August 2010

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Ontario Transfer Personalized Plate

again over the rights of homosexuals to Luis H. Debate Homophobia

Are homosexuals different values \u200b\u200bthan heterosexuals? Does it make the acquisition of civil rights for that group to subvert the values have advanced society?

These two questions remain dormant in the exchange of views, for me, always interesting and didactic emerged Luis H. Arroyo, on the notebook Arena, who lives up to those words of Hayek said that "an economist is a good economist should know not only of Economics."

As always, in an exchange of views will marginalize the matches to sink his teeth into the discrepancies, an attitude far more honest and fruitful than the gush watermelons in making mutual ball matches. I'm in wide disagreement with some of the statements of Louis and all with what can be derived from two or three points of view remains, but try to go step by step without neglecting any aspect of the debate. HOMOSEXUAL EXHIBICIONIST

In my last entry and made clear that the exhibition is not only gay but it is much less tolerated for obvious reasons:

1) is less suggestive Because the majority of the population, is heterosexual.

2) Because it has traditionally been much more frequent exhibitionism heterosexual (and still is, there is more to do advertising, film, TV series ...) so that there is a social grounds or species "street" culture that sees the permanent display of heterosexuality as something endemic to the social landscape.

3) Because homosexual exhibitionism is much more aggressive, due precisely to the situation of concealment and from discrimination against gays. It's like if you suddenly have to "catch up" and revenge against those who discriminated against them or see them with prejudice as if to say "I know you hated, because I'll have to endure for noses." But this is predicated only a minority of the gay community, but unfortunately its image projected on the majority.

Luis says he has recently "discovered" by the comment of Violante Cabral not bother you but private sexual proclivities public exhibitionism. It seemed to me obvious that this was the case (like many to tell me more or less intensity), so I used the quotes as discovered. But it is obvious that Louis, like most everyone (including me) will spend much more inadvertent exhibitionism heterosexual constant and pervasive and / or he / bothers us less.

Moreover, I have not even read a single sentence Luis acknowledging what seems to me obvious: the rides ranging in Gay Pride, nor are all gay and all gays are in the parade. needed until exhaustion that most homosexuals are not trumpeting their status, not because they are ashamed of it but because they consider it a personal issue and are increasingly more wary and weary carnival and totalitarian drift from the gay community (the close to power, by the way). I think it is essential to discuss this as often as needed, precisely so that the germ totalitarian Luis rightly denounces the lobbies gay count on a victory that will not be allowed: we consider that they are all homosexuals that represent them all, that there are no homosexuals do not think at all as they do. We usually make this exception elemental with the nationalists and the inhabitants of regions that aspire to bullying, why not do it with a group much more fragmented as it can not be derived from a specific geographical area?

Moreover, against the vice of the exhibition is the virtue of indifference or "did not look." I have gone several years to see the monotonous and politicized (by liberals) Gay Pride parade with a mixture of curiosity and bewilderment. When I got tired of seeing famosillos (all of the sect of "Zeja") and half-naked bodies swaying to the music maquinera (and is easy to get bored quickly because time is all the same) I left the mess with my friends and we went to bars, either at or adjacent Chueca. I prefer that kind of wiggles occur in situations much more intimate and more of my music taste. I understand that

lobbyists have achieved a level of presence that is tiresome, but never as today we have so many entertainment possibilities that allow us to disconnect from the fields of social reality that we are weary. But the Gay Pride Day has long since led to a new excuse that this society is given to break the routine for a few hours and if it is crowded is not meeting the many homosexuals but heterosexuals attending / came, even occasionally, in the company of friends or couples, to a place where you know there's more partying than normal. As mentioned earlier, has more to do with the hedonism that the gay movement, the first is an even broader power than the latter.

FREEDOM AND MIGRATION

addition, Luis I made an interesting comment that I would say. In my previous post and the replies to the replies, I mentioned that today, despite no official discrimination, persists in many areas a clear homophobic prejudice (hopefully Pio Moa not scold us for using the word happy, but I doubt they would go through this blog, sorry ... for him, of course). This causes a migration of people into larger villages looking for comfort and freedom that just drifting in the establishment of districts like Chueca or Gayxample. Luis said this:

[...] and finally, on the migration of people is not the first time to seek freedom in the city, the cradle of her. In a village not pretend to take the cosmopolitan ways, neither this nor any. The fate of anyone who points out, whatever, good or bad, is long. Ghetto And they further their own! parades, carnivals , neighborhoods taken (not that they have been held there ...) but please, is that Chueca is a ghetto! I compare this with the Jewish ghettos , Carlos, please.

At no time Chueca I wanted to compare the Warsaw Ghetto or another of that ominous kind, of course. I'm sorry if something similar has been derived from my use of the word "ghetto" (I give great importance to this explanation, which he considered unnecessary, for my personal appreciation to the Jewish people), but I think Luis exaggerates a little. He recognizes something that we agree: the more freedom inherent in large cities, which also recognizes that if there are places where homosexuality is still difficulty in developing who feels vital. About

the ghetto is fostered by its own members, I think they should clarify that it is easier to settle in a place where there are more people like you, as happens to Latin Americans, the Maghreb, the Romanian ... Has a positive side, it can accelerate the integration process without too many traumas, and negative, is that too much social isolation of that group getting just the opposite effect, a lack of integration that may eventually become a series of conflicts that are much worse. The examples are numerous French outer suburbs. In the case of homosexuals, it has nothing to do, there is a language barrier or cultural, usually not economical (in fact, Chueca has become a neighborhood "good" after being taken as "urban site" of the gay community before it was quite complicated and a neighborhood with high crime rates). By the way, a fact for reflection and to shift Zerolo irritates them a lot and try to hide it: in the district of Chueca, wins the elections the PP, not by much.

And again, the words of Luis "The ghetto foster it themselves" is a generalization very much in the lobbies roses. There are homosexuals who do not want to live in such neighborhoods precisely because they want their residence is a "social bookmarking" of their condition sexual.

THE "SECURITIES GAY"
But the question I think is most relevant comment Luis, is given in the following lines:

A parent homo will do everything to be proud of your child a, and homosexuals will inevitably inculcate values. I can not imagine a parent hetero encourage homosexuality (though resigned to accept if your child is). Let's see: You're confusing the terms. And do not deny the right to exercise the inclination which nature has given him, but then to think that adoption is guai, is an abyss.

gay Whose values? What are? Does this imply that there are some "heterosexual values" opposed? But I, as a heterosexual, I acknowledge my ignorance of the latter. Do personal values \u200b\u200bare determined by their sex?

Luis reading these lines, it seems obvious that some gay parents will want their child to inherit their sexual orientation. I do not doubt that there will be, but unless you see homosexuality as negative, this should not be worrying. I think it's easier than some gay parents, who may have suffered by their orientation, are more respectful of your child's sexual orientation to what the company was under the guidance of them sexual. It is common to all parents want for their offspring a better world than they have been around. This is not always true, of course, but it is a proven trend. As is that of heterosexual parents are born and raised gay children. O children of honest parents dishonest, or vice versa (this is more difficult because it is always easier to spread evil, but unless we considered and clearly negative to homosexuality should not worry.)

addition, Luis can not imagine a parent hetero promoting homosexuality, thus, suggests that not imagine a gay foster father in his son's heterosexuality. What I see is that neither imagine a parent who does not encourage and instill a particular sexuality on their children but tries to encourage freedom of choice, whether "rational" or following the irrational instincts child.

I am not a father and Luis it is, so I must be extremely careful because I do not want to believe that I make the audacity to comment on its performance as a father, something which I would not and also I have no reason to doubt of its good performance, quite the contrary. But what I mean, I do not believe that all heterosexual parents "resigned acceptance of homosexuality in your child if there is" , and here I can speak from experience because I know cases where parents have supported their children when they have "come out", not with joy by his homosexuality and resignation, but excited by the more or less free election of his son.

I do not think that being heterosexual has to have certain values \u200b\u200bthan those that would be homosexual . My values \u200b\u200bare confined to classical liberalism with a touch, sometimes very intense (I would like to be eclectic) of more modern authors, even today. If a "value heterosexual" is to consider homosexuality a disgrace, not prosecuted and respectable, but a disgrace to the end of the day, declined to partake of this "value heterosexual." categorically deny that my sexual condition suppose that my ideology is determined by my all hormonal reactions. Among other things because that would mean that my beliefs would changeable with a particular drug treatment , for example, hormonación needed to acquire female physical characteristics (hormonación conducting transgender men who are born women). That option to exchange ideas with drugs, it seems more typical of a futuristic nightmare novel of Aldous Husley and all my reason rebels against it.
Luis
This makes me consider "rational" something we do not consider pejorative (something different is to be "hyperrationalism" I guess that's what he meant.) Then he made interesting comments on the irrational basis of society, Hayek and von Mises. Issues on which I would return in a future post, interesting and because he and I have stayed too long, so I apologize.

Greetings.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Do You Ever Turn In To A Human I Pokemon Dungeon

Arroyo, Freedom, normality and morality (II)

Is homosexuality unnatural practice? Is it immoral? Does it make its acceptance a regression? Does tolerance to it carries a disguised undermining civilization of increased freedoms invididual?

Although the heat of debate that took place following the self Pio Moa and homophobic has been turned off (I could not write this post before) it is obvious that the initial questions generated pulse in the debate about homosexuality and especially as regards the recognition of certain civil rights of homosexuals as "gay marriage" and adoption by gay couples.

In the previous post I explained why I think the autoimputación of Moa and homophobic, not only clumsy, but by assuming a tramposa dilogía unsustainable and dangerous also. He stated being against the homophobic "Maffia roses", which is as incoherent as declared "catalanófobo" for being against Catalan nationalism. Clearly, there is little evidence of such strong appreciation to Catalonia and the Catalans as a fight for the release from the yoke of nationalism. Cancer continue to deteriorate "supremacist" and interventionist lobbies of many gays (all statist cutting), soon will be the same: that the best token of appreciation to the gay community will fight for the release of the yoke of those lobbyists. Pío Moa

holds his statement by claiming that the end of the dominant focus groups generated a "word police" and therefore homophobic is used for all those who oppose gay goings of such groups as the Catalan nationalism (the analogy is mine and others, has not used Moa) accused of catalanófobos us who oppose his ideas.

This is highly inconsistent. No doubt that Pio Moa opposes exclusive nationalism, his historiographical work supports him as much as its numerous opinion articles. Yet no owner has come up with an entry on his blog "I am catalanófobo, naturally."

Moa The dialectic ruse to avoid having to backpedal, claiming that "assumes that should be named according to the word" police "whose use is that complaint is to surrender in a battle as important as language: if you consider that those groups that oppose you may e tiquetarte as they want, then you really are not belligerent with them, you just put in profile and not dare to go ahead. Moa considers that goes ahead and is even more brave to let tag, to surrender and in what language to constrain, as though they would benefit and those lobbying for leading a more heroic struggle.

In my opinion, the title of your initial post just wanted to cause a stir (mission accomplished) and then had to resort to hair-splitting of puppeteer for not recognizing his clumsiness. I think his stubbornness and pride were imposed on their capacity for analysis. Even the best type check a blur.

However, debate over claims shells have been applauded by many of the commentators on the discussion. Namely:
- "Homosexuality is a defect (such as nearsightedness or limp), but I can not think to judge my gay friends from his misfortune" (not realizes that and it just did).

tara Is it a misfortune or a homosexual?

can say that in an environment that discriminates against gay, obviously so, as years ago in an environment of a county drenched southern Mississippi, the black condition was a disgrace to the hostile environment they faced. But Moa does not relate to this, obviously, but considers the homosexual victim of an event that decreases as a person or to reduce the possibilities of the normal performance of their duties (like the lame and shortsighted, as he says.)

It is certainly an unpopular statement. Nobody likes to be labeled as a moron or unhappy issue of their identity. But we go beyond the politically correct (as Moa and often tries to achieve, which is commendable). Is it comparable sexual orientation the imperfection of any physiological organ or set of them? Obviously not .

Here, Moa in particular and the other contenders in general, disappoint me again. it is obvious that homosexuality has a very influential psychological elements. Which very rarely have myopia and limp and not to mention a cleft lip or scoliosis. Moa may reduce a person to a set of biochemical reactions and a host of hormonal conjunctions. You might think that human beings are a mass of interconnections electrochemical and psychological causes are only the manifestation of that concoction of cerebral elements. Very poor vision would be that the human being, but if you think Don Pio, let him. It is understood then the person from a mere vision biochemistry, where personality is just one manifestation of hormonal buzz from inside of us reacts to the environment.

Others think that people are loved BIO-PSYCHO-SOCIAL, and that these three areas affect percentages and means very different from each other and not always in the same way the same person.

To Moa, the

homosexual dysfunction have some kind of encouraging him to be attracted to those of the same sex. But we need to clarify that the comparison with similar tara limp or illogical: the homosexual has no imperfection in, for example, the functioning of their sexual organs (though reduce sexuality to the use of sexual organs and is an error.) And to have it, that does not conceptualized as homosexual, and there is no genital tara can not be equally held by heterosexuals. For men, it is speculated that the castrated at a young age are more effeminate. Obviously here there is a hormonal issue involved, if influenced at puberty (when our bodies acquire the so-called secondary sexual characteristics) can result in a body less masculine, androgynous, but not necessarily in a sexual tendency (which, in the case of castrated slaves, for example in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, was determined more by the environment, as the case of lesbianism harems).

We can not therefore say that a specific physiological dysfunction assume a greater tendency to homosexuality. Further complicated because the emphasis on homosexuality as a natural tara (example used by Moa). Some proponents (and in the words of the Moa, it would appear) argue that the fact that homosexuals, if true to their tendencies, can not have offspring. Again, take hold of a consistent reductionism that is dysfunctional human being who has no ability to reproduce. But in the case of homosexuals, no such biological inability (and having, as the infertile woman or man, for example, that has nothing to do with homosexual tendencies) from a physiological standpoint. And if Moa considers that there is from a psychological point of view, again is inconsistent, because here we recognize the influence of the psyche on the genitals. With the same criteria, which renounces his sexual urges a moral issue (eg, the vow of chastity) can be considered equally unable to have offspring. Moa Would you consider someone like a moron? Not likely, but to do so is against their own consistency.

He has responded to Moa can not be considered a disgrace what is not considered as such by who has the attribute in question: if you feel unhappy homosexual, homosexuality can not be considered his misfortune. It is an argument with some travel, but not too much, because objectively, a blind man suffers a handicap, but even though you can feel lucky (for example, Borges acknowledged that in some questions was indebted to his blindness.)

Looking at all the dialectics of Moa in the case, we conclude that which leads him to consider the status of homosexual unfortunate, is not the considered unnatural. And that brings us to another step of the debate.

"Homosexuality is unnatural.

Frankly, this statement is surprisingly common in many people who describe themselves as liberals. Just do not fail to explain how it is that if homosexuality is unnatural, it occur in all societies, eras and civilizations and in the animal world, to recognize more easily the closer are these animals to humans on the evolutionary scale (mammals and particularly land and above, primates).

From the undeniable presence of homosexuality throughout history, that no anthropologist would deny, it follows that it is obviously natural. But those who think otherwise are hiding in a statistical design and percentage of "natural." As has been argued, for example, Luis H. Arroyo , natural is what the majority, ie, identifies the natural and the most common.

Any evolutionary biologist could explain the very limited nature of that journey the necessary recesses until the "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" (who say they have the ability to think while we justifiable doubts arise.) The itinerary of evolution natural up to us, has been extremely unlikely and rare. Could be considered almost unnatural, and because of the complicated have been necessary given the circumstances we're here, is why creationists believe infer the presence and need for an Intelligent Designer.

Another argument to banish the vision that identifies the natural and frequently is to ask those who defend it if they consider the marsupials as natural (despite their rarity compared to mammals or egg-laying). Is the diamond natural? Typically, the carbon tends to agglomerate rather in other forms, such as coal. Are natural black holes? Most stars that collapse does not degenerate into them, just a few. Are natural exotic plant species much rarer than the plants that we consider "common"? Natural Are Pygmies despite the infrequency of their physical characteristics? natural Are people with blue eyes, which in many parts of the world are less common than homosexuals?
If by "unnatural" consider the minority, this would be a much less natural world than we could bear. Not only that, everyone would be radically unnatural on many facets. Decree is rather unnatural advantages and disadvantages for individuals according to their sexual inclinations, I think.

The other issue addressed is morality or immorality of sex.

From here, I have to admit I am very surprised the view of some liberals in this regard. It is true that often broadcast without careful to distinguish between homosexuality exhibitionism and homosexuality itself. What is already denotes that have been won the battle for lobbyists roses to identify the latter with all homosexuals.

The public display of homosexuality, it is often of poor aesthetic taste. But then so is the public display of heterosexuality. The parades and pageants of gay pride day gay community show hypersexualized, only focused on sexual activity and reduce their freedom to a number of stereotypes that go beyond a certain sexual liberation as if it were the only area for which an oppressed community can fight.
But the gang of heterosexual men bawl out loud what they would do this or that woman is usually a sight so pitiful as frequent, and this we usually see every day, notably on weekends throughout the year no need for "straight pride day" and in all areas and locations. No less ridiculous are usually hordes of Women held over a weekend bachelorette attire carrying as joke gadgets that simulate phalluses. What happens is that socially inelegant display of heterosexuality is assumed and much-spoiled by frequent-than homosexuality. Heterosexual men and women also make the mistake of reducing their personality to sexual activity and seek to show her everything they can, is everywhere. Who only consider in bad taste that same behavior by gays, it is certainly that has not been able to weigh the attacks that the aesthetic taste of the public permanently heterosexual perpetrators need not be organized in lobbies, precisely because his heterosexuality majority.

is a different question of the morality of gay sexuality is not displayed publicly. Most liberals agree with Moa have made clear (eg, Daniel Ballesteros) who do not consider this activity legally prosecuted regardless of the moral view that they deserve. It is obvious that no single morality open societies as we pretend to be (in the tyrannized societies, morality is taken by power.) From what morality is clearly determined opine opinion. In this sense, not really the Catholic Church who is able today to impose their views (including if so wished) but socialism prevailing , and I agree fully with the expressions of deep disagreement that many liberals and parents have expressed to complain about the sex education program from the Government as battering ram against parental authority and most widespread religion in our country.

I consider two issues that are intertwined that many have failed to see: the influence of lobbyists gays and the government's firm intention to always win their vote, with the global practice a hedonistic culture . It is very difficult to separate the two, but the second is a movement much larger than the first easier to identify.

Hedonism is a trend prevailing minimum effort with maximum reward (an absolutely economical, you where to look.) It is also a few non-replacement of traditional values. Quite simply, many people today do not want to start a family because that is the purchase a number of responsibilities that limit their freedom . That's not a English question, even only West (though much more intense in the West, especially through greater material prosperity) but also globally.

In this sense, that hedonism has its most intense and simplistic in hypersexualization society. Sex is really a cheap resource, which almost everyone can access and provides a very immediate satisfaction and considerable intensity. Economically it is a wildcard: it serves for almost anything. I will not elaborate on what evidence is often used sex to promote all kinds of products and services, including many who are initially not at all related to sexuality.

sexualization This process is much more complex than we can discuss this entry, but has many negative aspects, although partly arises from causes very positive (women's liberation movements, initial release of the gay community, a greater knowledge human sexuality and its influence on the formation of personality ...). Like all complex processes that last for generations, we can see many lights and many shadows.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, contributes initially to combat discrimination against homosexuals, but is now launching the message that sex, if you have not ever tried them all, are little more than a conservative, a closed-minded prude.

As we see, a "pass lock" certain movements laudable, can be assumed that end up limiting the freedom that initially sought to obtain and that they be recognized. A paradox has occurred on many occasions in history (for example, how persecuted Christians went from pursuers, although it took many centuries).

This type of "old-braking" Everywhere we see movements like feminism, racial equality, integration of immigrants and now gay rights . Solution? I think we should fight from liberalism, both negative and positive discrimination, but to be fair and recognize that generally, the former has been much more intense and lasting. Consider carrying out a generation or two very broad social contexts, in which we live and make us think that what we knew before going to break forever but then after a few years, we see that catastrophism was unfounded. Although

did not seem right to call homosexual unions "marriage" do not consider that this civil institution is extended to gays a danger to the West or go to corrode our civilization (which is facing serious problems, frankly.) The family is not perfect because of heterosexual parents and the marriage works best if it is between men and women. Hundreds of millions of families and marriages unhappy wrong throughout history, can testify.

In reality, the individual is so complex that their ability to adapt to the institutions is generally higher than the adaptability of the institutions of the complexity of each individual.
thousands of gay marriages will not last, probably more than heterosexual marriages, and? The important thing is that this institution serves as a primary way its members consider it important as serve society, as if the collective was more important than the individuals within the institution, is a deeply socialist argument. A successful marriage and good for those who are rarely will be detrimental to society.