quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am considerably older than you are. I also grew up in a small town. I knew gay people before I know about sex.
I also knew gay people and knew about gay people before I knew about the birds and the bees. We had dinner at the house of some old friends of my father, and my parents explained that they were two women who liked each other, which was the way some people are. Very un-traumatic and non-revolutionary for a 5 year old to grasp. In fact I only remember because it was one of them that turned me on Star Wars and lent me the films. Looking back, it wasn't really material for a 5 year old, but it was the 80s.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Evil? And anyway, you've certainly been holier than thou yourself, so that complaint is about as reasonable as your dig at Orincoro for soapboxing. This is a topic about which people feel strongly, and such things are there for pretty much all of us. You could save yourself some time by stopping the pretense of being above it.
Who has time for pretense?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll admit that at times I'm effuse, but my fundamental premise still stands -- based on my worldview in rural Utah, as a teenager, I would have been truly shocked if a gay youth had been sent from their home for being gay. It's not a norm in Mormon communities. And based on personal experience, I'd infer that it would be more likely to occur in a Catholic or Baptist community.
Conversely, based on the doctrine of the church, I would find it highly likely for a scared kid to be afraid of the reaction they might elicit from parents or peers. Scared enough that they might runaway from home voluntarily (as I did at one time). But I think that scared kids do a lot of stupid things, Mormon or otherwise.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: It then hits a significant inflection point and begins rapidly going down, until in 2010 only about 45% of the population believe it's immoral.
::slight quibble::
45% of the population *say* that they believe it to be immoral.
As we can surmise that the percentage shift is due to a number of factors like demographic shift, cultural change, population replacement rate, etc, we can also surmise that some number of respondents will simply answer any such survey in the way that they perceive to be most socially acceptable, even if those responses are given anonymously.
I forget what you call this, but there is a well established effect on certain types of polling and survey data which pushes a significant number of respondents toward the socially acceptable answer.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'll admit that at times I'm effuse, but my fundamental premise still stands -- based on my worldview in rural Utah, as a teenager, I would have been truly shocked if a gay youth had been sent from their home for being gay. It's not a norm in Mormon communities. And based on personal experience, I'd infer that it would be more likely to occur in a Catholic or Baptist community.
Your fundamental premise appears to be that according to your admittedly naive understanding of your community, something which you never personally observed is not a norm in your society. Because you say so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'll admit that at times I'm effuse, but my fundamental premise still stands -- based on my worldview in rural Utah, as a teenager, I would have been truly shocked if a gay youth had been sent from their home for being gay. It's not a norm in Mormon communities. And based on personal experience, I'd infer that it would be more likely to occur in a Catholic or Baptist community.
Your fundamental premise appears to be that according to your admittedly naive understanding of your community, something which you never personally observed is not a norm in your society. Because you say so.
- I admitted that both myself and my community were somewhat naive, or sheltered, compared to the larger culture of Western society. I didn't claim that my understanding of my community of naive. - Observing a dearth of something is still observation. If I've never witnessed a car flying, and someone claimed that Mormon's flew flying cars, I'd say that I have a pretty good point to disagree with them. - Because I say so? Certainly, because I say so. Most of this discussion is based on anecdotal evidence and hearsay. Even when scant statistical data is used, it isn't enough to hold up to even minimal scrutiny.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Where do you get that I'm apprehensive?
Apprehension means understanding. As in to apprehend. To catch the meaning of something.
It can, in some cases. In the quoted usage, however, the primary definition of fearful or anxious was implied.
Are we going to start playing "you're a bigot, not me, and I'm more liberally sophisticated than you, because. . . ."?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: It then hits a significant inflection point and begins rapidly going down, until in 2010 only about 45% of the population believe it's immoral.
::slight quibble::
45% of the population *say* that they believe it to be immoral.
As we can surmise that the percentage shift is due to a number of factors like demographic shift, cultural change, population replacement rate, etc, we can also surmise that some number of respondents will simply answer any such survey in the way that they perceive to be most socially acceptable, even if those responses are given anonymously.
I forget what you call this, but there is a well established effect on certain types of polling and survey data which pushes a significant number of respondents toward the socially acceptable answer.
I'm less interested in the absolute values, though, and more interested in the trends, particularly the fairly significant change point around 1990. And even if the effect is due in part to social desirability bias, it's still interesting to wonder why the perception of social acceptability would change so abruptly.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
In reference to your latest post (I don't have time to quote or address it all): yes, the situation is always more complicated than it looks. Of the handful of stories I shared (and many more I can think of) there is far, far more to each person and each story than the one line explanation I give. People are complex creatures.
What gets me, though, is that in *all* cases the victims - whether or not their story is completely accurate - are just that. Victims. Their parents were in the place of authority and trust, and it was their (the parents) responsibility to care for and provide for the child in question, to be the more mature individual in the relationship, and to provide a safe and understanding environment for the child to grow up in. And the damage being done to the victims is also real - it's hard to grasp just how damaging being homeless for any amount of time is to anyone, let alone a child. On top of the emotional and psychological damage of privation and loneliness, they get taken advantage of sexually, they get beat up pretty constantly, a lot of times it sets them back so far educationally that they never recover, and God forbid they get arrested or get a police record. If they ever get off the street again. Abandoning a child like that is pretty much destroying, or at least doing a lot of damage, to their life. However much the victim incited his parents against him or rebelled, there is simply no excuse, no ameliorating factor, that makes it any better. Even if the kid is physically violent, he'd be better off in a boarding school or even juvenile detention than homeless. And there are *plenty* of social services and options for troubled teens - I've volunteered with quite a few of them.
For most of my life, due to who I am and choices I've made, I've found myself in places where I associate with or work to help the rejects and outcasts of our society. It's been a major theme in all the posts I've made here since 2009 when I was still working with the Wheeler Mission through the present. And one thing I've found is that those doing the outcasting, the marginalizing, the bullying and discriminating - by which I mean, those who by fate or gifting find themselves in places of power and respect socially - always have some justification for what they do. "Someone needed to put her in her place", "come on man, we're just messing with you! You need to grow a thicker skin", "I try to be kind, but he's just... weird. I think he likes the attention", "He was rebelling against us and leading our other children into rebellion", "she'll thank us for it one day"... and on and on and on. What doesn't change is that *they're* the ones with the power, authority, and ability to hurt, and therefore *they're* the ones with the responsibility for how they misuse that power.
FWIW, all the stories I mentioned are true. There are several hundred stories of that nature I could tell, if I took the time to write them down. (There are several hundred more that, regretfully, I have forgot. The memories of them are nothing more than a face here, a name here, a few words here...) The majority are not from LDS families. I simply mention LDS because, well, that's what this thread is about. And because of the uniqueness of the fact that money was never an issue in any of the stories involving LDS that I recall. (Money is almost always the deciding factor)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Where do you get that I'm apprehensive?
Apprehension means understanding. As in to apprehend. To catch the meaning of something.
It can, in some cases. In the quoted usage, however, the primary definition of fearful or anxious was implied.
No, it was not. Trust me- I would be the one making the implications. Had I said "apprehension about," then it would have meant fear. But I wrote, "apprehension of," which means your ability to understand or to gather understanding of something. Trust me. I wrote it. I know what the implication was.
quote: Are we going to start playing "you're a bigot, not me, and I'm more liberally sophisticated than you, because. . . ."?
I passed on making light of the fact that you lept to the idea that I was calling you fearful even when I wasn't- but now you've pressed upon me with your insecurity to the point where I am forced to point it out to you.
I have no need for you to know the extent of my sophistication. If it is not evident in how I communicate, then attempting to impress it upon you in explicit terms would have the opposite effect from the one desired. But you are clearly very interested in proving that you can keep up; and that ought to be enough for you to apprehend (get it?), that you are not succeeding.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm less interested in the absolute values, though, and more interested in the trends, particularly the fairly significant change point around 1990. And even if the effect is due in part to social desirability bias, it's still interesting to wonder why the perception of social acceptability would change so abruptly.
Even accounting for bias, the answers are clearly evidence of an abrupt change. I think those who haven't -excuse the expression- gotten religion in regards to homosexuality in acceptable society would say that the tail wags the dog; that the media pushes our desire to be accepted to the point that the numbers shift this dramatically. My experience with marketing theory and working in the media tells me that it is very, very hard to convince people to do something they wouldn't normally do anyway. Most of advertising and opinionated fiction is convincing someone that you have something in common- not that they are wrong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro -- really? Because your persuasive, intelligent argument was. . . .
There's a grumpy old troll. Living under the BRIIIIDDDDGGGGEE. A grumpy old troll . . . living under the BRIIIIIIIDDDDDDDGGGGGEE.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No wait . . . I'm waiting for you to be persuasive or intelligent or something other than the nerd glaring over the rim of his glasses. Seriously. I'm certain you'll posit an argument any second.
Or maybe I'm just apprehensive of your astounding intelligence. Gives me the willies just thinking about it.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
