Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

I never heard it that way, but fine. Though AIDS is a whole different story. You don't have to be gay to get AIDS, and the virus itself originated from monkeys in Africa actually.

Oh gawd, I can't believe people still believe this "theory" that has no basis. Africa has been around for thousands of years and tribes were practicing polygamy for ages and suddenly this life threatening virus comes out of nowhere and starts infecting the black population and nobody suggests that there is a racist war going on.

[Mos]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Oh gawd, I can't believe people still believe this "theory" that has no basis. Africa has been around for thousands of years and tribes were practicing polygamy for ages and suddenly this life threatening virus comes out of nowhere and starts infecting the black population and nobody suggests that there is a racist war going on.

There's good amount of scientific support for the chimpanzee theory.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

There's good amount of scientific support for the chimpanzee theory.

There is a greater amount of scientific and logical support that the military invests billions in biological warfare.

[jgk3]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Levon, I understand if you want to debate the topic, but going as far to say your opponent's argument is nil, despite being perfectly legible, just because it uses vernacular grammar, or a different spellchecker?

Moving along.

I don't understand the difference you're trying to make between gay and homosexual. Are you trying to say that you could have homosexual tenancies, but so long as you keep them inside, you're straight?

Another thing, do you think people who have homosexual interests and are open about it would be less "sick" to society if their families were as supportive of them as they towards a "straight" person? Perhaps if they felt more integrated in the family, and everyone was aware of the risks and dangers of the sexual practices associated with the "gay lifestyle", they wouldn't need to find a support group (perhaps after it's too late) outside their own families, doing their battles secretly to understand themselves and making things all the more tragic if they finally do get sick.

About AIDS, look at the places in Africa where the epidemic affects both sexes and leaves countless children as orphans, many of whom are born with the HIV virus. The reasons for why this is happening and isn't being fixed can be largely attributed the social attitudes about sex that are prevalent. 1. Discussion about sex between adolescents and parents is taboo. 2. There is this idea about safer sex that is seen in a negative light by men, condoms are for wusses, and "skin on skin" is the most macho way. Men have to be macho if they want to be cool, therefore there is a lot of pressure against them protecting themselves. For women, it's just as bad, because if they don't agree to have sex with such men, they will be harassed. They might feel the danger of not being accepted, or not being able to secure themselves a man, is greater than the dangers of contracting the HIV virus. Soon, both the man and the woman may die, to leave behind a new generation living in a highly unstable society because the punishment for their attitudes is death, not toil. When you're dead, you can't take responsibility from your actions, learn your lesson and fight to improve your society so that others don't have to go through what you did.

This is not at all the situation for AIDS in the West. The west too did undergo an epidemic that affected both sexes, but eventually this ended, leaving mainly homosexuals at a higher risk of contraction due to the anatomical differences involved in anal sex and how these combine with virus transmission. With men who practice anal sex with eachother, just one slipup can turn them into an infected person, whereas this is statistically less likely for partners who engage in a different kind of intercourse. This is dangerous, we shouldn't be defending this status quo, and indeed nobody is. But generally speaking, we can group 2 ways that people will address this negative status quo. One group seems to be approaching it by advocating safer sex. The other group seems to turn a taboo out of the whole practice of anal sex, condemns it and wants to reject all members who practice it from society (which for anatomical reasons most often falls squarely on gay men).

This is interesting because the risks of HIV is very low for lesbians, thus you cannot associate the disease with homosexuality. You are forced to settle with anatomical differences between men and women as the culprit, not the chemical reactions in the brain associated with having enjoyable sex. But then why should some people feel safe with talking about their concerns with sex, and not others, especially if the risks associated with certain sexual practices that they are capable of doing are life-threatening ones? Why should an entire class of people, grow up afraid to talk about something with their loved ones, which might kill them if they don't know how to approach it safely?

What happens if (or likely, when) they do get sick? Will their families respond to the tragedy with accusation on some other group? Or will they question why they didn't get a chance to communicate enough with the person they lost about the risks while they were still alive? And by communication, I don't mean shoving hatred or paranoia down people's throats, I mean actual exploration of the topic and its risks, and what options are available to maximize safety.

I mean, if we don't hesitate to talk about the risks for other sicknesses (not sexually contracted ones), like say salmonella from eating raw meat or eggs, and want our children to grow up knowing the risks have how to avoid them, wouldn't we by extension want them to make healthy choices in regards to sexual practices? For some of you, I know you would say "they shouldn't practice it at all", because that is indeed the safest choice, just as abstaining from heterosexual intercourse is the safest choice in regards to not getting a woman pregnant. But people will have sex anyway... That's the problem. And you can blame people all you want, and make them believe their acts are sins (as the Church does with premarital sex), the biological motivations towards pursuing enjoyable sex will remain. If you accept this about heterosexual relations, it would be a double standard to not do so for homosexual ones.

If you want to build a society that knows these double standards, but persecutes and instills paranoia anyway, fine. Those are your values.

[gegev]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Armenian population consider gay as sick, abnormal people and usually ovoid having any contact with them, otherwise you will be treated the same way.

I think these cases should remain under doctors jurisdiction, politicians have nothing to do with it. Manifesting that gays/sick should have “democratic” right to remain sick is nonsense.

This is the attitude of Armenians living in Armenia towards the gay and alike, whether you like it or not.

Majority opinion.

[Odar]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Majority isn't always right. In the past centuries, the majority of Europeans blamed the plague epidemics on people called "untori" - often xxxs, Gypsies and the local weirdos - does that mean that it was the truth?

[Federate]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

This is the attitude of Armenians living in Armenia towards the gay and alike, whether you like it or not.

Majority opinion.

[Armanen]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

That was a real LOL for me! At the end he finally figured out the question and flipped sh*t!

[Mos]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Yes that was funny in the end.

[levon]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Levon, I understand if you want to debate the topic, but going as far to say your opponent's argument is nil, despite being perfectly legible, just because it uses vernacular grammar, or a different spellchecker?

Firstly, it's not a different spellchecker, it's the one in the edit window when you submit a reply. As an admin you should know that.
Secondly, I only brought up his spelling, because he arrogantly declared that my entire argument is invalid because one cannot get AIDS, but has to get HIV first. I think an idiot who wants to appear credible should at least use correct grammar, especially if he boasts about "being in academia."

I don't understand the difference you're trying to make between gay and homosexual. Are you trying to say that you could have homosexual tenancies, but so long as you keep them inside, you're straight?

Yes, gay is a life-style. If you find another man attractive it does not make you gay unless you act on it. Kinda like how a man who thinks about raping a woman isn't a rapist unless he actually does the deed. Makes sense?

Another thing, do you think people who have homosexual interests and are open about it would be less "sick" to society if their families were as supportive of them as they towards a "straight" person? Perhaps if they felt more integrated in the family, and everyone was aware of the risks and dangers of the sexual practices associated with the "gay lifestyle", they wouldn't need to find a support group (perhaps after it's too late) outside their own families, doing their battles secretly to understand themselves and making things all the more tragic if they finally do get sick.

Homosexual tendencies are more often than not entirely in one's head. The only difference is whether these tendencies are encouraged or shunned. By "accepting" someone as "gay" you inadvertently encourage the "gay" part more than the straight part. There will always be outliers who no matter what will always be gay, but the rest, who fall in your category, suffer from confusion and can tilt in either direction depending on the environment they're in. An openly gay environment will encourage a sexually confused individual to try the "curved" path, whereas if the environment is more conservative there is a higher chance the individual will assimilate and become normal. In the end, it's about society's priorities. If a society wants to maintain the family unit, then obviously gayness will be discouraged, but a society that wants to do away with the family unit will support gayness as much as possible. You live in the latter society, I'm from the former. As you see, our views on it differ significantly.

About AIDS, look at the places in Africa where the epidemic affects both sexes and leaves countless children as orphans, many of whom are born with the HIV virus. The reasons for why this is happening and isn't being fixed can be largely attributed the social attitudes about sex that are prevalent. 1. Discussion about sex between adolescents and parents is taboo. 2. There is this idea about safer sex that is seen in a negative light by men, condoms are for wusses, and "skin on skin" is the most macho way.

Not necessarily. Don't forget, a lot of them believe that having sex with a 14 year old virgin will cure them of aids. Their culture has different belief systems related to disease, and as a result, aids to them isn't as real as to westerners.

This is not at all the situation for AIDS in the West. The west too did undergo an epidemic that affected both sexes, but eventually this ended, leaving mainly homosexuals at a higher risk of contraction due to the anatomical differences involved in anal sex and how these combine with virus transmission. With men who practice anal sex with eachother, just one slipup can turn them into an infected person, whereas this is statistically less likely for partners who engage in a different kind of intercourse. This is dangerous, we shouldn't be defending this status quo, and indeed nobody is.

Ok, so if practicing the gay life-style leads to higher risk of getting hiv/aids and dying, then naturally, society should discourage such behavior, but the west does nothing but encourage gays.

This is interesting because the risks of HIV is very low for lesbians, thus you cannot associate the disease with homosexuality. You are forced to settle with anatomical differences between men and women as the culprit, not the chemical reactions in the brain associated with having enjoyable sex. But then why should some people feel safe with talking about their concerns with sex, and not others, especially if the risks associated with certain sexual practices that they are capable of doing are life-threatening ones? Why should an entire class of people, grow up afraid to talk about something with their loved ones, which might kill them if they don't know how to approach it safely?

Ok, lets associate it with male homosexuality then. To counter your last point, why should you encourage behaviors that carry high risk of death then band-aid it by trying to "educate" them about safe practices, when you can solve all problems by combating the life-style that encourages the behaviors?

What happens if (or likely, when) they do get sick? Will their families respond to the tragedy with accusation on some other group? Or will they question why they didn't get a chance to communicate enough with the person they lost about the risks while they were still alive? And by communication, I don't mean shoving hatred or paranoia down people's throats, I mean actual exploration of the topic and its risks, and what options are available to maximize safety.

When they get sick they realize how destructive their reckless behaviors were. Then they get on hiv drugs and spread the disease around for another 30 years until aids catches up with them and kills them.

I mean, if we don't hesitate to talk about the risks for other sicknesses (not sexually contracted ones), like say salmonella from eating raw meat or eggs, and want our children to grow up knowing the risks have how to avoid them, wouldn't we by extension want them to make healthy choices in regards to sexual practices?

Answer me this. Does it make sense to encourage eating raw eggs or raw meat then educate people about the dangers of eating raw eggs or meat and call it a proper solution? Wouldn't it make more sense to discourage eating raw eggs or meat altogether? Similarly, doesn't it make more sense to combat the source of the problem, which is a life-style that encourages risky behavior, rather than encourage the life-style but ask for safe-sex practices? Btw, this applies not only to gays, but people in general.

For some of you, I know you would say "they shouldn't practice it at all", because that is indeed the safest choice, just as abstaining from heterosexual intercourse is the safest choice in regards to not getting a woman pregnant. But people will have sex anyway... That's the problem. And you can blame people all you want, and make them believe their acts are sins (as the Church does with premarital sex), the biological motivations towards pursuing enjoyable sex will remain. If you accept this about heterosexual relations, it would be a double standard to not do so for homosexual ones.

No, it wouldn't be a double-standard. Heterosexual sex has a very clear purpose and a very clear consequence if a slip-up happens, namely the woman gets pregnant and the couple has to care for a kid. Homosexual sex has no such purpose behind it, and thus, cannot be compared with heterosexual sex; hence, there can be no double-standard.

If you want to build a society that knows these double standards, but persecutes and instills paranoia anyway, fine. Those are your values.

Again, no double standards. A society that pursues family values will encourage heterosexual sex, and discourage homosexual sex, because if nothing else, heterosexual sex leads to population growth, whereas homosexual sex leads to nothing (but aids).