The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

I never really understood the poll. It could be easier.. Like 'I don't like gays' vs 'I don't give a **** who you're banging'. I think it's interesting the poll has a religious perspective to it though.

My uneducated guess is that the world needed reproduction more back when the bible was written and at those times reproduction could be done in only one way. So they had to find ways to limit homosexuality. Then people really started believing it was a sin. Now we seem to be getting over that, which is good.

I think you're giving people back then too much credit. It was different, that's enough. If I didn't know homosexuality was a thing and stumbled upon an example, I think I'd be shocked. And that's enough in a lot of cases to get it labeled a sin.

Thou Shalt Be Normal

 

[eiriksmil]

But then they wouldn't ask people to wait till they're married.

Why not?

I think you're giving people back then too much credit. It was different, that's enough. If I didn't know homosexuality was a thing and stumbled upon an example, I think I'd be shocked. And that's enough in a lot of cases to get it labeled a sin.

Thou Shalt Be Normal

Meh.. I think that if we traveled back in time, we would be surprised how smart the guys writing the books were

They knew what it was. The Greeks and the Romans didn't seem to mind but as Christianity progressed being gay turned more and more sinful.

 

[TexRex]

Something that gets me is the popular narrative (it even appears very early in this thread) that gay people are incapable of finding a partner of the opposite sex, for whatever type of relationship, so they "settle" for someone of the same sex.

Nevermind the absolutely staggering degree of settling that that would require if you're not actually attracted to people of the same sex, since you likely wouldn't be if you've sought and failed to find someone of the opposite sex, but it's like these people have never seen Matt Bomer.

 

[Danoff]

Meh.. I think that if we traveled back in time, we would be surprised how smart the guys writing the books were

I don't. There was a lot they didn't know. I also do not think they were concerned about the survival of the species.

They knew what it was. The Greeks and the Romans didn't seem to mind but as Christianity progressed being gay turned more and more sinful.

Information didn't flow the same way back then as it does now. What the Romans did was obviously the wrong thing to do given that the roman empire crumbled. The writing of the first bibles (and portions thereof) took place during and after the fall of Rome. (edit: oh right, old testament)

You might not link things like homosexuality and social collapse together, but honestly people still do that... like... today.... you know it was far more prevalent back then. Again, it was unusual, people didn't see it often. And being unusual was a good way to get yourself labeled a sinner. They blamed unusual diseases and disfigurements on the victim (sinner) because it made them feel like it couldn't happen to them and gave them a sense of justice and order.

We all know the gays caused Hurricane Katrina right?

It's nothing to do with survival of the species and everything to do with fearing the unusual.

 

[eiriksmil]

I don't. There was a lot they didn't know. I also do not think they were concerned about the survival of the species.

Survival of the species is #1 on the agenda, always has been. If people hadn't been concerned about that you and I wouldn't have been here.

The writing of the first bibles (and portions thereof) took place during and after the fall of Rome.

Um.. No.

You might not link things like homosexuality and social collapse together, but honestly people still do that... like... today.... you know it was far more prevalent back then. Again, it was unusual, people didn't see it often.

Was it unusual, though? Where are your stats? Do you think homosexuality a modern thing?

 

[Danoff]

Survival of the species is #1 on the agenda, always has been. If people hadn't been concerned about that you and I wouldn't have been here.

Turns out that most animals don't try that hard to protect the species. They just do what comes naturally.

Um.. No.

Oh right... Old Testament. My bad.

Was it unusual, though? Where are your stats? Do you think homosexuality a modern thing?

It's unusual enough.

 

[eiriksmil]

Turns out that most animals don't try that hard to protect the species. They just do what comes naturally.

Well protecting species does probably come natural to most species.

It's unusual enough.

That didn't answer any of my questions.

 

[Danoff]

Well protecting species does probably come natural to most species.

No, generally not. Genes are designed to protect themselves, but this is fundamentally where our fear of "different" comes from. When we see a member of the species that is unlike us, we're pretty hard wired to assume that we don't share genes very closely. It's the foundation of racism, xenophobia, and I'm saying homophobia as well.

What you're proposing is very abstract and intellectual. The idea that our numbers will dwindle if not enough people are making babies is very... mathematic. When we're talking about 2000 years ago, people killed each other... constantly, for very stupid reasons. They didn't care much for the survival of the species if that species was not like them and didn't share their particular social norms.

If Christianity were concerned about the survival of the species, the crusades seems like a bad move. Also... think about the contradiction in saying that a people who believe that God put humanity on earth and has a plan for them are worried about making sure that the species doesn't die off. We're created in God's image, by him, and with his design in mind remember? No need to worry about the species. We're exceptional by design right?

You're acting like religion was created intentionally by atheists... and with the possible exception of Scientology (and maybe Mormonism), I don't think that fits.

That didn't answer any of my questions.

Ok... uh... yes, it's unusual enough (that's one question answered). Are you seriously asking me how prevalent homosexuality is (it has been covered in this thread)? And homosexuality occurs in animals, so I'd say no, not modern. In fact, predates humans seems more appropraite.

 

[polysmut]

Why not?

Because if the goal is to have as much breeding as possible, you'd be limiting that achievement if you successfully discouraged extramarital breeding.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My uneducated guess is that the world needed reproduction more back when the bible was written and at those times reproduction could be done in only one way. So they had to find ways to limit homosexuality.

No. There were plenty of times and places when societies accepted homosexuality as entirely normal along with more than two socially-identified genders.

Heterosexual breeding is the thing that was actually controlled. If you were after max-sprogging you'd let anybody produce offspring whether they were closely related or not. Instead we see that nearly all societies we find in the world today, "civilised" or otherwise, have quite strict rules that distance breeding to at least as far as cousins.

Remember that much of what we think of as "traditional" church views and practices are really 19th Century revivalist ideas. The Victorians were publicly anti-homosexuality in their social practices and their religion.

 

[eiriksmil]

No, generally not. Genes are designed to protect themselves, but this is fundamentally where our fear of "different" comes from. When we see a member of the species that is unlike us, we're pretty hard wired to assume that we don't share genes very closely. It's the foundation of racism, xenophobia, and I'm saying homophobia as well.

I do agree to that our fear of different comes from protecting our DNA. However, what is "different"? I believe racism and homophobia is as much about social norms and culture, seems to me it has been more and less prevelent in different times and in different cultures.

What you're proposing is very abstract and intellectual. The idea that our numbers will dwindle if not enough people are making babies is very... mathematic. When we're talking about 2000 years ago, people killed each other... constantly, for very stupid reasons. They didn't care much for the survival of the species if that species was not like them and didn't share their particular social norms.

Supposedly (I have not read the source itself) in Ancient Greece homosexuality was debated as a tool for population control. It seems to me you believe everybody were neanderthals back then.

You're acting like religion was created intentionally by atheists... and with the possible exception of Scientology (and maybe Mormonism), I don't think that fits.

Oh I think religion is a great tool for a ruler of a society, no doubt about it. Do people writing religious texts believe themselves? Most probably. But to dismiss that religion has been recognized as a very useful instrument to justify wars, make law and order, suppress individuality and critical thinking etc for a long, long time is in my opinion naive.

Ok... uh... yes, it's unusual enough (that's one question answered). Are you seriously asking me how prevalent homosexuality is (it has been covered in this thread)? And homosexuality occurs in animals, so I'd say no, not modern. In fact, predates humans seems more appropraite.

Yes, it occurs in animals. So it's not unusual. How do you know people didn't see it often?

How prevalent it actually is, is very hard to tell.

Because if the goal is to have as much breeding as possible, you'd be limiting that achievement if you successfully discouraged extramarital breeding.

You don't want as much breeding as possible. You want to control it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Supposedly (I have not read the source itself) in Ancient Greece homosexuality was debated as a tool for population control.

Do yourself a favour and look up the source yourself, then quote from it. Admitting that you're just remembering unsourced stuff that might be right or wrong isn't a great basis for debate.

 

[eiriksmil]

Do yourself a favour and look up the source yourself, then quote from it. Admitting that you're just remembering unsourced stuff that might be right or wrong isn't a great basis for debate.

That's why you do not quote an unconfirmed source (i.e Wikipedia) and reading Plato was not on the agenda today. Not that important bud.

 

[Danoff]

I do agree to that our fear of different comes from protecting our DNA. However, what is "different"? I believe racism and homophobia is as much about social norms and culture, seems to me it has been more and less prevelent in different times and in different cultures.

The cultural/social norm fight is born from tribalism. Our tribe vs. their tribe can be seen in lots of primates, and other animals, and comes from propagation of genes - specifically not the species.

Supposedly (I have not read the source itself) in Ancient Greece homosexuality was debated as a tool for population control. It seems to me you believe everybody were neanderthals back then.

I've never heard that and would love a citation on this one. It's an interesting notion, but I don't think it bolsters your point much. Even if some intellectuals in Greece debated controlling breeding by encouraging homosexuality, that does not mean that Christianity (or other abrahamic religions) intentionally wanted to promote breeding by stamping down homosexuality (and if that's not what you're arguing, please correct me).

Oh I think religion is a great tool for a ruler of a society, no doubt about it. Do people writing religious texts believe themselves? Most probably. But to dismiss that religion has been recognized as a very useful instrument to justify wars, make law and order, suppress individuality and critical thinking etc for a long, long time is in my opinion naive.

Luckily I'm not dismissing that.

Yes, it occurs in animals. So it's not unusual. How do you know people didn't see it often?

It's unusual in animals too. Epilepsy is not super rare either (but also uncommon), and I don't actually recall ever seeing a seizure (in a person, I've got a dog with epilepsy). It's uncommon enough that it makes people assume demonic possession.... today!

You don't want as much breeding as possible. You want to control it.

So wait... your argument is that you want the right kind of breeding? And homosexuality being a sin is... encouraging that? Now I've lost your argument.

 

[Carbonox]

Something that gets me is the popular narrative (it even appears very early in this thread) that gay people are incapable of finding a partner of the opposite sex, for whatever type of relationship, so they "settle" for someone of the same sex.

Nevermind the absolutely staggering degree of settling that that would require if you're not actually attracted to people of the same sex, since you likely wouldn't be if you've sought and failed to find someone of the opposite sex, but it's like these people have never seen Matt Bomer.

Considering that's essentially a desperate school bully argument without a basis in reality, I don't believe it's worth lending much credence for.

 

[TexRex]

Considering that's essentially a desperate school bully argument without a basis in reality, I don't believe it's worth lending much credence for.

Oh, yeah. It's inane...but prevalent.

Edit:

always has been

 

[Danoff]

Oh, yeah. It's inane...but prevalent.

It goes along with homosexuality being a choice. Which is a really weird position to take. What they're essentially saying is that they could have chosen to be gay (or bi). Do any of us remember having a choice between preferring the same sex to the opposite sex? Do only gay people get this choice?

 

[UKMikey]

Something that gets me is the popular narrative (it even appears very early in this thread) that gay people are incapable of finding a partner of the opposite sex, for whatever type of relationship, so they "settle" for someone of the same sex.

At least the guy on this thread (post#2) retracted his opinion shortly afterwards and flagged it as complete BS.

You don't see a lot of that these days from either side. I bet the folks pushing this in(s)anity out there in the "real" world are sticking to their guns (insert 2nd amendment joke here).

 

[TexRex]

At least the guy on this thread (post#2) retracted his opinion shortly afterwards and flagged it as complete BS.

You don't see a lot of that these days from either side. I bet the folks pushing this in(s)anity out there in the "real" world are sticking to their guns (insert 2nd amendment joke here).

I mean, sure...though even that strokes strikes* me as disingenuous. The "so there what I said before was BS, now I say the truth" is easily read as "there I retract what I said, now stop bothering me". And maybe a lot of people today (or then) probably wouldn't have even attempted a retraction, but a disingenuous retraction, if that's what it was, is meaningless.

[Edit] *That's awkward...

 

[UKMikey]

strokes strikes*

[Edit] *That's awkward...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Considering that's essentially a desperate school bully argument without a basis in reality

So are many of the arguments that are used to spread hatred. Doesn't stop it happening in the grown-up world.

 

[UKMikey]

So are many of the arguments that are used to spread hatred. Doesn't stop it happening in the grown-up world.

To be fair I don't think he said it did. The argument hasn't got a basis in reality even if conversion therapists and pray-the-gay-away preachers are unfortunately a real thing.

 

[Daniel]

It goes along with homosexuality being a choice. Which is a really weird position to take. What they're essentially saying is that they could have chosen to be gay (or bi). Do any of us remember having a choice between preferring the same sex to the opposite sex? Do only gay people get this choice?

ahh yes, "when did you choose to have a sexuality that will ultimately make your life just that much harder?"

Or anything to do with "lifestyle choices". Why would I choose to have a more difficult life?

 

[TexRex]

 

[Liquid]

Yawn.

Jagdiwa (1384-1399) was crowned King of Poland.
Irene (797-802) titled herself Byzantine Emperor.

As if it matters...

 

[NotThePrez]

We didn't have a prom King/Queen at my school (and frankly I did not care at all about my prom), but as I understand it, isn't that vote typically cast by the student body at most schools?

I'd say that's a massive step in the right direction if the younger populace is happy to support homosexual couples regardless of their parents feelings. At my high school (almost 10 years ago) homosexual couples were still something of a slight taboo.

 

[TexRex]

We didn't have a prom King/Queen at my school (and frankly I did not care at all about my prom), but as I understand it, isn't that vote typically cast by the student body at most schools?

I'd say that's a massive step in the right direction if the younger populace is happy to support homosexual couples regardless of their parents feelings. At my high school (almost 10 years ago) homosexual couples were still something of a slight taboo.

 

[UKMikey]

Queen comes out in support of gay people.

https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/queen-confirms-plans-to-finally-ban-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk/

 

[TexRex]

Queen comes out in support of gay people.

https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/queen-confirms-plans-to-finally-ban-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk/

Is that the Queen, Queen or a queen?

Edit: That's a weird word. It looks like it's spelled incorrectly even when it's not.

 

[UKMikey]

Is that the Queen, Queen or a queen?

Yes.