(Continued …)

.

« Modinos v. Cyprus (1993) – Ruling invalidating Section 171 of the Criminal Code of Cyprus under which male homosexual acts were banned, finding that there had been a breach under Article 8 of the applicant's right to respect for private life.

Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493 – The investigation into and subsequent discharge of personnel from the Royal Navy on the basis of sexual orientation was a breach of the right to a private life under Article 8.

Van Kück v. Germany (2003) ECHR 285 – Inadequate access to a fair hearing in a case involving reimbursement by a private medical insurer for costs of hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery by a transsexual woman, where undue burden had been placed upon her to prove the medical necessity of the treatment, was a violation under Article 8 and Article 6 § 1.

Oliari and Others v Italy (2015) – Italy violated Article 8 by not providing legal recognition to same-sex couples » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

.

To SteeleRedux.

If domestic abuse is what you want to discuss, then just as I said to Foxy, I highly recommend you to start that topic. I agree that it is worth seeking solutions to. However this topic is still worth working out as well. Instead of trying to dodge the subject like a redo clown trying to dodge a bull, perhaps actually talking about the issues? There are several.

Personally I don't like to see a few of my coworkers attach so much of their identity to finding someone to date. Nor in that they are fine with dating someone 8-10 years younger then them. Barely legal or walking the fence for legal trouble because they can't find another homosexual to date. One issue with homosexuality is that there aren't plenty of fish in the sea, and that our culture pins so much importance on relationships. It would be healthier to stay single and find peace with it, instead of going from one bad date to another desperate for a relationship, or perhaps just desperate for a fun time and let it go when their done . (Don't know his intention but he seems to never have a satisfying date with anyone and he's getting depressed more often that can be seen at work.

I don't like hearing that another coworker recently got married only to also say that it is an open relationship. That isn't stable. Especially if they say they want kids to adopt some day, (she said they do want to raise a kid). Why would homosexual marriage be fought for and sought, only to throw it away by making it an "open relationship."

Are these issues not worth talking about. Is the demographic that is plagued with these kinds of issues not worth talking about? Or is it just not allowed to talk openly about these problems because it's inconvenient to your politics?

Dear NNS,

These are some of your quotes through this discussion.

“Maybe see if we can "fix" society and actually have compassion on homosexuals, instead of trying to have tolerance on an unhealthy compulsion that they have little choice about.”

“Regardless of being normal or not, there are huge hurdles if a person actually looks at homosexuality. Drug use and alcoholism are at a higher rate then the rest of society. By encouraging kids and adults to be actively gay it encourages them to be part of that culture. Same with a higher rate of narcissism, open relationships and just loose pants in general harming strong foundations in long term relationships, as well as issues with pedophilia. Higher rates of Depression, anxiety, and suicide.”

“As for absence and celibacy. I don't think those cause as many issues as an actively gay life will cause. In fact an unfortunate issue is pedophilia in gay communities.”

I have raised the issue of rampant paedophilia occurring in family homes by heterosexuals. Its toll is extensive. I am comparing it to your fixation on the perceived sins of homosexuals. If you accept the pervasiveness of this trend within our Western societies, something that is at markedly lower levels within far eastern non-Christian societies, then not to take it into account when we are discussing the shortcomings of some in the gay community would be surely disingenuous.

This is where the conversation has led us. You insisting it return to for you a 'safer' more 'comfortable' footing and keeping it to bashing gays is hardly going to fly is it.

I think the door is wide open to discuss the role of toxic masculinity and rigid hierarchical structures within Christian institutions in the issue of paedophilia levels in our society as part of our exploration of the topic.

Why don't you?

N.N.S.

I thank you for your acknowledgement of my differing approach to the normal conversation.
Alas I have exhausted my thoughts on this topic and if I do not comment on posts, it's more than likely, that I agree with the them or the direction it is heading.
As you know, I will only comment when an untruth or similar is put out in an attempt to win a point, if only on the back of a lie.
Look, the problems, I believe, the queers experience is by and large to do with being different, we know that.
Because of this "difference", straight guys shy away from them.
Not all, only the ones the queer might find worthy of friendship.
So it is they are alienated by the male fraternity, even though it is not immediately visible in public.
The women however, happily gravitate towards queers, maybe because they don't feel threatened by the continual attempts at getting "chatted up", by them.
As far as the alienation between the queers, I wonder if there is an element of reservation, wondering how serious the other party is about this union.
There is too much evidence of dis-array amongst the queers.
One only has to look to the history of queers in Massachusetts, USA, to read about the daily disasters of the interactions of queers.
And these are from police records.
There is nothing new about all the problems they have.
I believe they know they are different, and that's why the "equality" campaign.
I say again, that this SSM thing will change nothing, until the queers accept that they are different, and that the majority of the population are NOT comfortable with them, especially when they are forced to watch what is an abnormal, and to some, a sick and un-acceptable lifestyle.
I have a friend who does not seem to partake in the pleasures of the opposite sex, he's not queer, just never seems to have bothered with women.
So it is, if sex is your thing, then masturbation is your friend.
I know, it's the default setting.

SR,

N.N.S. has a valid point, it is you who refuse to accept that the queers are not as acceptable as you would like us to believe.
You can't go around forcing people to accept something they don't like or want.
You, not them, need to back off with your narrow view of society as if WE are the problem.
Ever hear the one about the witch-doctor having put a potion in the local well from where the people drew their water, won the favour of the people, who all went quite mad, and began to turn on the king. The king, at the risk of death, decided to drink from the well himself, as he had his own private well to stop any attempts on his life.
He also went mad, and they all lived happily ever after.

Dear NNS,

We all started out in discussing the "gay gene"however
as sexuality is a significant ingredient of individual
personality, sexual relationships have an even
greater importance in the broader societal context and
thus the discussion broadened out to include sexuality
and society, the nature of human sexuality, sexual
conduct, sexual behavior in our society, traditional
values, sexually transmitted diseases, again, the social
context, learning sexual orientation, and finally
sexual and other forms of abuse.

I have found this discussion very interesting and
have appreciated the variety of mature, intelligent,
views expressed. That is one of the things
that attracts many people to this forum - the ability
to hear from a diversity of people who do make reasoned,
intelligent arguments.

As I stated on page 26, for me this discussion has now
run its course. I appreciate your raising this
topic for discussion. I am glad that it did broaden
out as it has. When discussions do that - we can all
learn more than we had anticipated at first. Sticking
strictly to the topic often produces very narrow, rigid, and
limited voices.

I look forward to our next topic. May it be equally robust.