birth rates are higher. These poorer countries rarely if ever have pro homosexual media or education. In fact, economically you see the opposite to what you say: the higher the standard of average living the lower the birth rates.

An increase in the promotion of alternative sexual lifestyles from one that actually produces the next generation is also a rather stunningly obvious factor.

But it's not a factor on its own.

CPFCSaturn said:
The core resistance to homosexuality historically is surely a religious/moral one - religious texts and doctrine shaped laws and social norms for centuries.
Click to expand...

That's not an answer is it.

Why would there be a religious and moral objection to homosexuality?.....in pretty much all traditional religions and in some secular societies as well.


CPFCSaturn said:
I may be wrong, but tracking of fertility rates seems a fairly new thing, and I don’t think it was much, if any, of a consideration in most of the historic resistance to homophobia.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's still about fertility.....it appears I'm going to have to answer the original question I posed at you...at least for ancient societies and why 'homophobia' was part and parcel wider group protection.

Rather obviously for most of human history the average life expectancy was no higher than 35......Having an thriving and growing number of non child producing adults is about as irrational as it gets in that environment......the male numbers in your village could literally decide whether you survived a raid or not.

CPFCSaturn said:
I accept that social change around homosexuality hasn’t only affected one side of the argument, but I don’t think those impacts are equal - you’re weighing off criminalisation, violence and worse against people feeling socially uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Again, the social factors are far far worse than some people feeling uncomfortable. You just don't appear to recognise them. As for less violence against homosexuals.....Is that really the case?
It wasn't legal to commit violence against homosexuals anyway.

I was raised in the 80s and I certainly don't remember an environment like that.
 
Don't worry Stirling...once the Islamists fully taken over the country then they will ban homosexuality and it won't be a problem anymore in regards to fertility.

Silver linings and all that 😅

Although.....the incest thing between cousins and siblings could be a problem tho....🤔
 
Stirlingsays said:
No, it's a factor, though not in the way you appear to say, but even then it's only one factor.

The rather stunning obvious refutation of this is that in significantly poorer countries the birth rates are higher. These poorer countries rarely if ever have pro homosexual media or education. In fact, economically you see the opposite to what you say: the higher the standard of average living the lower the birth rates.

An increase in the promotion of alternative sexual lifestyles from one that actually produces the next generation is also a rather stunningly obvious factor.

But it's not a factor on its own.



That's not an answer is it.

Why would there be a religious and moral objection to homosexuality?.....in pretty much all traditional religions and in some secular societies as well.




Yes, it's still about fertility.....it appears I'm going to have to answer the original question I posed at you...at least for ancient societies and why 'homophobia' was part and parcel wider group protection.

Rather obviously for most of human history the average life expectancy was no higher than 35......Having an thriving and growing number of non child producing adults is about as irrational as it gets in that environment......the male numbers in your village could literally decide whether you survived a raid or not.



Again, the social factors are far far worse than some people feeling uncomfortable. You just don't appear to recognise them. As for less violence against homosexuals.....Is that really the case?
It wasn't legal to commit violence against homosexuals anyway.

I was raised in the 80s and I certainly don't remember an environment like that.
Click to expand...

Yes richer countries tend have lower birth rates, but that’s one of the most studied topics in demography, and as I said above the key drivers are all well understood; cost of living, urbanisation (raising children becomes an expensive cost, as opposed to economically useful) and women's education/career opportunities. These correlations are consistent across wildly different cultures from East Asia to Latin America, regardless of attitudes to homosexuality.

The homosexuality angle just doesn’t scale at all; in any society it’s a small minority, and even very conservative countries see the same birth rate declines as they get richer (Japan being the most obvious example).

Again, the birth rate decline is driven by straight couples having fewer kids, not from more gay people replacing them - nothing about homosexuality can explain why straight couples are having fewer kids.


Religion was the main way societies defined morality and even secular societies inherit much of their morality from historic religious arguments. Within religion, and in the laws derived from religion, the key arguments against homosexuality were things like 'against nature' or 'sinful' - nothing to do with fertility/populations.

If pressure to survive (using your village scenario below) were the key driver, you'd expect consistency across cultures in terms of treatment of homosexuality, but this isn't the case at all. Societies have historically tolerated all sorts of non-reproductive roles, most of whom weren't persecuted, which undermines any suggestion that it's non-reproduction which triggers oppression.

Small minorities not reproducing within groups wouldn't threaten population survival. If it did, you'd expect the same suppression across societies.


What social factors am I missing for those unhappy with societal acceptance of homosexuality?

Are you seriously questioning the existence of historic violence against homosexuals? Your experience of London in the 80s seems an incredibly tiny sample size to base your claim on. Lots of things aren't legal but still happen.
 
Back in the Eighties my mate was moonlighting as a dodgy taxi driver. He picked up a guy to go to a nightclub and by the time they arrived he was a she. It didn't bother my mate. However the passenger was grateful because violence was a real problem so told all his / her friends they had a safe taxi driver.

Anyway my mate did a roaring trade within the gay / trans community they were happy to pay purely for safety reason. So yeah I think violence against gays was a real thing back then.
 
Badger11 said:
Back in the Eighties my mate was moonlighting as a dodgy taxi driver. He picked up a guy to go to a nightclub and by the time they arrived he was a she. It didn't bother my mate. However the passenger was grateful because violence was a real problem so told all his / her friends they had a safe taxi driver.

Anyway my mate did a roaring trade within the gay / trans community they were happy to pay purely for safety reason. So yeah I think violence against gays was a real thing back then.
Click to expand...
It was but in the past so was violence among football supporters, those who liked different music, had a different length of hair, were of a different ethnicity or were just in the wrong area or pub, etc.
This is not to excuse anything because it's all wrong but there was a lot of violence around - the difference being that stabbing wasn't as common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top