Tolerance in Armenia

[Armanen]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

I'm not "ok" with it in the sense that I think its "cool", "interesting" or "progressive" if someone is gay. I don't care what makes someone aroused in their spare time. If it happens to be men, then I tolerate it as long as its kept private and out of my sight. This goes for straight people too -- I don't need to see guys kissing and rubbing on their skank girlfriends in public, either. I view public sexual acts as indecent, sometimes uncivilized, depending on the degree. Whether its done by gays or straights is irrelevant.

It seemed as if you were "ok" with it in your post, so thanks for clearing that up. I never said I really wanted to suppress gays, or I hate them, however I am tired of people (in the west) shoving down our throats the bs about acceptence, open mindedness, tolerence, etc. Homos can do their thing in private, but I don't want to see it in public, and I sure as hell don't want to see whole streets closed off for them so that they can parade around in leather underwear or whatnot. In an ideal world there would be no homosexuals, and many other things, but we do not live in an ideal world so I understand things like this happen and will happen, but I don't think that means we have to be acceptening of it, maybe tolerent like we are with taxes and other things in life, but NOT accepting of it.

[ara87]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

so back onto the other part of the topic, as far as marrying a non armenian goes, it's pretty much accepted that it's a bad thing but worse if the non armenian is not white/tan, and worse if the armenian in the the couple is female. So why is it so bad if it's the woman doing the marrying, and as far as the kids go,i think that old adage of, "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." If the kid speaks armenian, and is raised armenian in every way, does it matter if he doesn't look like the rest of the kids on the playground?

[ara87]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

Is pushing for the genocide resolution the only thing diasporans should concern themselves with, in your opinion?

No, given to armenian charities and a.t.p. But as for other armenian issues like calling your congressmen/senators for things like the closed borders, and all the new pipelines and rails that will go around instead of through armenia, is always harder for some reason than getting people to call about the genocide

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

Environment definitely plays a part, but its mostly genetic. You would have to be in a pretty hardcore environment to change your natural sexual orientation, which is wired to have you attracted to the oppposite sex. Nature beats Nurture. There are a few exceptions, which make up this small percentage in the population. Some of you guys are speaking of homosexuality like its some "temptation" that all people have which can be easily manipulated by our environment. If you have those kind of temptations, you are probably a closeted homosexual. And if you don't have those temptations, that just proves its mostly genetic.

And I don't advocate homosexuality, although it would leave more women for myself. But if someone is born like that, I can't find a good reason to suppress them just because of it.

Humans like all creatures are meant to procreate and being gay obviously opposes that goal.

Yes, which means naturally, the vast majority of people will be born straight.

homosexuality may not be a national security threat but it certainly is a social threat, and I do not think any Armenian nationalist so be "ok" with it.

I'm not "ok" with it in the sense that I think its "cool", "interesting" or "progressive" if someone is gay. I don't care what makes someone aroused in their spare time. If it happens to be men, then I tolerate it as long as its kept private and out of my sight. This goes for straight people too -- I don't need to see guys kissing and rubbing on their skank girlfriends in public, either. I view public sexual acts as indecent, sometimes uncivilized, depending on the degree. Whether its done by gays or straights is irrelevant.


As for gay rights and nationalism, according to these criteria, smoking is a much bigger concern for nationalists than a few dozen homosexuals. Despite this, putting a ban on smoking never crosses our minds, even though a large proportion of Armenians smoke, but we always hear huge criticisms of homosexuality, which affects at most 2 or 3% of the population (probably less).


Suppressing gays doesn't mean they will become straight, and allowing them equal rights doesn't mean straight people have a bigger chance of becoming gay. I don't see how we can come to that conclusion. If everyone is equal, then the most populous group (straight people) will continue to enforce their natural social norms without the government's help. We don't need government to do nature's work -- theres no point. Making homosexuality illegal only suppresses people -- then you end up with the Republican party of the USA.

Also, if treating gays as equal would lead to extinction, all those Hellenistic states, including the whole Roman world, which not only tolerated homosexuality but viewed it as "normal", would not have existed. Gays are the least of our worries as a nation and society, and I say that with no doubts.

You will find that "progression" is often a blanket term used in order to trick the masses that a new and "better" system is in place. When in fact it's just one form of hierarchical control replacing another; an evolution if you will.

I agree. But hating gays or taking away their rights just turns society's focus away from issues which actually have an impact on our lives. Look at the U.S. elections -- gay issues get more time than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and many other important issues. It works right into the hands of the elite.

[jgk3]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

definitely so.

[Armanen]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

You will find that "progression" is often a blanket term used in order to trick the masses that a new and "better" system is in place. When in fact it's just one form of hierarchical control replacing another; an evolution if you will.

[jgk3]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

That was an interesting explanation from Foucault, I think he's right, but I think sexuality in general makes more sense in terms of something we engage with, not something that determines what our existence is like (which all these arguments of nature vs. nurture seem to be designed for accomplishing).

To me, it seems like gay rights activism has nothing to do with sexuality to begin with, it's just another minority group that is trying to make things as comfortable for itself as possible. Short of "democracy" and not jailing you for being a dissenter, this movement would not have been feasible, so imo, it's not really about the freedom. In the big picture, it's just a matter of transforming the traditional mindset of an entire nation into something new, rewritten by activist minority groups who've been empowered by a central authority to do it's bidding, specifically with "cultural revolutions".

Sure, there's good that could come out of these things, some changes in perspective on things, for sure. But from what I've seen, we forget too many of the old morals and wisdom from former eras whenever we convince are selves that we are following a "progressive doctrine", and this is especially the case when an entire nation, more or less, conforms to such an idea.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

When they were interviewed they just acted like it was negligent or tried to overshadow those figures with other numbers. This study that I am referring to was published in The American Sociological Review in April of 2001 titled "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" by USC professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz.

Acceptance is different from tolerance. I tolerate the homosexual's right to exist and be a homosexual. I do not, however, accept his lifestyle as proper. It's presumed that unless we accept homosexuality we are not tolerant of homosexuality. However, there is a blurring effect prevalent in that line of reasoning which is fallacious.

In The History of Sexuality Foucault, himself a homosexual, identified homosexuality as a modern invention, i.e. the idea of homosexuality as a group in itself that is somehow distinct and conscious of itself. Prior to that there was never a question of whether homosexuality is a function of genetics or choice. It was simply not seen as being a fundamental part of the person, but instead as an action, a tendency, a behavior, something the person engaged in. In Foucault's words:

"Homosexuality appears as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species."

[jgk3]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

The results, however, indicated that children of same-sex parents were on average far more likely to "experiment" with those of the same sex. Of course, this was played down and swept under the rug like all things.

I didn't know about that, and what means did they use to downplay those results?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Tolerance in Armenia

Like ArmSurvival said sexuality is not environmentally influenced - it's genetic.

That is untrue.

In fact, there is no conclusive evidence for either argument. All the evidence suggests that homosexuality is both genetic as well as environmentally influenced (which explains homosexuality in prisons).

In fact, several years ago there was a study done by a USC sociologist tracking same-sex parents. The obvious motive of the study was of course political, in that it set out to prove that same-sex parenting is absolutely normal. The results, however, indicated that children of same-sex parents were on average far more likely to "experiment" with those of the same sex. Of course, this was played down and swept under the rug like all things.