I agree with your hypothesis that the media and education system has an agenda to push, regarding homosexuality and sexual-identity, but I disagree on your conclusion for why they're doing this.
I don't understand how you can disagree with me. I stated that the motives behind this agenda are unclear to me, so I'm not sure what there is for you to disagree with.
And, as @triddin rightly pointed out, what we're witnessing now isn't a greater percentage being converted, regarding their sexual preferences/ identities, rather a greater percentage of a group, which has always been ostracized all throughout human history, feeling more comfortable coming out into the open about their "not normal" feelings and behavioral tendencies.
I have expressed my distrust in the argument that there have always been great numbers of homosexuals and transgenders in a comment below, so I won't repeat myself here. But, in addressing your comment about the group being ostracized I would ask why you believe this? Could it be because this is portrayed in the media, TV and on Hollywood movies?
If one is pushing such an agenda, the first logical step would be to lay the foundations for which people who oppose that agenda can be painted the villains. This is why you see historical depictions of persecuted gays, when in actuality, this wasn't the case any more so than we see today.
The definition of ostracized, when contrasted with the prominence of such names as Leonardo Di Vinci and Oscar Wilde--whom were both homosexual, refutes your argument entirely. If they had been ostracized by their peers for their sexual proclivities then we, today, would not know their names.
Natural means, more or less, acting true to one's own nature - being open and accepting of how "God made us".
This definition, though one I would agree with, is far too subjective and could easily be used to argue against the point you're trying to make. Where as some people see being true to one's own nature as being true to your mind if you feel you are not the gender your body dictates, another could argue that it means being true to your physicality, because God made you that gender.
Some brave souls dive into their freedom in the midst of heavy persecution.
Again I would have say that I don't feel that transgenders are persecuted any more than obese people, anorexic people, blacks, Jews, those with mono-brows or buck-teeth. We are just lead to believe so because any time there is an instance of an attack on a transgender or homosexual, the media rinses the fuck out of it so as to make everybody believe that there is this widespread hatred towards them, when all you have to do is go out into the world to find out that there is not.
There are those that disagree with it, and don't think it's natural. That doesn't mean that they're unwilling to tolerate those who have chosen that path, or accept that they may still be a good person. The media loves to hype up any instances of hate crimes so as to perpetuate the division between the people and reinforce the people's belief that we are many, rather than one. They need to do this, because when the day comes that we do realise that we are one, change will happen on that very day.
Nested Reply @son-of-satire
You put forth a cogent position. It appears to me that you have a bit of knowledge in the area of human psychology, vis-à-vis neuro-plasticity, a very interesting topic that I admittedly have little knowledge about.
Thanks for participating in this thought-provoking discussion, btw. I truly appreciate it.
That first point, to which I wholeheartedly agree, is the culprit, regardless of whether sexual orientation is strictly genetic (choice is ruled out) or not. I think your next statement takes a rather large leap from that foundation, and I'm not so convinced that people would be able to physiologically change themselves to such a degree (completely flipping their sexual orientation) by mere will , but perhaps there is something to the neuro-plasticity case that you brought up later on in your post.
I agree on your statements about the unconscious mind, but I posit that the case you brought up about certain people being predisposed to "becoming" gay through their ways of empathizing with homosexuals are latently gay; that's to say, they were born with a predisposition to homosexuality. In other words, they may not have had any choice in becoming gay and this unique manifestation of empathy was perhaps only the circumstantial "gateway" to pass the message from the unconscious to the conscious. They may well have discovered it in some other way had they not done so via the empathy pathway.
Think of it like an urge that's dormant from the perspective of the conscious mind, due to applying various psychological mechanisms of suppression, but alive and dripping with anticipation to be realized and expressed at the unconscious level. There's a certain type of pressure there that builds up over time and must eventually be acknowledged, or else it will find some way to uncontrollably leak out. You could say empathizing with homosexuals is a type of "faucet" for that realization to leak into the conscious awareness, but there are a million and one other ways that it can happen.
And it's my position that the only reason people ever feel they "discover" their homosexual tendencies is because they were conditioned by their upbringing to hate, fear and suppress it. The truth of it rests in the unconscious, irregardless of conscious awareness of it, or lack thereof.
The symptoms of suppression can be so strong that a homosexual may not even realize that he/ she is such, whilst others around them are very aware of them being homosexual or, at the very least, exhibiting strong homosexual signals that leave them with little doubt. This is because, as you mentioned, the unconscious mind controls most of our movements (both of thought and action). The mind of a man in denial may not allow itself, for a time, to see the signs, but, for those not under such hypnosis, the signs can be overtly obvious. In any case, it will eventually come to the surface. How it's dealt with when it surfaces will depend a lot on how open one is to accepting it and this openness, or lack thereof, comes mostly down to what the person in question was conditioned to believe about it and how deeply rooted those beliefs became over time.
My apologies on the misunderstanding. You're right that you didn't take a clear position (conclusion) on the motives of the agenda. My argument is with your position of sexual preferences/ leniencies being a choice (shown in the quote from your earlier post, below).
Perhaps it's just a classical case of two proponents arguing from opposing sides of the nature vs nurture debate, with no real way of proving who's right, if either, between the two of them, but I take the opposite stance. I'm convinced that sexual orientation is a cemented "genetic stamp", determined prior to one's birth. As an example, I don't think there's a single case of homosexuality as a choice; it's always a deep impulse that's instinctual (inborn), which determines what sexually satisfies an individual.
Now, I believe that society (nurture) has a way of building up a delusion or denial of one's, what for a time are latent (pre-pubescent period), sexual tendencies; hence, causing deep sexual suppression. I believe we manage this, as a society, by educating our young to focus on conforming to norms (being "normal"), as opposed to listening to themselves, and this is where the persecution comes in - it's generally a very subtle thing.
When a child hears the word "faggot" thrown around as a derogatory, dirty, word and then hears that word interchanged (as if synonymous) with the words "gay" and "homosexual", that builds a connotation that reflects negatively within the individual. It can, and often will, build up bigotry around the label(s) that's most associated with the words and create shame and disgust within the individuals that experience homosexual feelings, which is, IMO, one of the major causes of suppressing them.
Naturally, as society makes a greater and greater effort to drive home the idea that homosexuality is both natural and "normal", people will start to make looser and looser connections with the aforementioned derogatory connotations and become more open to accepting those individuals to whom those labels are given. Unsurprisingly, it's at such a time that suddenly more and more people with homosexual orientation feel less fear to bring it out into the open.
People generally don't want to feel different, that's where the majority of the ostracization/ persecution comes from - it's mostly psychological and self-imposed, but the position is affirmed and strengthened by outward appearances of disapproval, and the bigotry does exist, of course. This is why I brought up the "normal" vs "natural" issue. People unwittingly equate nature with norms, when, in fact, norms can simply be the result of a group of cowards that are too fearful to be themselves, being ruled by society imposed conformity.
It may still not be normal to be homosexual, but it's very natural.
Of course, it may also be natural, at least for a time, for the collective gene pool of a species (homosexuality exists in much, if not all, of the animal kingdom) to attempt removing those genetic lines that are predisposed to producing latent homosexuality, I can't say for sure. My gut tells me that there's a real benefit to having subsets of sexual variations, ranging from moderate to extreme, and that our collective genetic pool is always striving to maintain a specific balance to keep that benefit in order. Evolution is a complex beast.
Yes, I believe you are correct. That is exactly what we are discussing when we get down to the very core of the subject matter, and if thousands of years and millions of great minds could not have provided a clear answer, it's very doubtful that we shall here.
Nevertheless, there is a couple of things you mentioned that I would like to propose a dichotomous perspective towards, much like in the case of when you stated that natural means being true to what God has given you.
While this may be true for some, my personal observation in life has shown me that it does not apply for everyone. The human mind is a very complex thing and each and every person has a different way of processing information, just as we all have a unique way in which we are affected by that information.
Where some would hear bigotry and then end up a bigot themselves, there are some who empathize with the victims of this bigotry more than with the bigot. If one has also suffered persecution or ridicule in their life, then that empathy can manifest itself in a strong connection to the victims (in this case homosexuals). Now for most, this would be nothing more than a shared understanding of the plight of life, yet for others, that shared persecution could create the illusion that one must also be gay and that's why they have suffered in the same way. What we consciously think about, is only 10% of what actually goes on in our mind. The unconscious mind makes more decisions for us than we are aware, and is for the most part, the true driving force behind our life choices and the path we take.
Neuro-plasticity has revealed to us the complexities of the brain, and how the more we see something the stronger the bonds in our minds associated with that particular thing becomes. So someone who was heterosexual and as such was not sexually aroused by the thought or sight of another of the same gender, after being subjected to same-sex couples showing signs of sexual arousal numerous times, will eventually develop a neuro-pathway in their mind that will tell them, on an unconscious level, that they should be aroused by the same sex.
Cognitive dissonance can prove to be a powerful defender of such shifts in perspective, but sooner or later, long term subjection to this sort of thing is always going to lead to that pathway being formed in the brain.
While there are powerful hereditary factors determined by genes relating to personality, I think a notable one would be temperament, these are determined by hormone regulation and even they can be ultimately overridden by nurture over extended periods of time, because human behaviour is mostly learned, not created.
I think for every person trying to fit in, there is another fighting for uniqueness, especially in today's world were the public education system cripples our sense of individuality before we even get the chance to see it develop. I strongly hold the position that a number of homosexuals and transgenders are driven to their decision by a desire to stand out amongst the crowd after leading a life of essential invisibility.
My point is, there are a number of root psychological causes that could lead one to override their body chemistry on a subconscious level and become genuinely homosexual or transsexual. I am not asserting that there are 49/50 in this category who are pretending for the sake of it. No. Quite to the contrary, I believe that they believe they were born that way and it was inevitable to happen. I just think that 49/50 of them, having not been subjected to the perverted nature of the world we reside in, would not have been confused about their sexuality nor their gender.
I still think that we must all exercise tolerance in everything we do, but that doesn't mean we need to exercise ignorance. If you allocate even two hours to look into the pioneers of the LGBT community over the last few decades, where they received funding from etc, it becomes evident that there are forces out there who are intentionally exposing the masses to this on an unprecedented level. It's not about acceptance. It's not about unity and coming together. It's, I believe, something a lot more sinister. One thing is for certain though, we will never find out what the true agenda is as long as everyone wants to think that there is nothing going on, or are too afraid to express any concerns they may have for fears of being labelled closed minded(ironically).
I don't understand how you can write this and not see how it's so totally and completely not right.
You're saying that “these people” aren't getting it any worse than they deserve? For being different? WAT?!
They don't deserve to be treated any different AT ALL… No honestly, they don't deserve it, they deserve respect. They actually deserve a lot more respect because of how they wake up and face the world every day, as full as it is with bigotry. But at minimum they deserve the exact same measure of respect that is afforded everyone else.
Perception is an interesting concept. I write a sentence, that to most, clearly implies that we are all victims of persecution in one way or another, for one reason of another.
You perceive this to mean that I'm saying they deserve it so that you can justify sending me a pissy message. After the ignorant comment I just responded to of yours, claiming that it is acceptable for 15 year olds to have gender reassignment surgery without their parents consent or council, you ought to feel lucky that I'm even bothering to reply to this.
I believe everyone should be treated the same. I do not think that any one particular group should be treated better than others because of an alleged case of historical persecution. Fuck that. We are all people and we all have suffered in one way or another.
Respect however, is something you earn. So I shan't respect a transsexual, or anybody for that matter, until I have seen that they deserve my respect.
As you have proved yourself to be a master of twisting my words to suit your purposes, I shall clarify that this does not mean that I disrespect everyone until I know they deserve otherwise. It means that I am in a neutral state in regards to respect, but still exercise compassion and tolerance until they show me they're unworthy of it. --Much like you have done with your two ignorant, argumentative comments.
Well I'm glad you agree that they don't deserve it. Thank you for that clarification, and sorry I misunderstood your meaning.