Last time I checked, the majority of Canadians (i.e. those who support gay marriage, if opinion polls can be trusted) were still leading heterosexual lifestyles, and it seems to be a similar story in the other countries where it’s happened. Exactly how long the cultural change took and exactly how much “top down” change was involved are interesting questions though.
The Singapore papers were publishing editorials warning them not to pull this stunt and stay out of local politics.
I find it interesting what is culturally acceptable or not for these deans of commerce.
Sex one way or the other doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect their $$$.
God forbid they started campaigning for actual POOR people.
Maybe they could chuck up some bronze tanks when they open near Tiananmen Square complete with the red star.
Not sure what the first part of your statement was in response to.
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan, post:43, topic:84246, full:true”]Of course, going with the analogy of British imperialism, I wonder if a war and the subsequent imposition of suffering of detrimental (if not fatal) lifestyles, quasi-enslavement of large sections of the populace, etc. will also be necessary.
You weren’t talking about imposing fatal rainbow lifestyles on the masses? Well, that’s a relief.
I was talking about not imposing anything on anyone. I thought that was clear.
I thought my first post in this thread and the follow up posts (including talk of unintended consequences and social dislocations) made it fairly obvious.
In a word, no. But thank you for imposing your opinion on the discussion.
Suggesting that something might have unintended consequences and social dislocations generally signals suspicion at best, and possibly even opposition.
Also, reread my first comment:
“It’s so tedious when corporations take a public political/religious stance and then complain about their customers disliking that. There are so many attention whores in the corporate world now. If they want that, they should go and join a political party, religious organisation or NGO. I’d be annoyed too if they replaced the lions with statues of Mao, Obama or Trump, or they suddenly had crucifixes or crescents hanging from them.”
I did re-read it, but it shed no light on the fatal lifestyles in your other post. What exactly are these fatal lifestyles?
Now you’re moving the goalposts again. First you bring up the red herring of Canada, now this. Fatal lifestyles as I used it in my analogy about British imperialism referred to opium addiction. Again, I would have thought that would have been fairly obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history.
I’m trying to understand your theory. So far what I’ve gathered from you is this:
- The rainbow (in the context of whatever combination of letters) is a radical, foreign political symbol in HK.
- The British lion is neither radical nor foreign because it’s been naturalized.
- The British lion achieved naturalization through war and the imposition of fatal lifestyles on the public.
- The rainbow can also be naturalized, but for that to happen (in the future), war and the imposition of fatal lifestyles are probably necessary once again.
- War and the imposition of fatal opium addiction lifestyles are what brought about the naturalization of foreign political (imperial) symbols in the past. What will bring about the naturalization of foreign political (socio-cultural) symbols in the future is war and the imposition of fatal ____________ lifestyles.
- The naturalization of the rainbow in Canada (or in any other country?) is completely unsuitable as an analogy. In fact it’s a red herring, because:
A) it also occurred through war and the imposition of fatal ____________ lifestyles but still somehow fails to make a useful comparison, or because
Please do enlighten.
Aren’t all stone lions through out Chinese architectural history gay lion couples that have adopted a baby lion? All stone lions have two full maned lions, one standing on a ball, and one standing on a baby lion. The mane alone indicates they are a gay lion couple. Why would adding rainbow colors make them any more homosexual?
And of course China has a long history of condoning gay sex…for a certain class of people, at least.
Let me ask you a question. If I say something like “I need that like I need a hole in the head”, do you think that I actually need a hole in the head? You seem to take certain things very literally, which is probably a large part of the problem I outline below.
Are you arguing that British imperialism in China wasn’t imperial?
Are you arguing that Western culture as it exists today isn’t imperial?
Are you arguing that cultural change in Canada or elsewhere in the West over the past half to full century hasn’t been top down and involved a lot of gaslighting, astroturfing, etc., as well as massive kerbs upon the liberties of the people?
and 2. are kind of interesting to me because it’s quite fascinating how quickly people will turn on whether they deem foreign/Western intervention to be “good” or “bad” depending upon whether they personally believe the matter of intervention is “good” or “bad”. People, or Westerners at least, love to take their personal positions and universalise them to all people, everywhere, at all times.
I could understand, since by definition, most people are not aware that they’ve been gaslighted or astroturfed.
Bonus question: Explain to me why you think conservatives are actually conservative (as in conserving things).
Because whenever you see two male anything together, they’re obviously gay…
they are spending eternity together, you know
So, presumably, are Jesus and God (depending upon doctrine) or any number of gods in the Norse, Greek, Egyptian or Hindu pantheons. So?
Nothing lasts forever, even gay (stone lion) marriage.
Greek gods have wifes (and they cheat on their wives, often by trying to seduce teenagers). Greek gods also only spend time on mount Olympus to have meetings.
God on the other hand did produce other life forms, including those in zhe own image, asexually. So God is of zher own league.