Who says Texans live in the dark ages?

Originally Posted by Skybird

A definition that catches a widespread populistic understanding of the term, but I very strongly disagree with it's correctness.

wikipedia:

Pride is, depending on the context, either a high sense of the worth of one's self or one's own or a pleasure taken in the contemplation of these things. Social psychologists identify it as linked to a signal of high social status.[1] One definition of pride in the first sense comes from St. Augustine: "the love of one's own excellence." [2] In this sense, the opposite of pride is humility.
Pride is sometimes viewed as excessive or as a vice, sometimes as proper or as a virtue. While some philosophers such as Aristotle consider pride a profound virtue, most world religions consider it a sin.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, proud comes from late Old English prut, probably from Old French prud "brave, valiant" (11th century) (which became preux in French), from Late Latin term prodis "useful", which is compared with the Latin prodesse "be of use".[3] The sense of "having a high opinion of oneself", not in French, may reflect the Anglo-Saxons' opinion of the Norman knights who called themselves "proud", like the French knights preux.[citation needed]
When viewed as a virtue, pride in one's appearance and abilities is known as virtuous pride, greatness of soul or magnanimity, but when viewed as a vice it is often termed vanity or vainglory. Pride can also manifest itself as a high opinion of one's nation (national pride) and ethnicity (ethnic pride).


As ex-psychologist I especially agree with Wikipedia's entry on pride in psychological understanding:

Pride is "a pleasant, sometimes exhilarating, emotion that results from a positive self-evaluation" (Lewis, 2002). The standard view of pride was that it results from satisfaction with meeting the personal goals set by oneself. Most research on pride attempts to distinguish the positive aspects of pride and the negative. Pride involves exhilarated pleasure and a feeling of accomplishment. Pride is related to "more positive behaviors and outcomes in the area where the individual is proud" (Weiner, 1985). Pride is generally associated with positive social behaviors such as helping others and outward promotion. According to Bagozzi et al., pride can have the positive benefits of enhancing creativity, productivity, and altruism.

I'll stick with The New Oxford American Dictionary.
Somehow Oxford impresses me as a higher authority on the english language (US or EN) than Wikipedia.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Just in case no one caught that, that was sort of a joke. You know, Texans elected a gay woman because the only alternative was a black man...humor...eh? Probably not as funny as the voices in my head made it sound...

That's ok.

You know sometimes we don't really get the right picture of what someone is trying to say, especially for those of us whose native language is not english.

Fortunately, the smilies are really cool.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Well of course they are not terrible people. But I need to qualify that because there are some that are terrible. But this goes hand and hand with hetersexuals as well. Concerning your last sentence and natures way of control birth rate, can you elaborate on this?

I would love to but, that was something I read many years ago about herd animals beginning to dry-hump (same sex) when the herd got to big.

Problem 1: I have no idé what the source was, or even if was a highly reliable one.
Problem 2: Is that I saw the similarity to human behavior and drew my own conclussion based on some ancient societies. (And no, I will not elaborate on which societies for fear of starting a new GT war).

[ETR3(SS)]

Homosexuality is nothing new to the world. It's been around since the Spartans at least. I don't see what the big deal is..oh...wait never mind, Christianity has a problem with it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

I would love to but, that was something I read many years ago about herd animals beginning to dry-hump (same sex) when the herd got to big.

Problem 1: I have no idé what the source was, or even if was a highly reliable one.
Problem 2: Is that I saw the similarity to human behavior and drew my own conclussion based on some ancient societies. (And no, I will not elaborate on which societies for fear of starting a new GT war).

I was just wondering and thought it to be a strange theory.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I was just wondering and thought it to be a strange theory.

It is a-bit different isn't it.
Well, "the buck stops here", the theory was completely mine, as is the responsability for it's faults. It's just something I considered many years ago, and hadn't even given a second thought until today.

It's probably better labeled a Consideration than a Theory.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Homosexuality is nothing new to the world. It's been around since the Spartans at least. I don't see what the big deal is..oh...wait never mind, Christianity has a problem with it.

Not only Christianity. Ask Islam, for example.

However you are right, homosexuality usually is no big issue and must not be an issue, neither in nature, nor amongst humans. But some people try to turn it into a big issue, and they want everybody else to take note of it. And then it is a big issue. Not by nature - but by effort.

Freaks, you see.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not only Christianity. Ask Islam, for example.

However you are right, homosexuality usually is no big issue and must not be an issue, neither in nature, nor amongst humans. But some people try to turn it into a big issue, and they want everybody else to take note of it. And then it is a big issue. Not by nature - but by effort.

Freaks, you see.

It is not a big issue if someone is black either..... until society made it an issue being black. The same applies to homosexuals. It should not be a big issue... until society makes it a big issue.

So, please consider, that when homosexuals "make a big deal out of it" it may be in response to the "big deal" societies have made about them first.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Platapus

So, please consider, that when homosexuals "make a big deal out of it" it may be in response to the "big deal" societies have made about them first.

Which brings us full circle to why this was such news. Ms. Parker was elected mayor of the largest city of a state that has a reputation for making a "big deal" out of, and being not very accepting of, gays and lesbians.

I admire her for not making it an issue in the campaign, and not making it an issue during her time as comptroller of Houston. She was very matter of fact about it, and that does her credit.

As I said in the beginning of this thread - I'm very proud of my city.

So, please consider, that when homosexuals "make a big deal out of it" it may be in response to the "big deal" societies have made about them first.

Yep, after all the "pride" festivals started out of persecution didnt they , a response to a police action IIRC.
Some places still have that persecution thing which is why these protests should continue, yet Skybird seems to delight in gays getting a beating from the cops when they go to those places to demonstrate against the persecution.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It is not a big issue if someone is black either..... until society made it an issue being black. The same applies to homosexuals. It should not be a big issue... until society makes it a big issue.

So, please consider, that when homosexuals "make a big deal out of it" it may be in response to the "big deal" societies have made about them first.

I do not follow a logic saying that because in the past there have been injustice due to let's say the patriarchat now we should have a matriarchat, or because there was a right wing dictatorship it is excusable if now we have a left wing dictatorship. I also do not follow that logic with regard to homosexuals having been persecuted in the past, so now they have unlimited freedoms as "compensation". Even less so if that somebody eventually claiming that compensation has not been a victim in the past - because he did not live then.

also you ignore the differentiation I made between homosexuals that are ordinary normal people and do fit into society unsuspicioulsy and unspectacular and without making a show of themselves, and freaks that are thinking they must provoke and misbehave, or people thinking they must rub it to you at every opportunity how very much gay they are and how very much "in" it is to be gay. That has nothing to do with the past, or a balance of justice "past versus present".

It simply is about something so natural as: good behavior in public, in differentiation to bad behavior. And it is about people having the right not needing to be confronted with the sexual orinetation issues of others that do not understand that their private stuff does not belong on public stage, but to their private sphere.

And what people do and think in their private sphere, has never been of concern for me, or in this thread.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Méo

Thanks,

Altough interesting, it's a bit weird, they seem to crossover..

It's all about Civil Rights. Once the Democrats were seen as not supporting racial segregation and "states rights", they lost support bigtime in the south.

A better article about this change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

people thinking they must rub it to you at every opportunity

Thats an arrestable offence in just about every jurisdiction.
Is it because someone rubbed it to you that you have this thing about gays?

As was said earlier....

anyone who makes a big deal out of it has their own issues.

....So as an ex-psychologist do you still have friends in the trade who might help you work through your issue?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Homosexuality is nothing new to the world. It's been around since the Spartans at least. I don't see what the big deal is..oh...wait never mind, Christianity has a problem with it.

It's a common misconception that homosexuality was common and not
discriminated against in the classical Greek world.
That's not the case.

It was only common amongst rich aristocrats and oligarchs who made up
a tiny fraction of the population. Amongst the majority of people it was
very much frowned upon.

Besides, classical Greek homosexuality bears very little in common with
most modern homosexuality in the way the relationships are structured.

There are better examples in history.