The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[demonchilde]

I can't say what God would say, as I've never met the dude. But after my forced injection of Catholic school, I can say Catholic school teaches anal and oral and birth control as all " agienst God ".

I think they are full of s**t, I was just adding some info relivent.

 

[phillgt2002]

We were all born and raised based on different religious principles or beliefs. (mostly) I never really had problems with homosexuality besides for a few times and moments. Judging someone morally because they oppose(feel uncomfortable around homosexuals) homosexuality isn't really the right way to do things. It's best just to discuss your viewpoints instead of trying to change each-others.

 

[demonchilde]

I understand your point Phill, but disagree. Trying to persuade others to obtain your viewpoint using different examples and facts is more human nature then anything else, lol.
I posted here to say my peace, and to possibly obtain more knowledge and viewpoints from others, in attempts to continue having an open mind. Sometimes that's harder then others, lol. But my advice to anyone here, is don't be a closed book. Stand by your beliefs, but under no circumstances ever have the audacity to think "what I think is always true".
I've changed my point on a couple things, I still believe what I do, but I've learned a few things I admit.

 

[Joel]

We were all born and raised based on different religious principles or beliefs. (mostly) I never really had problems with homosexuality besides for a few times and moments..

That doesn't mean all views and opinions are equally valid, nor does it mean we shouldn't challenge our opinions and beliefs.

 

[phillgt2002]

Yes I understand, my main point is that it seems more political than anything else here. I guess you can't fix ignorance or stupidity but if someone stands for their or argument based on how they think or feel instead of through pulling **** out of their ass In I think that's fine in some cases. Its hard to change a person that doesn't get a wide view of the argument.

 

[Danny]

The problem is that it's harmful to themselves and humanity.

It's fine to hold bigoted views, there's plenty of people on GTPlanet who do. The problem is when it's not for any logical reason. And no, the bible does not qualify as logic. Nor does 'I just don't think we're equal'.

 

[FoolKiller]

Somehow, I accidentally unsubscribed unwatched this thread last week. I got catching up to do.

Jebus. It's practically a national pastime over here to draw cocks on things. Even my (eldest) daughter can sketch out a crudely drawn-cock on a fogged-up mirror - but then she did sit through the 2 hour sex education "lesson" in abject boredom, having had every question she'd ever asked on the topic answered over the previous decade.

We can draw it as graffiti, but much like a golf bag, there is a bag that presumably hold a couple balls and at least one stick protruding from it. I don't know what the inside of that bag looks like. It's such a great mystery that some even have hidden areas that hold, and chill, up to six cans of beer.

The average American knows what it looks like on the Internet, but not much else. Guys to this day convince girls that its good for their facial skin or hair.

Suddenly, the amount of sexual gullibility makes an odd kind of sense. It's why guys go to bars to meet girls. It makes everything easier.

Conspiracy?

No, being gay is not okay. I accept the sinner, not the sin.

God decided what was normal a long time ago.

I like bacon-wrapped shrimp as a side to a fried pork chop. I hope you can show me as much tolerance.

It's not just God that says it's wrong; logic says it's wrong too. There's no way one can possibly pro-create with homosexuality.

Hey! Now you are attacking the Internet and my relationship with my wife. Non-procreation sex is what makes life tolerable.

It's sort of ironic isn't it? You people expect me to be tolerant, yet you are not tolerant at all.

Since when did people disagreeing with you in a debate that you willingly participated in make them intolerant?

You know, your initial comment about not caring if people are gay was a hair-width from being tolerant, but you had to ruin it with the not teaching it as normal bit. There was even a debate on what normal means where you could have saved it.

 

[Famine]

The average American knows what it looks like on the Internet, but not much else. Guys to this day convince girls that its good for their facial skin or hair.

Shhh! It is!

(actually, there's a good paper that suggests women regularly exposed through unprotected sex - but within a relationship where it's not likely to be swimming in syph - fall ill far less often; tenuous but good enough for me)

 

[FoolKiller]

Shhh! It is!

(actually, there's a good paper that suggests women regularly exposed through unprotected sex - but within a relationship where it's not likely to be swimming in syph - fall ill far less often; tenuous but good enough for me)

Is there a study on breast cancer prevention? You know, just curious.

 

[Famine]

You could quote the breast cancer rates amongst male homosexuals (which intrinsically involves certain substances) compared to female homosexuals (which explicitly requires the non-involvement of same)...

 

[VindictiveScrub]

You know, your initial comment about not caring if people are gay was a hair-width from being tolerant, but you had to ruin it with the not teaching it as normal bit. There was even a debate on what normal means where you could have saved it.

This is an argument I'll never understand on any level. So, based on your beliefs based in opinions and religion it's intolerant to disagree with you, but it's not intolerant for you to disagree with my beliefs based on my own personal opinions? I, as a person, actually enjoy argumentative debate, and don't understand why some people feel they're being personally attacked simply for me stating my own opinion in disagreement with theirs. It's an opinion, a belief, an ideal; we all have different variations of them, and there's not much of a point in getting all riled up because people can *gasp* be different. As long as someone doesn't hurt someone physically or emotionally, through means of physical law or laws of nature, who cares?

Sigh, I'll go back to my corner now

 

[FoolKiller]

Not sure how this relates to what you quoted, but I think I see what you were saying.

This is an argument I'll never understand on any level. So, based on your beliefs based in opinions and religion it's intolerant to disagree with you, but it's not intolerant for you to disagree with my beliefs based on my own personal opinions?

It isn't the agreeing or disagreeing that is tolerant or intolerant. Disagreeing in a debate without personal attacks is a great example of tolerance.

But the opinion may be an expression of intolerance, such as saying we should not act as if homosexuals are normal. An act of intolerance would be to try to enforce that opinion through law or by harassing or assaulting homosexuals.

The debate doesn't become I tolerant until you tell someone to just shut up or begin intentionally insulting them.

I, as a person, actually enjoy argumentative debate, and don't understand why some people feel they're being personally attacked simply for me stating my own opinion in disagreement with theirs. It's an opinion, a belief, an ideal; we all have different variations of them, and there's not much of a point in getting all riled up because people can *gasp* be different. As long as someone doesn't hurt someone physically or emotionally, through means of physical law or laws of nature, who cares?

Sigh, I'll go back to my corner now

Precisely.

 

[Danoff]

It's sort of ironic isn't it? You people expect me to be tolerant, yet you are not tolerant at all.

You know, your initial comment about not caring if people are gay was a hair-width from being tolerant, but you had to ruin it with the not teaching it as normal bit. There was even a debate on what normal means where you could have saved it.

This is an argument I'll never understand on any level. So, based on your beliefs based in opinions and religion it's intolerant to disagree with you, but it's not intolerant for you to disagree with my beliefs based on my own personal opinions? I, as a person, actually enjoy argumentative debate, and don't understand why some people feel they're being personally attacked simply for me stating my own opinion in disagreement with theirs. It's an opinion, a belief, an ideal; we all have different variations of them, and there's not much of a point in getting all riled up because people can *gasp* be different. As long as someone doesn't hurt someone physically or emotionally, through means of physical law or laws of nature, who cares?

Sigh, I'll go back to my corner now

Tolerance is a very misunderstood concept. It is not acceptance, or agreement. It is refraining from using force against the other person.

For example:

Let's say someone buys an ugly car and parks it the next driveway. I could agree with the car:

"I think the car looks nice."

I could not agree with the car but accept it:

"I don't like the car, but it's their money and I'm not going to try to get them to sell it."

I could not agree with the car, and not accept the car, but tolerate it.

"Hey bob! Sell that car. It's an ugly nuisance."

"Hey Danoff! Forget it."

"Oh well, I guess there's nothing more I can do. It's bob's property and he has a right to whatever car he wants even if I don't like it. I guess I'll just keep trying to get him to sell it."

I could not agree with the car, not accept the car, and not tolerate it:

"Hey bob! How do you like your car with shotgun holes in it?"

That last one is what you're doing when you vote against equal rights for gay people.

 

[BobK]

You'd best leave my car alone. I like it fine!

 

[Spurgy 777]

You'd best leave my car alone. I like it fine!

But everyone like shotgun holes Bob.

 

[DK]

Those aren't bullet holes, they're speed holes!

 

[VindictiveScrub]

Tolerance is a very misunderstood concept. It is not acceptance, or agreement. It is refraining from using force against the other person.

For example:

Let's say someone buys an ugly car and parks it the next driveway. I could agree with the car:

"I think the car looks nice."

I could not agree with the car but accept it:

"I don't like the car, but it's their money and I'm not going to try to get them to sell it."

I could not agree with the car, and not accept the car, but tolerate it.

"Hey bob! Sell that car. It's an ugly nuisance."

"Hey Danoff! Forget it."

"Oh well, I guess there's nothing more I can do. It's bob's property and he has a right to whatever car he wants even if I don't like it. I guess I'll just keep trying to get him to sell it."

I could not agree with the car, not accept the car, and not tolerate it:

"Hey bob! How do you like your car with shotgun holes in it?"

That last one is what you're doing when you vote against equal rights for gay people.

That's a new way to put it, and I rather like it!

 

[Imari]

I could not agree with the car, and not accept the car, but tolerate it.

"Hey bob! Sell that car. It's an ugly nuisance."

"Hey Danoff! Forget it."

"Oh well, I guess there's nothing more I can do. It's bob's property and he has a right to whatever car he wants even if I don't like it. I guess I'll just keep trying to get him to sell it."

I'd debate that this is an example of tolerance. Is there a difference between using physical force, and just being an annoying prick to the guy until he sells it?

Psychological "warfare" is not as immediately threatening as having a gun to your head. But when you've got a whole community calling you a ****ing disgusting faggot I'd say that it's not exactly tolerant just because it's not physically violent.

 

[FoolKiller]

But when you've got a whole community calling you a ****ing disgusting faggot I'd say that it's not exactly tolerant just because it's not physically violent.

If you call them that, but vote for equal rights, what is it?

I hate racists and have a few choice words for them, but support their freedom of speech.

That isn't to say there isn't a line between being rude and full on harassment.

 

[Danoff]

@Imari , that's why we have different words for different behaviors. If you refuse to go to a restaurant that caters to smokers and post bad reviews online about them, stand out front holding signs warning people about the smoke inside, but you vote against measures to make smoking in restaurants illegal, then you are tolerant of that behavior but not accepting of it.

 

[Group_A]

http://unfiltered.notalwayslearning.com/page/4][/url]
Elementary School
USA

(This happened in my cousin’s son’s third grade class. The teacher asked the class to write a paragraph on how they imagine themselves after they’ve grown up, and then share it with the class. Note that the teacher is black and the whole class is white.)

Male Student: I will be very rich and live in a big house with my husband and lots of adopted kids and pet dogs and snakes.

Teacher: Alright, stop.

Male Student: What?

Teacher: Repeat what you said.

Male Student: I will be very rich and live in a big house with my husband

Teacher: Right there. I’m afraid that is very inappropriate.

Several students: Eww!

My cousin’s son: What’s the problem? It’s not inappropriate.

Teacher: (to original student) I suggest you fix your paragraph and I’ll call you again later.

Male Student: There’s nothing wrong with being gay!

Teacher: Listen, you are too young to know that gay is bad. And same for you (my cousin’s son). Gay is very, very inappropriate behavior. I suggest you behave yourselves or you’ll be in a lot of trouble when you are older. As for those of you who think it’s eww, well good for you. I hope you stay that way.

My cousin’s son: Hey teacher! So how about it’s eww that you are teaching us white kids? You should be our slaves instead! You should not have any freedom!

Teacher: Excuse me? Now that was just rude.

My cousin’s son: Yes, that is rude. Because there’s nothing wrong with black people. Just like there’s nothing with with gay people too!

(The teacher was speechless and never mentioned it again.)

Saw this on http://unfiltered.notalwayslearning.com/page/4 and thought it summed up most arguments in this thread very well, what the logical response is, and how the public's perceptions change.

 

[Imari]

If you call them that, but vote for equal rights, what is it?

If there are people who think of gays as ****ing disgusting faggots yet vote for equal rights, and I'm sure there are some, I wouldn't say that behaviour makes them tolerant of gays. They just feel more strongly about equal rights in general than they do about homosexuality.

I don't think someone picketing against smoking restaurants is tolerant of smoking restaurants. They clearly are applying as much pressure as they can in an attempt to strongarm the restaurant into sharing their opinion. Voting against making smoking in restaurants illegal could be for any number of reasons which override their hatred of smoking in restaurants, such as the freedom to run your business as you please.

It's entirely possible for a person to support free speech as a general concept, yet to be profoundly intolerant of an individual or a group's views. Intolerant has become sort of a buzz word that nobody wants to have applied to them, like apologist or denier. It has an almost wholly negative connotation.

It is possible to tolerate behaviour that you don't accept, but I think at the point that you're taking action to try and force the other person's opinion then that's not tolerant. You're not OK with them having their opinion, you're making an effort to change is, using more or less force depending on your techniques. That's a step above a respectful conversation.

I'm completely fine with being intolerant of racists and homophobes. Their opinions are entirely incompatible with mine. They're welcome to their human rights as much as the next person, and that's a completely separate issue to their racism and homophobia. I'm not advocating that they be classed any differently to any other human being. But as far as I'm concerned there's no human right to not be held accountable for your opinions and actions, so I'm completely happy to give them an earful for their ill-educated BS. That's not tolerant, even though I stop short of whacking them with a stick.

Edit: At the risk of this turning into a multi-page argument over the definition of words like the God thread, I will say that I think it's important to call a spade a spade.

Society in general seems to have little problem being intolerant of drugs, or genocide, or domestic violence, or anything else that is "generally accepted" as being wrong. Yet when people display those same behaviours towards racism or homophobia, they're suddenly afraid to be labelled intolerant. Possibly because it places them solidly on one side of the fence. Maybe some people are happy to support gays, as long as they're not actually associated with them.

Whatever it is, I probably don't want to keep this discussion going too long because it will just degenerate. But I don't think there's anything wrong with being intolerant, and we shouldn't be afraid to be intolerant of things that we feel very strongly about. Political correctness will kill us all.

 

[TheLazyDonkey]

As I don't have time to read this whole thread, I will just post some questions that I was raised with;

1. Will / can the action / choice cause harm to themselves?
2. Will/can the action/choice harm others?
3. Is it against the law?
( note that I live in Canada, and that the law is not always right)

Also, I have 5 really close friends. 1 is lez, one is bi, and another is gay. I could care less who or what they do/are/chose, it's not up to me.

 

[Blitz24]

I personally have no issues if people choose to be homosexual. I do, however, have a slight issue if it deals with the realm of religion. Granted, not everyone shares the same faith but to say you are of a certain religion that lists homosexuality as a abomination is bordering on heretical.

 

[FoolKiller]

If there are people who think of gays as ****ing disgusting faggots yet vote for equal rights, and I'm sure there are some, I wouldn't say that behaviour makes them tolerant of gays. They just feel more strongly about equal rights in general than they do about homosexuality.

So they vote to guarantee that they have to tolerate them, but are intolerant?

I don't think someone picketing against smoking restaurants is tolerant of smoking restaurants.

If you were waving signs outside a gay mans house and calling him names from his front yard, posting signs up asking people to shun him unless he changes his way, and generally trying to run him off then I wouldn't call that tolerant. But even then, it's not the same.

They clearly are applying as much pressure as they can in an attempt to strongarm the restaurant into sharing their opinion. Voting against making smoking in restaurants illegal could be for any number of reasons which override their hatred of smoking in restaurants, such as the freedom to run your business as you please.

A customer protesting a restaurant's policy, while supporting their right to have that policy, is being a consumer. They can be tolerant of policy being allowed to exist while being intolerant of patronizing businesses with that policy. A business can change that policy and there are choices for the consumer and the business to resolve the difference. They become intolerant through action.

The equivalent would be refusing to be in the same room as a gay man.

Society in general seems to have little problem being intolerant of drugs

Umm, drugs is a big category. And even some of those who think using them is dumb don't think they should be outlawed.

or genocide, or domestic violence, or anything else that is "generally accepted" as being wrong. Yet when people display those same behaviours towards racism or homophobia, they're suddenly afraid to be labelled intolerant.

Genocide and domestic violence vs racism and homophobia. One side is action, one side is a state of mind.

3. Is it against the law?

Don't use this as a measuring stick of what you do and don't approve or agree with, or accept, or whatever. It used to be against the law, and it still is in some places. Lots of things used to be against the law, or are in other countries, that seem like given rights today.

 

[Imari]

So they vote to guarantee that they have to tolerate them, but are intolerant?

I explained very clearly that it's possible for the strength of one opinion, the importance of human rights, to override another, the hatred of homosexuality.

If you were waving signs outside a gay mans house and calling him names from his front yard, posting signs up asking people to shun him unless he changes his way, and generally trying to run him off then I wouldn't call that tolerant.

So we agree. Great.

 

[FoolKiller]

I explained very clearly that it's possible for the strength of one opinion, the importance of human rights, to override another, the hatred of homosexuality.

Making that person tolerate its existence.

So we agree. Great.

If you see the difference between this and just calling someone a name and moving on, yes.

 

[Danoff]

I explained very clearly that it's possible for the strength of one opinion, the importance of human rights, to override another, the hatred of homosexuality.

A decent definition of tolerance.

 

[VBR]

For those who are interested in what the the Bible says on the subject, I found this article to be balanced & well written; How Can I Explain The Bible's View Of Homosexuality?

 

[BobK]

the Bible tells Christians to shun homosexual acts.

You're not going to get anything balanced out of the JW's. Well-written, yes. Balanced, not a chance.

I saw the URL and was tempted not to even bother, I got halfway through it before I couldn't take any more of their BS.