The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[TenEightyOne]

Sorry for the double post (onmyphone) but I never said it was an issue did I?

Okay, we've established it's not an issue, which is cool. I'd still like to press you on a particular point, if you'll pardon me putting it that way, if you're following me, as it were.

I just said he looked gay

That's the bit I'm curious about, how does he look gay? I genuinely don't see it and I'd like to know what you mean.

...I bet noone would have cared if it was a gay person that said what I said

Let's get this straight, how does your sexuality make any difference at all? I'm just interested in why you think he looks gay. You have as much right to your opinion as anyone else of any orientation.

I'm of to bed xoxo

I love Oxo, it's my favourite. Have you ever been up the Oxo tower?

 

[Agent_47]

No, but if you describe a man lying with another man as an "abomination", then you're branded as a hater or bigot. Is that somehow inaccurate?

People are free to be bigoted if they want, but should hardly be upset when others identify their behaviour for what it is. Call a spade a spade and all that.

You're calling my view bigotry because it doesn't agree with you.

 

[FoolKiller]

You're calling my view bigotry because it doesn't agree with you.

I thought your view was indifference. Is it now that it is an abomination?

If you feel indifference about sexual preference in general, that's not bigotry. If you feel or act a specific way about a specific group, that is bigotry.

 

[Imari]

You're calling my view bigotry because it doesn't agree with you.

No, I'm calling your view bigotry because you're being bigoted towards homosexuals.

Don't worry, I'm bigoted too: I'm bigoted towards bigots, and happy to admit it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Seems that if you don't come out in support of the gay lifestyle, you're branded a hater/bigot.

That's part of the problem right there - unless you deliberately said "the gay lifestyle" to take a rise then I have to ask; what is "the gay lifestyle"? Or do you just mean being gay?

And what's the alternative? "I disagree and don't support 'the gay lifestyle'"? Would that reflect your own view?

I know you say homosexuality causes "harm" and that it sets an example which "others shouldn't follow", so unless you say you no longer feel that I'd say that you are, by definition, a bigot.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

You're calling my view bigotry because it doesn't agree with you.

The way I see this topic:

If you're going to call any human being, or group of human beings, an abomination, as has been said in this thread, I don't see how that's a moderated view towards said person/persons. If I said clowns were an abomination that would still make me bigoted towards clowns.

Leviticus 20:10
New International Version (NIV)
"If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."

Now, if we're going to keep affiliating specific Bible verses to this topic, I think the verse above applies. Denying gay people marriage rights because the Bible says homosexual behavior is detestable is very commonly used as the defense against gay marriage today, so why is the above verse ignored for marriage as a whole? Maybe because it's outlandishly crude and inhumane? Maybe I'm implying that, as a society, certain aspects of the Bible no longer apply to modern society, nor have they for many years?

However, if you believe we need to start executing what I'm sure is a very large chunk of our population, then at least your beliefs are consistent.

(Editors note: I'm in no way attacking your beliefs here, you're entitled to whatever beliefs you have and I couldn't be bothered less, but rather pointing out the general inconsistencies in many arguments and debates about a widespread assortment of topics)

 

[VolkswagenX]

Okay, we've established it's not an issue, which is cool. I'd still like to press you on a particular point, if you'll pardon me putting it that way, if you're following me, as it were.



That's the bit I'm curious about, how does he look gay? I genuinely don't see it and I'd like to know what you mean.

You don't see it? That's fine! He looks gay to me because he is a man wearing women's clothing. Some of you act as if it is impossible to recognize a gay guy from his looks.

Let's get this straight, how does your sexuality make any difference at all? I'm just interested in why you think he looks gay. You have as much right to your opinion as anyone else of any orientation.

it doesn'tmatter to me but I get the feeling it matters to others. So much talk in the media about who might be gay but nobody ever ask them if there is a typical gay look? Oh and I don't think you can always tell if someone looks gay, but sometimes it's just to obvious and denying that is just being pc to be pc.

I love Oxo, it's my favourite. Have you ever been up the Oxo tower?

ment hugs and kisses.

 

[Famine]

You don't see it? That's fine! He looks gay to me because he is a man wearing women's clothing.

Newsflash: Some straight men wear women's clothing
Newsflash: Most gay men don't wear women's clothing

Thus "he looks gay to me because he is a man wearing women's clothing" is a bit dim. Men who wear women's clothing are commonly referred to as transvestites. While many transvestites are also gay, many aren't and most gay men aren't transvestites.

And you haven't answered the question:

That hasn't answered the question. And you've also not answered the question by pretending I've said something else.

Crack on and answer what I actually asked:

You said the guy "looks gay". By extension that means there is a "gay look" that allows people to determine, by sight alone, who is gay.

100% sensitivity isn't required, but 100% specificity would be - or there's no such thing as a "gay look".

Some of you act as if it is impossible to recognize a gay guy from his looks.

Actually, it is. Looks alone aren't enough to determine sexuality. Even if we take your "transvestites are gay" stance you'll be generating false positives out the wazoo (thus blowing the 100% specificity requirement out of the water).

So much talk in the media about who might be gay but nobody ever ask them if there is a typical gay look?

What's "the gay look" then?

Are you aware that 1 in 10 men are gay? Do you think 1 in 10 men have "the gay look"? Is there a "straight look"? Is there a "bisexual look"? Is there a "look" for every point on the Kinsey Scale?

Oh and I don't think you can always tell if someone looks gay, but sometimes it's just to obvious and denying that is just being pc to be pc.

Or being realistic.

You can't tell if someone's gay from anything but them being sexually involved with someone of the same gender, and even then they might be bisexual, "experimenting" or transgender-straight.

Hell, sometimes you can't even tell if someone's male or female just by looking.

 

[Exorcet]

You don't see it? That's fine! He looks gay to me because he is a man wearing women's clothing. Some of you act as if it is impossible to recognize a gay guy from his looks.

It is impossible, unless maybe they wear a sign saying "I'm gay". What clothes people want to wear has nothing to do with it. Being gay doesn't mean you want to be or pretend to be the opposite sex. Clothes are all artificial anyway. There's no such thing as men or women's clothing. Even the made up rules that define what is men's or women's have changed over time, some times even going from one side the other.

 

[Liquid]

I want to know what the pansexual 'look' is, if @MK2golflover can explain these looks to us.

 

[VolkswagenX]

I'm not doing this guys. You can accept how I feel about this, ignore it or cry about. Peace.

 

[Liquid]

Agree with what I say and I won't discuss it.

Thanks, buddy!

 

[Famine]

I'm not doing this guys. You can accept how I feel about this, ignore it or cry about.

And of course how you feel about things are how they actually are, what with you being incapable of being wrong and all.

I'll take your inability to demonstrate a 100% specific "gay look" as an admission that you're talking tripe. You can of course accept this, ignore it or cry about it.

Peace.

That's not particularly likely while people are willfully and deliberately ignorant and refuse to consider that the contents of their head can be in error.

 

[Joel]

I'm not doing this guys. You can accept how I feel about this, ignore it or cry about. Peace.

100%, pure, distilled irony.

If only we could accept how you feel.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You don't see it? That's fine! He looks gay to me because he is a man wearing women's clothing.

Perhaps English isn't your first language because we use "gay" to mean someone who is sexually attracted to their own gender in their head. People who wear the clothing of the opposite sex (most specifically recognisable male>female) on their bodies are called transvestites. They don't look gay, they look like transvestites. Because that's what they are.

Some of you act as if it is impossible to recognize a gay guy from his looks.

Probably the most reasonable and intelligent people, yes. The fact that you can say that without realising what you're actually saying is worrying to me.

 

[Imari]

Some of you act as if it is impossible to recognize a gay guy from his looks.

It is.

There's a stereotypical gay look/set of mannerisms. It's not actually accurate for picking gay people out of a crowd. I suspect a lot of gay people pick it up through association or put it on intentionally as a signalling device, but it's not universal, and it changes quite a bit by location and culture. Some stuff that would be considered "gay" in Australia is anything but in say, Italy.

For whatever reason, most people ask me if I'm gay within the first half hour of meeting me. Must be something with my mannerisms or whatnot. I'm pretty sure I'm not gay, but who really knows.

 

[FoolKiller]

You don't see it? That's fine! He looks gay to me because he is a man wearing women's clothing.

I have the Internet. I've stumbled across quite a few things that throw your stereotype out the window. I also took a deviant sociology course in college, which had a section on the range of transgender forms, and just crossdressing was shown time and again to mostly be done by people who identified as straight. The further you got into gender identity issues the more complex it became. Can a biological man who identifies as as a woman, but lacks the ability to get gender reassignment surgery, be considered gay for being attracted to men?

I'm still curious about your thoughts on Lana Wachowski.

I'm pretty sure I'm not gay, but who really knows.

You never know what a few drinks on a Saturday night might reveal.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yeah, those weird conversations where a drunk friend tells you the inside of a guy's mouth is identical to the inside of a woman's.

Ahem. (awkward silence).

@FoolKiller; yeah, "stumbled", right

 

[LeMansAid]

Perhaps English isn't your first language because we use "gay" to mean someone who is sexually attracted to their own gender in their head. People who wear the clothing of the opposite sex (most specifically recognisable male>female) on their bodies are called transvestites. They don't look gay, they look like transvestites. Because that's what they are.

People do tend to be quite lazy with language in general though. Something as simple adding the word "camp" to the vocabulary can help. I find camp behaviour and mannerisms sometimes endearing, but more often annoying. Thing is, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Understanding that it's not an exclusively gay guy thing, and that women and straight men also act camp, and that plenty of gay guys don't, is an example of what might help a lot of people to be clear on how to translate the information they're gleaning when observing a person.

It's also fair to not be deliberately completely daft though. Conchita Wurst's appearance, if nothing else, suggests something other than a robotic, mindless, nine to five, slave to the modern world. It might not scream gay, but it certainly screams non-conformist, and at the moment straight is still considered what is "normal".

I suspect a lot of gay people pick it up through association.....

Very much so. Kind of like picking up an accent, and some pick it up way more than others.

Hugh Jackman neither speaks with an American accent, or acts like Peter Allen, outside of performances. Others just can't seem to shake what their environment imbues them with.

 

[Agent_47]

Why the need to call it marriage?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why the need to call it marriage?

Do you think people should or shouldn't call it that? It's the correct word for when two people join together via a recognised ceremony, if that's what you mean? If you call it something else it's still a marriage... unless you think that such marriages shouldn't take place?

 

[Ken]

Why the need to call it marriage?

What label would you prefer the union of two people in love be called? Gay marriage? Yes, because we all know how appropriate keeping people separate through labels is. Maybe we could have them all wear red letter G's on their chest. That should make them feel right as rain.

 

[Agent_47]

Do you think people should or shouldn't call it that? It's the correct word for when two people join together via a recognised ceremony, if that's what you mean? If you call it something else it's still a marriage... unless you think that such marriages shouldn't take place?

Why is the government even defining marriage?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Why is the government even defining what constitutes marriage anyway?

Why is anyone else? If two people want to get married, nothing should stop them from doing so. Wehn you put it liek that you act like the government is restricting things, when in fact the government is protecting the right of all couples, heterosexual or homosexual, to marry.

 

[DK]

Wait, so declaring that the union of a man and a woman is the only legal form of marriage isn't "the government defining marriage" to you?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wait, so declaring that the union of a man and a woman is the only legal form of marriage isn't "the government defining marriage" to you?

Haha of course not! They're, er. Oh, hang on.

@AGENT47, legal marriage comes with extra legal rights in many places (another argument for another time). As long as that's the case people will seek the union for its symbolism and legal recognition.

 

[Agent_47]

Haha of course not! They're, er. Oh, hang on.

@AGENT47, legal marriage comes with extra legal rights in many places (another argument for another time). As long as that's the case people will seek the union for its symbolism and legal recognition.

So why not give civil unions those same legal protections without calling it marriage? I think a lot of people really do just want equality and fairness; and that's fine.

However, I also think some people just want to legitimize something that society has historically seen as wrong.

I don't really care since it doesn't affect me. I just don't get why supporters of gay marriage must force people to agree with them.

 

[G.T.Ace]

So why not give civil unions those same legal protections without calling it marriage? I think a lot of people really do just want equality and fairness; and that's fine.

However, I also think some people just want to legitimize something that society has historically seen as wrong.

I don't really care since it doesn't affect me. I just don't get why supporters of gay marriage must force people to agree with them.

Why shouldn't it be called marriage? Theres not a single reason.
Every human being should be treated like the other.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why the need to call it marriage?

Why the need to not?

Wehn you put it liek that you act like the government is restricting things, when in fact the government is protecting the right of all couples, heterosexual or homosexual, to marry.

Not in this country, or many others. My state has a constitutional amendment that strictly defines marriage as between a man and woman. The government is restricting things when it comes to marriage.

So why not give civil unions those same legal protections without calling it marriage?

Your water fountain, my water fountain. Your bathroom, my bathroom. You get in the back of the bus, I'll ride up front.
You can use the restaurant, but not the lunch counter.

Separate but equal has been done. It's only a matter of time before it is no longer equal. Give a new tax break to married couples? Sure. Oops we forgot to say civil unions too. We'll get to it next session.

However, I also think some people just want to legitimize something that society has historically seen as wrong.

Like, interracial marriage?

Let me tell you about this time Django went to the slave owner's house riding on a horse and went inside to eat dinner and watch a slave fight like any white man. Even the house slaves were offended by his shamelessly acting like a free man. Then there was this one black woman and she refused to sit in the back of the bus! Why I never... And one boy sat at the lunch counter, but me and Billy Bob taught him a lesson. The sheriff gave him a few kicks in his side to make sure that he knew we wouldn't tolerate such behavior in this town.

Sometimes, society historically sees horrible things as right.

I just don't get why supporters of gay marriage must force people to agree with them.

Does free speech force you to agree with what everyone says? Allowing homosexuals to marry does not force people to agree.

If you mean in this thread; what's the point of an opinion thread if you can't discuss/debate opinions?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So why not give civil unions those same legal protections without calling it marriage?

Because when they have the same legal protections as marriage... they become a marriage. Even if you pronounce it "cauliflower". It's a marriage.

Do you think it should or shouldn't be called marriage?