The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[White & Nerdy]

Providing equal rights, and that is what is being discussed doesn't turn into reverse oppression against anyone at all.

People would still remain free to say that they oppose same sex marriage, but would not be able to discriminate on that basis, that doesn't remove any right at all from those that oppose it at all.

I'm thinking of religious organizations, including, in some cases, those set up to oppose the spread of open homosexuality, but also extending to more general setups like Christian bookstores and churches, being forced to hire people whose habits and views are diametrically opposed to the very purpose of the organization. Sure, a religious exemption could be put in place, but I'm sure we all know by now what the Obama administration thinks of those. Even if one was put in place it would just turn into a mess of litigation and bickering over things like whether for-profit operations (like the aforementioned bookstore) should be included in the exemption, and when the dust finally settled, no one at all would be happy with the result.

Apart from it would give you redress under the law should it be proven (and it can be and has been many times in the past for many forms of discrimination).

Hah, good luck! A sufficiently canny boss will find a way sooner or later, and if he does it right, it'll either be untraceable (paying disproportionate attention to the target minority, until he's caught them committing enough small mistakes to fire them) or no one will bother to trace it (let them and a few convenient decoys go during layoffs or a shake-up, replace them with bright, young, lower-paid employees, then cover his tracks by blabbering on and on about "fresh talent" and "doing more with less" so anyone who's in a position to care will think using newer and thus lower-paid employees was the point all along). And this applies whether they're a racist, a misogynist, or a "homophobe" (I hate that made-up pseudo-LatinGreek word). It's just that, in the modern world, so-called "homophobia" is probably more common than racism or misoginy. And possibly a lot harder to spot in the context of employment decisions.

Once again this exact same (non)argument was an is used to oppose equal rights based on gender and race, its as nonsensical when used against sexuality as it is against gender and race.

Not quite, as I said before. Hating someone for race or gender is a lot different from thinking someone's behavior choices are sinful. Like I said, two of those things are concerned with rigid, completely genetic, highly obvious physical properties, while the third deals with a property visible only via the conciously-resistable choices it encourages, and which is likely much more malleable via external effects post-birth, even assuming genetics actually does have anything to do with it.

How so? It's still definitely up there. If someone treated you lowly because you were gay, black, or a strong, independent woman who don't need no man, it is definitely considered oppression.

The difference is, as I have now stated many times, the expression of the trait. Homosexual urges can be conciously resisted, and when this is done, there is no indication that they are even there. This is in contrast to things like skin color and gender, which are completely a function of genetics and persist throughout an individual's life. If you're born black, you stay black, and there's no use trying to not be black. Now, of course, there are some behavior expressions that only a tyrant would attempt to repress - and some that obviously should be repressed. There are a lot of reasons homosexuality remained in the latter group for so long - one is that, for an incredibly long time, western world was overwhelmingly Christian, and even those that may not have actually been Christians adopted the same sort of ethic. Allowing homosexuality, let alone sanctioning it, was an entirely foreign idea. But there are other reasons, at least one of them entirely practical, others less so.

Black people in the 60s weren't slaves, but they were still looked down upon. In the end, saying to someone "You can't marry because you're black!" is the same as saying "You can't marry because you're gay."

[/COLOR]
Congratulations, you've found the cream of the crop as far as misguided pro-gay arguments go. This is a confusion of terms at best. Everyone - black, white, technically even gay - has the same right... the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. So no, you can't marry another man, but to say someone "can't marry because they're gay" is slightly off the mark.

Going back to what you were originally saying, I think it does count as oppression.

You may think of homosexuality as a sin, and gay marriage illegitimate. But marriage has lasted longer than Christianity has, so the church doesn't really get to define it.

[/COLOR]
Well then, let's legalize polygamy too. And if we think hard enough, I'm sure we can think of more marriage-related things that are no longer practised, to bring back. Or let's not, actually.

Additionally, the traditional definition of marriage is reflected in uses other than actual marriage - it refers to the union of two different entities toward a common objective (as applied to inhuman objects or organizations it may actually permit more than two objects in the union, but it's 1:26 AM and I still have a Cool Wall post to make, so I'll have to look it up tomorrow).

 

[Azure Flare]

but it's 1:26 AM and I still have a Cool Wall post to make, so I'll have to look it up tomorrow.

[OFFTOPIC]C7 FTW! :tup:[/OFFTOPIC]

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm thinking of religious organizations, including, in some cases, those set up to oppose the spread of open homosexuality, but also extending to more general setups like Christian bookstores and churches, being forced to hire people whose habits and views are diametrically opposed to the very purpose of the organization.

Forgive my possible ignorance, but does that actually happen?

To be honest, if a gay person deliberately went to work at a Christian bookstore just so the store was forced to employ them, their sexuality would be irrelevant, because they'd be being an asshat.

But really, Christian organizations being "forced" to employ people whose bedroom goings-on they disagree with sounds more like a "slippery slope" argument used by those who don't really understand why gay rights is a thing. It's not about affirmative action, it's about ensuring all human beings have a level playing field.

The difference is, as I have now stated many times, the expression of the trait. Homosexual urges can be conciously resisted, and when this is done, there is no indication that they are even there.

Would you say resisting homosexual urges is really the right state of being though? If someone is gay they shouldn't have to resist it. It's taking away from who the person is no differently than changing skin colour, even if there's more "choice" in one than the other (and that's still highly debatable).

It's one step from "resisting" to those camps where people are forceably "cured" of being gay.

 

[Daniel]

Well then, let's legalize polygamy too. And if we think hard enough, I'm sure we can think of more marriage-related things that are no longer practised, to bring back. Or let's not, actually.

Additionally, the traditional definition of marriage is reflected in uses other than actual marriage - it refers to the union of two different entities toward a common objective (as applied to inhuman objects or organizations it may actually permit more than two objects in the union, but it's 1:26 AM and I still have a Cool Wall post to make, so I'll have to look it up tomorrow).

I'm not opposed to polygamy. It's not my cup of tea, but I'm fine with it as long as all members involved are consenting adults. Don't go bringing bestiality and paedophilia into this, though. We can't tell if an animal is giving consent, and children aren't mature enough to really know what's happening.

People always say that the traditional definition of marriage is between just a man and a woman. If it existed before Christianity, why is Christianity allowed to define it?


EDIT: Regarding a Christian bookstore and hiring gay workers:

Just .

When has a company ever been forced to hire a specific individual? I'm pretty sure if I acted like that at my original job interview, I wouldn't have gotten the job.

 

[Scaff]

I'm thinking of religious organizations, including, in some cases, those set up to oppose the spread of open homosexuality, but also extending to more general setups like Christian bookstores and churches, being forced to hire people whose habits and views are diametrically opposed to the very purpose of the organization. Sure, a religious exemption could be put in place, but I'm sure we all know by now what the Obama administration thinks of those. Even if one was put in place it would just turn into a mess of litigation and bickering over things like whether for-profit operations (like the aforementioned bookstore) should be included in the exemption, and when the dust finally settled, no one at all would be happy with the result.

Your creating a problem that in reality needs no regulation.

Do you honestly think that anyone homosexual would seek out employment in an organization that is openly critical of homosexuality? If so then we need to ensure that we make sure that no-one who is critical of homosexuality is allowed to work for organizations that are pro-homosexuality (you know just in case).

Hah, good luck! A sufficiently canny boss will find a way sooner or later, and if he does it right, it'll either be untraceable (paying disproportionate attention to the target minority, until he's caught them committing enough small mistakes to fire them) or no one will bother to trace it (let them and a few convenient decoys go during layoffs or a shake-up, replace them with bright, young, lower-paid employees, then cover his tracks by blabbering on and on about "fresh talent" and "doing more with less" so anyone who's in a position to care will think using newer and thus lower-paid employees was the point all along). And this applies whether they're a racist, a misogynist, or a "homophobe" (I hate that made-up pseudo-LatinGreek word). It's just that, in the modern world, so-called "homophobia" is probably more common than racism or misoginy. And possibly a lot harder to spot in the context of employment decisions.

Equality is difficult to enforce so lets not bother.

I'm pretty sure however you would think a little differently if someone was fired on religious grounds.

I've hired, laid-off and fired enough people over the years to know for a fact that what you are describing above is actually pretty much nonsense.

Not quite, as I said before. Hating someone for race or gender is a lot different from thinking someone's behavior choices are sinful. Like I said, two of those things are concerned with rigid, completely genetic, highly obvious physical properties, while the third deals with a property visible only via the conciously-resistable choices it encourages, and which is likely much more malleable via external effects post-birth, even assuming genetics actually does have anything to do with it.

To be blunt, you are spouting bollocks.

Remind us again exactly what point in life humans get to pick if they are straight or gay, I need it as I seem to have forgotten that particular rite of passage. Odd because the other 400 odd species that also include homosexuality don't seem to be making a choice about it either.

However if 'choices' being an OK basis for removing rights then lets go for it. On that basis you will have no objection at all to stopping all religious practice, it is after all a choice you have made and one that you can suppress. When you stop doing it you will be outwardly the same as the rest of us and therefore not able to cause any offense any more. Not really the sound basis for an argument is it?

 

[Tesla]

I'm not opposed to polygamy. It's not my cup of tea, but I'm fine with it as long as all members involved are consenting adults. Don't go bringing bestiality and paedophilia into this, though. We can't tell if an animal is giving consent, and children aren't mature enough to really know what's happening.

Polygamy is too complex a legal matter to be formally accepted. How would one go about getting a divorce? What would they receive out of it? What happens to any children after one person has split?

People always say that the traditional definition of marriage is between just a man and a woman. If it existed before Christianity, why is Christianity allowed to define it?

If it existed before Christianity as a man-woman commitment, why are we as a society now beginning to redefine it?

 

[Scaff]

Polygamy is too complex a legal matter to be formally accepted. How would one go about getting a divorce? What would they receive out of it? What happens to any children after one person has split?

It would be hard to do is not really a valid basis for law.

Plenty of legal situations are hideously complex (particularly financial based ones), yet they are formally accepted.

If it existed before Christianity as a man-woman commitment, why are we as a society now beginning to redefine it?

Which would be great if it were true.

However its not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Same sex marriage were accepted in ancient Rome, when Christianity came to be the main Roman religion they were outlawed and those married executed.

Its also rather ironic that Christianity is complaining about redefining marriage, yet it has done the exact same when it suited its own needs (and done so repeatedly - the Church of England would not exists were it not for a rather big redefinition of marriage).

 

[Daniel]

Probably because Christianity took over to become a huge religion. It really picked up after Constantine decriminalised it, and Constantinus II and Constans both criminalised same-sex marriage.


EDIT: Tree'd by @Scaff

 

[TenEightyOne]

As @Scaff says, a polygamous contract of marriage would be no more complicated than most financial contracts - they can involve hundreds or thousands of separately liable parties and conditions.

Personally I don't believe in censorship of words or actions except to protect young people. I reserve the right to censor what I allow my children to see, in other words. They've grown up knowing that the world is full of all kinds of people, good, bad, crazy (in-laws particularly) and as they get older they'll understand more about what that means and, I hope, have the power and information to make their own choices.

That's the only way we'll improve any situation in the world, by improving the next generation. Where's my guitar...?

 

[Tesla]

Which would be great if it were true.

However its not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Same sex marriage were accepted in ancient Rome, when Christianity came to be the main Roman religion they were outlawed and those married executed.

Its also rather ironic that Christianity is complaining about redefining marriage, yet it has done the exact same when it suited its own needs (and done so repeatedly - the Church of England would not exists were it not for a rather big redefinition of marriage).

I'm not arguing for or against the church. But there are records prior to those that recognise marriage (as far as I can tell) as between a man and a woman - although the circumstances surrounding these marriages are arguably without complete consent of the wife.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/26/204128.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

 

[Azure Flare]

That's the only way we'll improve any situation in the world, by improving the next generation. Where's my guitar...?

Same Love - Macklemore & Ryan Lewis

We press play, don't press pause
Progress, march on
With the veil over our eyes
We turn our back on the cause
'Till the day that my uncles can be united by law
When kids are walking 'round the hallway plagued by pain in their heart
A world so hateful some would rather die than be who they are
And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all
But it's a damn good place to start
No law is gonna change us
We have to change us
Whatever God you believe in
We come from the same one
Strip away the fear
Underneath it's all the same love
About time that we raised up... sex

 

[Scaff]

I'm not arguing for or against the church. But there are records prior to those that recognise marriage (as far as I can tell) as between a man and a woman - although the circumstances surrounding these marriages are arguably without complete consent of the wife.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/26/204128.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

And there are record predating that recognizing same sex marriages, which therefore clearly shows that Christianity as a religion redefined marriage and that Man/Woman is not the only historic option for a marriage.

 

[Brett]

IYou have the same property, voting, employment, and other rights as anyone else. Gay sex between consenting adults is legal everywhere in the U.S. now, and even in Russia they can't stop you.

Except gay people do not have the same rights as everyone else. Marriage grants couples additional rights. Without the legal ability to marry, gays are not granted those rights. It is legalized discrimination. The solution to that problem is either grant marriage to all or remove the governmental rights of married couples. Either solution fixes the problem. However, I would guess there would be a much larger uproar over the second option.

I'm thinking of religious organizations, including, in some cases, those set up to oppose the spread of open homosexuality, but also extending to more general setups like Christian bookstores and churches, being forced to hire people whose habits and views are diametrically opposed to the very purpose of the organization. Sure, a religious exemption could be put in place, but I'm sure we all know by now what the Obama administration thinks of those. Even if one was put in place it would just turn into a mess of litigation and bickering over things like whether for-profit operations (like the aforementioned bookstore) should be included in the exemption, and when the dust finally settled, no one at all would be happy with the result.

Those religious organizations are under no obligation to hire anyone. Currently, they cannot discriminate because of gender, race, and whatever else is on the books. However, that does not mean they have to hire anyone. If they do not want to hire a woman, then they just do not hire a woman.

Congratulations, you've found the cream of the crop as far as misguided pro-gay arguments go. This is a confusion of terms at best. Everyone - black, white, technically even gay - has the same right... the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. So no, you can't marry another man, but to say someone "can't marry because they're gay" is slightly off the mark.

Except it is the same thing. It was legalized discrimination then and it is legalized discrimination now. There is no reason why two guys or two girls should not be able to get married, so long as governments continue to sanction marriages. Grant rights to all or remove government sanctioned marriage rights and the "problem" goes away.

To be blunt, you are spouting bollocks.

Remind us again exactly what point in life humans get to pick if they are straight or gay, I need it as I seem to have forgotten that particular rite of passage. Odd because the other 400 odd species that also include homosexuality don't seem to be making a choice about it either.

However if 'choices' being an OK basis for removing rights then lets go for it. On that basis you will have no objection at all to stopping all religious practice, it is after all a choice you have made and one that you can suppress. When you stop doing it you will be outwardly the same as the rest of us and therefore not able to cause any offense any more. Not really the sound basis for an argument is it?

👍

 

[Duke]

And that, Scaff, is the bulk of my point against you as well. Race and gender are expressed as physical properties. Other characteristics, including sexual orientation, are technically invisible until revealed by outward choices and behavior.

"Religion" is a characteristic that is technically invisible until revealed by outward choices and behaviour.

You willing to accept not being allowed to go to church publicly or discuss your religion with others? Because those are both "outward choices and behaviours". If you're going to propose a universal don't-ask-don't-tell policy for other people, you DAMN well better be willing to accept when it is applied to you.

 

[DK]

Meanwhile, in Arizona...the bigots who came up with this bill are a waste of oxygen.

 

[Danoff]

Meanwhile, in Arizona...the bigots who came up with this bill are a waste of oxygen.

Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason - including refusing to serve gays because they're gay.

 

[Carbonox]

Meanwhile, in Arizona...the bigots who came up with this bill are a waste of oxygen.

"It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion."

It'll be abused. No doubt about it.

 

[DK]

Well, to be honest, it's not as bad as a similar law proposed in Idaho, which would allow non-emergency personnel (emergency personnel would still have to provide service) to deny service based on sexuality.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Businesses can refuse business with others based on beliefs.

However as a business, doing something like that is stupid because you're just denying yourself a good sale and it will bring in negative PR. A business that does that is simply shooting its foot. It's an anti-capitalist bill too.

Now that Idaho bill will probably be struck down. It's funny really. These religious folk claim that gays and what not are ruining their creed while they are forgetting that Jesus himself preached love for all.

Idiots.

 

[Danoff]

It's an anti-capitalist bill too.

I don't see how. It might allow businesses to hurt themselves, but businesses hurting themselves is very capitalist.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I'm not sure a business actively hurting itself can be considered good capitalism.

 

[Castrol96]

-

 

[sumbrownkid]

It maybe banned in religion obviously, but you cannot apply the laws of one's lord to another person that does not necessarily follow the same religion. We are nations of people with laws made by people. As such we can only be held accountable to the laws made by people. If god truly is against this he or she would have done something about it by now. With that said I'd rather gay people get married and create a loving home for adopted children than irresponsible people having children and not taking care of them or abusing them. With whom do you think god will be more displeased with?

 

[Exorcet]

I'm not sure a business actively hurting itself can be considered good capitalism.

The business is terrible and it will die. Then a good business can start up and take over.

 

[sumbrownkid]

The business is terrible and it will die. Then a good business can start up and take over.

I guess so when you put it like that.

 

[r0llinlacs]

Ugandan president to sign anti-gay law threatening life in prison
http://rt.com/news/uganda-gay-bill-prison-175/

"This comes after 14 medical experts presented a report that homosexuality is not genetic but a social behaviour"

I haven't read the studies so I'm not sure of the validity, but I've been saying this all along. It is not genetic by any means. It has always been considered a disorder and why the sudden change, I don't know. (Disorder: illness; a medical condition involving a disturbance to the usual functioning of the mind or body)

Sexual fetishism
Sexual perversion

Nothing more, nothing less.

Sexual fetishism: The sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation. The object or situation of interest is called the fetish.

Perversion: A type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. It is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive. It is often considered derogatory, and, in psychological literature, the term paraphilia has been used as a replacement

So the psychological definition of a perversion is...

Paraphilia: The experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals. Paraphilic behavior (such as pedophilia, zoophilia, sexual sadism, exhibitionism, homosexuality, etc.) may be illegal in some jurisdictions, but may also be tolerated in others.


Sorry, but I just don't see any logical reason to accept and promote that type of lifestyle, especially to children.

 

[Exorcet]

I haven't read the studies so I'm not sure of the validity, but I've been saying this all along. It is not genetic by any means.

OK then.

It has always been considered a disorder

The planet has been considered flat.

and why the sudden change

People have tried to be less paranoid and ridiculous with time.

Sexual fetishism
Sexual perversion

Nothing more, nothing less.

Sexual fetishism: The sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation. The object or situation of interest is called the fetish.

Perversion: A type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. It is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive. It is often considered derogatory, and, in psychological literature, the term paraphilia has been used as a replacement

So the psychological definition of a perversion is...

Paraphilia: The experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals. Paraphilic behavior (such as pedophilia, zoophilia, sexual sadism, exhibitionism, homosexuality, etc.) may be illegal in some jurisdictions, but may also be tolerated in others.


Sorry, but I just don't see any logical reason to accept and promote that type of lifestyle, especially to children.

Here is something that needs to be promoted to children, the idea that you're not doing anything wrong if you're not hurting someone else.

If homosexuality was just a fetish, and I doubt it is, there is still no reason to make same sex marriage illegal. That Ugandan law is illegal.

 

[Carbonox]

I haven't read the studies so I'm not sure of the validity, but I've been saying this all along. It is not genetic by any means. It has always been considered a disorder and why the sudden change, I don't know. (Disorder: illness; a medical condition involving a disturbance to the usual functioning of the mind or body)

Because less and less people are religious bigots now.

 

[Imari]

It has always been considered a disorder...

The Romans and the Greeks disagree with you.

 

[Scaff]

Not to offend if any of if you are ; IMO, I suggest that its just odd, god made men for woman, not men for men!

I mean, in my religion its banned.

I believe that no gods exist and that religion is one of the most dangerous thing on this planet.

Personally I gave up talking to imaginary friends as a kid and I certainly don't use them as a basis to judge others.

However I don't happen to use my beliefs to remove basic rights from others, pity the religious have a nasty habit of doing so.

Ugandan president to sign anti-gay law threatening life in prison
http://rt.com/news/uganda-gay-bill-prison-175/

"This comes after 14 medical experts presented a report that homosexuality is not genetic but a social behaviour"

Care to provide a link to those studies, I take it they were independent peer reviewed documents and not ones funded by the Ugandan government (or other parties with a vested interest in laws of this nature.

As if they are not then they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Oh and the latest peer reviewed paper disagrees...

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

I haven't read the studies so I'm not sure of the validity, but I've been saying this all along. It is not genetic by any means. It has always been considered a disorder and why the sudden change, I don't know. (Disorder: illness; a medical condition involving a disturbance to the usual functioning of the mind or body)

Sexual fetishism
Sexual perversion

Nothing more, nothing less.

Sexual fetishism: The sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation. The object or situation of interest is called the fetish.

Perversion: A type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. It is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive. It is often considered derogatory, and, in psychological literature, the term paraphilia has been used as a replacement

So the psychological definition of a perversion is...

Paraphilia: The experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals. Paraphilic behavior (such as pedophilia, zoophilia, sexual sadism, exhibitionism, homosexuality, etc.) may be illegal in some jurisdictions, but may also be tolerated in others.


Sorry, but I just don't see any logical reason to accept and promote that type of lifestyle, especially to children.

Then please explain the social conditioning that exists in the other 400 species on the planet that also contain homosexuality?

The Romans and the Greeks disagree with you.

Add in just about every non-Abrahamic culture on the planet.