The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[drivehard]

In my opinion homosexualality is choice similar to somebody choosing to be a vegetarian or obsessive compulsion taking its form in the way of automysophobia - afraid of dirt. Though I support Gay Rights and detest people who harbor hatred for gays. I've met quite a few homosexuals and some were cool and some I disliked. The way homosexuals are portrayed on T.V. and in popular culture in general is narrow and altogether detrimental to the idea itself.

 

[freedomweasel]

No with that said, I give you this. I can't :censored:ing stand it:

[photo]

Homosexuality is not a brand. It is not an accessory. It's not a badge. It does not define you. You define you. I'm not defined as a person by being a heterosexual, so why should one's homosexuality define them? I hate that and I hate it in all of its foolishness. I know Perez Hilton is an extreme example, but he's also a perfect one. I've seen many a-holes like this and I wish I didn't. It boils my blood. There's nothing wrong with being gay, but there's nothing to brag about either.

Warning, this response ended up being much longer than expected, kudos if you read it all.

Devils Advocate/Counterpoint:
While heterosexuality may not define you, it certainly seems to define some others. I don't think you can tell me you've never seen someone (who likely goes by "bro") who simply must inform every man, woman, more women, and child that he is the most virile man on the planet. You can decide if your heterosexuality is a "brand" or "accessory" but if I want to wear a shirt that says "I'm super manly" that seems like my business.

There are plenty of heterosexual individuals who are plenty obnoxious either because, or unrelated to them being heterosexual. I struggle to see much of a problem with homosexuals, or anyone else, wanting to dress/act like the person in that photo.


Side note:
I just find it somewhat telling.. or interesting(?) when people make claims like you did. Please don't take offense, as I may be wrong, but it often sounds like "Sure they can be gay as long as I don't know about it". If someone were to ask you, randomly, outside of a discussion on homosexuality, "How do you feel about guys being straight?". Would you answer: a) "No problem, whatever" or b) "No problem, as long as I don't have to see it". Be honest. Insert any minority you want into the question and think about it again.
The common answer during these sorts of discussions is "No, I don't like seeing two straight people make out either", but if unprompted would you really say the same? Would you really say "Yeah sure, but I don't want those guys acting all manly and acting like they love their girlfriends in public".

If you really would answer (b), unprompted, I find that interesting, but also somewhat sad. If everyone acted the same and looked the same, while we may get annoyed less often, I think it'd also be boring. Every friday night in my city large masses of hippies gather in a city park downtown and have a wacko drum circle, dance and hula-hoop, party thing. I find it incredibly obnoxious and dumb, but on the other hand I wouldn't ever ask them to stop, and I think I'd be more bummed out if they left. It just wouldn't be the same.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

and I think I'd be more bummed out

Great choice of wording.

I don't see any point to this thread BTW. Homosexuality is a fact of life for many people. It is not a choice. Who are straight people to declare that they are not normal?

 

[Rico_S]

I'd say it's a sin.

I believe God created everything, and each of the things He made has its own counterpart:

For example:

-Physical and metaphysical objects
-Brightness and darkness
-And in this case, men and women.

And I believe that everything that God made has a good function, either it looks good or bad.

For example:

-Why do the bad guys exist in this world?
So people can make a law enforcements, now developed as we calling it "Police"

-Why there are poor and rich people in this world?
So the rich people can give donation to the poor people, balancing the economics.

If a man wants to be with a man, or a woman who wants to be with another woman, it is considered that he/she (indirectly) stated that he/she doesn't need a counterpart, and this could lead to opposite sex creation is a total waste, since they don't want it.

They do have good effect on society, but they have more bad effects than the good, the same reason why the thieves keep chased by the police.

And I'm believe that GTP users in this topic can easily get a good conclusion from my words here. Don't disappoint me.

End of my words.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

I'd say it's a sin.

I believe God created everything, and each of the things He made has its own counterpart:

For example:

-Physical and metaphysical objects
-Brightness and darkness
-And in this case, men and women.

And I believe that everything that God made has a good function, either it looks good or bad.

For example:

-Why do the bad guys exist in this world?
So people can make a law enforcements, now developed as we calling it "Police"

-Why there are poor and rich people in this world?
So the rich people can give donation to the poor people, balancing the economics.

If a man wants to be with a man, or a woman who wants to be with another girl, it is considered that he/she (indirectly) stated that he/she doesn't need a counterpart, and this could lead to opposite sex creation is a total waste, since they don't want it.

They do have good effect on society, but they have more bad effects than the good, the same reason why the thieves keep chased by the police.

And I'm believe that GTP users in this topic can easily get a good conclusion from my words here. Don't disappoint me.

End of my words.

And presumably for every enlightened fellow there is a bigot. And for every genius, a retard.

 

[Rico_S]

And presumably for every enlightened fellow there is a bigot. And for every genius, a retard.

You can put it that way, mate . There are billions of pair left to be found

 

[Jondot]

I'd say it's a sin.

I believe God created everything, and each of the things He made has its own counterpart:

For example:

-Physical and metaphysical objects
-Brightness and darkness
-And in this case, men and women.

And I believe that everything that God made has a good function, either it looks good or bad.

For example:

-Why do the bad guys exist in this world?
So people can make a law enforcements, now developed as we calling it "Police"

-Why there are poor and rich people in this world?
So the rich people can give donation to the poor people, balancing the economics.

Let's try another one.

-Why does God give couples who don't want children the ability to have them?
So that those unable to conceive (say for example couples equipped without corresponding reproductive bits) may adopt said children and - as the delightful man from the InjuryLawyers4U advert would put it - 'Universal balance is restored'.

Just a thought.

 

[Touring Mars]

I believe God created everything

Then you must believe that God created homosexuals and homosexuality too?

each of the things He made has its own counterpart

I do not believe in creationism or even that God exists, and I don't accept the idea that all 'things' (be it people, animals, cells, objects, parts of the body etc.) merely have just one function or definition, but that they often have a multiplicity of functions. Therefore, the 'every thing has its counterpart' argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny for me.

The penis, for example, has at least two distinct biological functions - urination and ejaculation (there is also puppetry, but that's for another thread). The penis was not designed for one or the other function (of course, it was not 'designed' at all, but that's for another thread too), but it has evolved to fulfill both functions. The fact that the average penis is a good fit for the average vagina is not an accident (nor is it 'design'), but it also happens to be a pretty good fit for the rectum as well. If you wish to go down the 'everything was designed' or 'God created everything for a purpose' route, then one has to ask, if God didn't want men sticking their penises up rectums, why didn't he make the rectum the size of a nostril, or an ear channel, or the urethra?

 

[DK]

I'd say it's a sin.

I believe God created everything, and each of the things He made has its own counterpart:

For example:

-Physical and metaphysical objects
-Brightness and darkness
-And in this case, men and women.

And I believe that everything that God made has a good function, either it looks good or bad.

For example:

-Why do the bad guys exist in this world?
So people can make a law enforcements, now developed as we calling it "Police"

-Why there are poor and rich people in this world?
So the rich people can give donation to the poor people, balancing the economics.

If a man wants to be with a man, or a woman who wants to be with another woman, it is considered that he/she (indirectly) stated that he/she doesn't need a counterpart, and this could lead to opposite sex creation is a total waste, since they don't want it.

They do have good effect on society, but they have more bad effects than the good, the same reason why the thieves keep chased by the police.

And I'm believe that GTP users in this topic can easily get a good conclusion from my words here. Don't disappoint me.

End of my words.

I can't even begin to try to comprehend this.

@ #1 - bad guys don't exist because they have to balance out the good guys. Bad guys could exist for any number of reasons. There could be the "pissed at the world" one, who thinks that committing atrocities against society may balance out any perceived injustices that they dealt with. There could be the "greedy" one, who commits crimes simply to make money, e.g. drug dealing, bank robbing. There's also one that I call the "brainwashed" one, whose mind has been so warped by what they believe (e.g. religion, political beliefs) that they commit crimes. An example could be Nazi soldiers, who were fed propaganda by the Nazi leaders, and you can say the same about the Soviets, the Chinese and racist southerners in the 50s and 60s. The "brainwashed" are controlled by the "brainwasher" group who manipulate their subjects to do their bidding (just think of any dictator to fill this group).

@ #2 - rich people don't exist simply so their wealth can be balanced out by the poor. They exist because they have managed to use whatever existing and available economic factors to make themselves rich (e.g. entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerburg), or because their ancestors have done the same and they're just maintaining their family's economic empire (e.g. heirs and heiresses). The differences between rich and poor exist not because of any grand plan that any god/goddess/spirit may have. The poor exist simply because they haven't been able to use any of these economic factors that the rich have used.

And to the statement that homosexuality is a sin - really? I think that it is bullcrap to think that a supposedly all-merciful deity completely capable of understanding would think that what goes on between consenting adults is sinful. Of all the crimes out there, religion always seems to come down hard on anything sexual, even when it's between consenting adults. I think that abstinence is bullcrap, and that special reservation of marriage between a man and a woman is bullcrap too.

[/rant]

 

[Rico_S]

Then you must believe that God created homosexuals and homosexuality too?


I do not believe in creationism or even that God exists, and I don't accept the idea that all 'things' (be it people, animals, cells, objects, parts of the body etc.) merely have just one function or definition, but that they often have a multiplicity of functions. Therefore, the 'every thing has its counterpart' argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny for me.

The penis, for example, has at least two distinct biological functions - urination and ejaculation (there is also puppetry, but that's for another thread). The penis was not designed for one or the other function (of course, it was not 'designed' at all, but that's for another thread too), but it has evolved to fulfill both functions. The fact that the average penis is a good fit for the average vagina is not an accident (nor is it 'design'), but it also happens to be a pretty good fit for the rectum as well. If you wish to go down the 'everything was designed' or 'God created everything for a purpose' route, then one has to ask, if God didn't want men sticking their penises up rectums, why didn't he make the rectum the size of a nostril, or an ear channel, or the urethra?

Well you've forgotten the main function of the rectum itself...

And one question:
Why would the God created a human that denied His existence?
(Might be you)

 

[Tesla]

...puppetry...

! But yes, I agree with all of your points, TM.

@Rico_S: Why didn't he make a much smaller or larger rectum? It would be much smarter of him to create an...entry/exit point...that was much harder for homosexuals to enter, and therefore that would prevent a sin of some sort?

 

[Rico_S]

I can't even begin to try to comprehend this.

@ #1 - bad guys don't exist because they have to balance out the good guys. Bad guys could exist for any number of reasons. There could be the "pissed at the world" one, who thinks that committing atrocities against society may balance out any perceived injustices that they dealt with. There could be the "greedy" one, who commits crimes simply to make money, e.g. drug dealing, bank robbing. There's also one that I call the "brainwashed" one, whose mind has been so warped by what they believe (e.g. religion, political beliefs) that they commit crimes. An example could be Nazi soldiers, who were fed propaganda by the Nazi leaders, and you can say the same about the Soviets, the Chinese and racist southerners in the 50s and 60s. The "brainwashed" are controlled by the "brainwasher" group who manipulate their subjects to do their bidding (just think of any dictator to fill this group).

@ #2 - rich people don't exist simply so their wealth can be balanced out by the poor. They exist because they have managed to use whatever existing and available economic factors to make themselves rich (e.g. entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerburg), or because their ancestors have done the same and they're just maintaining their family's economic empire (e.g. heirs and heiresses). The differences between rich and poor exist not because of any grand plan that any god/goddess/spirit may have. The poor exist simply because they haven't been able to use any of these economic factors that the rich have used.

And to the statement that homosexuality is a sin - really? I think that it is bullcrap to think that a supposedly all-merciful deity completely capable of understanding would think that what goes on between consenting adults is sinful. Of all the crimes out there, religion always seems to come down hard on anything sexual, even when it's between consenting adults. I think that abstinence is bullcrap, and that special reservation of marriage between a man and a woman is bullcrap too.

[/rant]

Can't think on a larger scale?
You seem to be fixated on the cause more than the outcome.

@Tesla:

Think again; why would God created everything in a perfect condition?
Why did He created Heaven and Hell?
Why did He created Angels?

Think again.
The stuff you're both asking isn't transferred by words.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well you've forgotten the main function of the rectum itself...

Trust me, I haven't. My bowel is dodgy enough to remind me of the 'main function' of the rectum on an all too regular basis. But clearly, the fact that the rectum is also a poop sluice doesn't put millions of homosexual and heterosexual people off using the anus and rectum for sexual purposes. That some people find it icky is their concern. But, by the same token, the fact that the penis is also a pee sluice seemingly doesn't concern anyone at all, nor does the fact that women's bits are essential for both urination and menstruation.

And one question:
Why would the God created a human that denied His existence?
(Might be you)

That is a good question, but surely it is one for a believer in God, and not for someone who doesn't believe in God at all? I don't believe that God exists, let alone presume to know why such a God does what He does.

 

[Rico_S]

Read the previous post.

 

[Touring Mars]

Read the previous post.

I did.

Pardon me, but your reply doesn't seem to explain much or answer any of the questions put to you... perhaps you can explain a bit more clearly what you mean, or address the points put to you in a bit more detail.

For my part, I just answered all of your 'Why would God...?" type questions in my previous post:

I don't believe that God exists, let alone presume to know why such a God does what He does.

Therefore, my answer to your questions is 'He didn't, because He doesn't exist'.

 

[DK]

Can't think on a larger scale?

You seem to be fixated on the cause more than the outcome.

And the outcome is that the rich generally don't share their money with the poor. I know Bill Gates donated about half of his money to charity, but that still leaves him with a crapload of cash and there's still a crapload of poor people.

Also, bad guys didn't suddenly spring up because the police were invented. Crime has been around for millennia, and in ancient Greece publicly-owned slaves were used as a sort of police force, as they were used for crowd control and catching criminals. The task of investigating crimes was left up to the citizens. The modern police force you see today came about at around the early 19th century, although police-like groups did exist in Spain from the 12th to the 19th centuries.

I find it hypocritical for creationists to accuse others of not thinking on a larger scale.

 

[Rico_S]

If God just want to make everything perfect, why doesn't He just put us all into the Heaven?

Why did He let the forbidden fruit exists in Heaven, but not letting Adam and Eve to eat it?

Why didn't He just gave us wings, instead of letting us build airplanes ourselves?

Simple: We're being tested.

And that's why both Heaven and Hell exists.

(Damn, it's 00.31 here, don't expect a quick reply. *going to bed*)

 

[Joel]

If God just want to make everything perfect, why doesn't He just put us all into the Heaven?

Why did He let the forbidden fruit exists in Heaven, but not letting Adam and Eve to eat it?

Why didn't He just gave us wings, instead of letting us build airplanes ourselves?

Simple: We're being tested.

And that's why both Heaven and Hell exists.

(Damn, it's 00.31 here, don't expect a quick reply. *going to bed*)

What does it matter? I don't believe in God, so why are you trying to force other people to conform to your religion? Even if you don't want to count atheism, what about Reform Judaism? There's some Reform Jewish Synagogues that allow homosexual couples, and some that even allow a marriage service to be performed. Who's to say that your interpretation of your holy text is right, and their interpretation is wrong? Who's to say there even is a God?

Trying to use religion to make laws is an absolutely horrible idea.

 

[DK]

^ You put it best, Noob616.

 

[Keef]

Trying to use religion to make laws is an absolutely horrible idea.

As far as I can tell, most religions are simply excuses for people to lead immoral lives.

 

[Villain]

Warning, this response ended up being much longer than expected, kudos if you read it all.

Devils Advocate/Counterpoint:
While heterosexuality may not define you, it certainly seems to define some others. I don't think you can tell me you've never seen someone (who likely goes by "bro") who simply must inform every man, woman, more women, and child that he is the most virile man on the planet. You can decide if your heterosexuality is a "brand" or "accessory" but if I want to wear a shirt that says "I'm super manly" that seems like my business.

"Manliness" is not a matter of being gay or straight. It's not uncommon to find out that some of the "manliest/ulta-macho" type are, in fact, homosexual. The term is "butch." As to the horn dog that hits on every girl, there's that in the gay community as well. Being aggressive or "ultra-manly" is what is defining those individuals, not whom they are being extra horny towards.

There are plenty of heterosexual individuals who are plenty obnoxious either because, or unrelated to them being heterosexual. I struggle to see much of a problem with homosexuals, or anyone else, wanting to dress/act like the person in that photo.

I totally agree. My comment wasn't on the homosexual community as a whole, but rather the cartoon characters like Perez Hilton or a few others like him that I've come across. They are just simply attention seekers and I dislike that this image which they are displaying is the one that gets identified with the homosexual community. For him, homosexuality is a tool and he uses it to be a publicity whore.

Side note:
I just find it somewhat telling.. or interesting(?) when people make claims like you did. Please don't take offense, as I may be wrong, but it often sounds like "Sure they can be gay as long as I don't know about it".

I gotta be honest, but I don't think anyone wants to know how I get down with my girlfriend any more than I want to know what goes on in the bedroom with any given homosexual couple. Personal business is personal business. I'd get equally grossed out thinking about what Elton John does with his husband as when I think about my parents--a happily married heterosexual couple. Just. Don't. Want. To. Think. About. It.

If someone were to ask you, randomly, outside of a discussion on homosexuality, "How do you feel about guys being straight?". Would you answer: a) "No problem, whatever" or b) "No problem, as long as I don't have to see it". Be honest. Insert any minority you want into the question and think about it again.
The common answer during these sorts of discussions is "No, I don't like seeing two straight people make out either", but if unprompted would you really say the same? Would you really say "Yeah sure, but I don't want those guys acting all manly and acting like they love their girlfriends in public".

If you really would answer (b), unprompted, I find that interesting, but also somewhat sad. If everyone acted the same and looked the same, while we may get annoyed less often, I think it'd also be boring. Every friday night in my city large masses of hippies gather in a city park downtown and have a wacko drum circle, dance and hula-hoop, party thing. I find it incredibly obnoxious and dumb, but on the other hand I wouldn't ever ask them to stop, and I think I'd be more bummed out if they left. It just wouldn't be the same.

You are talking about seperate issues here. Asking opinions about how you feel about someones' sexuality is a whole different ballgame from opinions on Public Displays of Affections (PDAs).

There is a spectrum of PDAs and one's opinion can vary wildly. Context is also very important. No one wants to see a teenage couple making out in line at Disneyland, and I'm sure most people would find it endearing to see an elderly couple give each other a sweet kiss while posing in front of Sleeping Beauty's Castle. There are so many contradictions which can be drawn in the heterosexual community alone, so to formulate a fair opinion on what's an acceptable form of PDA and what isn't is just asking for a firestorm.

 

[freedomweasel]

Thanks for the response.

"Manliness" is not a matter of being gay or straight. It's not uncommon to find out that some of the "manliest/ulta-macho" type are, in fact, homosexual. The term is "butch." As to the horn dog that hits on every girl, there's that in the gay community as well. Being aggressive or "ultra-manly" is what is defining those individuals, not whom they are being extra horny towards.

I'm sure if I thought long enough I could come up with a better example. Part of it is that as a heterosexual, I assume I'm the "average" so to speak, while in the eyes of a homosexual I may be a ridiculous cliche stereotype of a straight guy. That would be interesting to know I think. But, to your point, my example probably wasn't the best. 👍


I totally agree. My comment wasn't on the homosexual community as a whole, but rather the cartoon characters like Perez Hilton or a few others like him that I've come across. They are just simply attention seekers and I dislike that this image which they are displaying is the one that gets identified with the homosexual community. For him, homosexuality is a tool and he uses it to be a publicity whore.

No idea who Perez Hilton is so I can't make any guess as to his intentions. I will say that I've met people who act/dress similar (not as extreme) to that picture and they seem to have all manner of reasoning. It ranges from "because I can" to "It's just who I am" (I believe them) to "Yeah, it gets me attention" (I think they're tools).


I gotta be honest, but I don't think anyone wants to know how I get down with my girlfriend any more than I want to know what goes on in the bedroom with any given homosexual couple. Personal business is personal business. I'd get equally grossed out thinking about what Elton John does with his husband as when I think about my parents--a happily married heterosexual couple. Just. Don't. Want. To. Think. About. It.

Parents are gross.

You are talking about seperate issues here. Asking opinions about how you feel about someones' sexuality is a whole different ballgame from opinions on Public Displays of Affections (PDAs).

There is a spectrum of PDAs and one's opinion can vary wildly. Context is also very important. No one wants to see a teenage couple making out in line at Disneyland, and I'm sure most people would find it endearing to see an elderly couple give each other a sweet kiss while posing in front of Sleeping Beauty's Castle. There are so many contradictions which can be drawn in the heterosexual community alone, so to formulate a fair opinion on what's an acceptable form of PDA and what isn't is just asking for a firestorm.

I didn't mean to make it about PDA. My point is that I often hear people say things like "I have no problem with it, as long as I don't know about it". This often strikes me as "I really don't like it, so as long as I can't see it I won't get pissed". Depending on the person "knowing about it" can range from wearing a T-Shirt that has a pride organization's logo on it, to holding hands, to some epic makeout session in a restaurant. I definitely know people who's definition of "I don't want to know about it" includes a simple tshirt, bumper sticker, mentioning their boyfriend/girlfriend in passing conversation, etc. ie Basic things that everyone has the right to say and do in public. Those people really aren't okay with it, and that's what I was trying to get across. Again, not insinuating that this is your position, I just see it a lot.

 

[icelt]

The poll results thus far reminds me of the adage, "it's always the 10% minority that ruin it for the rest of us."

So for homosexuality to be a sin, well anything to be a sin in fact, and make that 10% of ya'll correct, then naturally God must exist. Yes MUST, as no God no sin. Anyway he/she/it must have necessarily decided, for no clear logical reason, to create (eventually after 14 billion years of waiting) a few "self aware" beings localized to 1 single planet in 1 solar system in 1 distant arm of 1 galaxy (aka The Milky Way) and in 1 universe. That's all to suggest it is definitely possible during the course of that same time period, and the spread of the entire known universe, that he/she/it has created more than just this one sentient species. Maybe, maybe not. But at least very possible in theory and likely certain statistically.

Anyway, trying to keep this all focused like, for the sake of argument we have this one God who through all this effort created an impossibly gargantuan singular Universe over the course of 14+ billion years all for the SOLE purpose to eventually create us humans, and only us humans. To suggest this God is one patient individual/entity should go without saying. Now why are we humans so dang important, well naturally so this impossibly patient chap/strumpet/thingy can TEST us with all these impossible temptations (including homosexuality), temptations that it "gave" us should be noted, to simply determine the "true" believers. Once said "true" believers are identified, somehow, then they get into heaven and the rest get plush spiky chairs in hell (or something). Never mind both heaven and hell have been just sitting around unused, and presumably infinitely dusty as a result, for some 14 billion years.

Now to top it all off, as we humans are the peak achievement in the Universe for God, that also means all the rest of the stuff he created is what? Superfluous? I mean I dunno. The known "observable" universe is comprised of about 4% normal matter. So yes, that means all the stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae, asteroids, comets, animals, plants, troll dolls, humans etc all added together ONLY make up 4% of the "known" universe. The remaining 96% is all dark matter and dark energy. Now that is only this 1 universe, there is every possibility that more than 1 universe exits.

So the final conclusion (some would have you believe) is that God created us to "test" us, waited 14+ billion years for us to get here, yet we humans only make up some 0.00000000000000000000000 (insert the applicable ridiculous number of "zeros") 0001% of the 4% of normal matter in the known universe. So either we are stupidly special, literally, as what purpose does the remaining 95.99999999999 (however many again) 9999% serve? Or there is alot more to this existence than the "sin testers" would have us believe for if there is indeed "intelligent purpose" than surely the stuff that comprises 99.9999...%+ of the observable universe is somehow quite important as well.

Now regardless of the math, I'm not gonna state that God (or similar entity) does or does not exist. I will say, I feel very very very very comfortable in concluding that this judging, sin testing God (personally I'd use the term myopic) is not a very accurate, and insufficiently dynamic, description if he/she/it does exist.

In conclusion, I'd state that all you homo's, just like us hetero's and all those inbetween, have got nothing to worry about in the "sin" department. Just continue to go about your business/pleasures as best you see fit. Being human is hard enough most times without having to concern oneself with whether or not they are the "acceptable" kind of human to some blindly dogmatic subset of humanity.

 

[Villain]

I didn't mean to make it about PDA. My point is that I often hear people say things like "I have no problem with it, as long as I don't know about it". This often strikes me as "I really don't like it, so as long as I can't see it I won't get pissed". Depending on the person "knowing about it" can range from wearing a T-Shirt that has a pride organization's logo on it, to holding hands, to some epic makeout session in a restaurant. I definitely know people who's definition of "I don't want to know about it" includes a simple tshirt, bumper sticker, mentioning their boyfriend/girlfriend in passing conversation, etc. ie Basic things that everyone has the right to say and do in public. Those people really aren't okay with it, and that's what I was trying to get across. Again, not insinuating that this is your position, I just see it a lot.

I don't think it's fair for me to comment on other peoples' point of view. If someone wants to have a problem with homosexuality, they can. That is their right. As long as they aren't breaking any laws or causing harm to anyone, who's to say "You must accept this lifestyle! You must be happy for this couple!" I'm not saying that it's okay to hate, I'm just saying that no one deserves to have anothers' lifestyle shoved in their face.

One could make an argument that a persons sexuality doesn't need to be put on display. Case in point - the rainbow bumper sticker. What's the goal of that sticker? To tell people that you're gay? Why?

To the person that gets offended about the mere mentioning of homosexuality - I pity them. Why must it bother that person to find out if someone is gay? That's ridiculous if you ask me. You can be surprised - that's perfectly fine. But to be offended is just sad.

 

[drivehard]

@Rico_S: Why didn't he make a much smaller or larger rectum? It would be much smarter of him to create an...entry/exit point...that was much harder for homosexuals to enter, and therefore that would prevent a sin of some sort?

One of the better inquiries into homosexualality!

 

[freedomweasel]

I don't think it's fair for me to comment on other peoples' point of view. If someone wants to have a problem with homosexuality, they can. That is their right. As long as they aren't breaking any laws or causing harm to anyone, who's to say "You must accept this lifestyle! You must be happy for this couple!" I'm not saying that it's okay to hate, I'm just saying that no one deserves to have anothers' lifestyle shoved in their face.

One could make an argument that a persons sexuality doesn't need to be put on display. Case in point - the rainbow bumper sticker. What's the goal of that sticker? To tell people that you're gay? Why?

To the person that gets offended about the mere mentioning of homosexuality - I pity them. Why must it bother that person to find out if someone is gay? That's ridiculous if you ask me. You can be surprised - that's perfectly fine. But to be offended is just sad.

All very true. On the other hand, as heterosexuals we often don't think about how we put our sexuality on display as second nature. Ever tell a coworker or friend you went out to dinner with your girlfriend? Wear a wedding band? Tell someone your wife just gave birth? Those are all obvious displays of heterosexuality that we take for granted.

I don't think that people should shove themselves at others, or that others should put up with it. On the other hand, I do think peoples defintions of "shove" should be equal for everyone else. ie If you ever make a mention of your opposite sex partner, you've got zero right to complain about someone "shoving" his boyfriend into a conversation.

I don't care at all if some approves, or is happy, or whatever for a gay couple, but they should give them the same respect that they want for themselves. 👍 That's pretty much the solution to 90% of social problems. 💡

tldr: I'd respect someone more for saying "I have a problem with it because [nearly any reason]" instead of "I don't care, as long as....[long list of unrealistic exceptions]".

 

[Danny]

Pardon me, but your reply doesn't seem to explain much or answer any of the questions put to you... perhaps you can explain a bit more clearly what you mean, or address the points put to you in a bit more detail.

Mars, religion. Religion, Mars.

 

[TT3AZ]

If i should be honest, i dont mind homosexuals. I mean, what they do is their business. And historicly "europeans" was very fond of "fagging", the ancient greeks and romans use to have intercourse with young men for some strange reason. Even Akilles in "Troy" had a male lover. Who else, well Alexander the great according to rumours was also homosexual.

Even in america homosexuality is very popular, specially in the prison system and with the "guidos", just look at jersey shore if you want some "fruitcake" haha

 

[Rich S]

I dont know why "sodomy" is so highly used when arguing about homosexuality and morality. I'm bisexual and I have no desire for sodomy. The only answer I can think of is that its easy for religious folks to argue against something thats viewed as gross and "down low."

As for it being a choice, well its NOT! LOL

Your sex orientation as defined is not a choice once its developed. The causes will be argued over for years and I'll leave that be.

I know somebody who's totally gay and a fundamentalist christian. This individual is very mentally ill and sick, imo. This person's fellow baptists/Lutheran worshipers cant stand him, hate his guts. What they hate isnt the gay aspect, they dont even know he's gay. They hate the person because he's a hypocrite & an pompous DICK! Quite frankly You have to be a COMPLETE ASS in order to condemn something and do it at the same time.

.....its hard to view an issue differently unless you can step into somebody else's shoes. If you have trouble with doing that, changing your opinion is impossible...

It certainly was impossible for the Gestapo to have sympathy for the degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane and the weak, all of whom in Nazi Germany were brutally killed slowly and painfully....

Beliefs & Values are powerful motivators. Monks live a very restricted lifestyle, and its very unique to humans. Some humans kill themselves! Some are anorexics. Thats never been seen before in other species. Its all very odd but if goes to show that beliefs & thinking errors can go a long way to altering one's behavior to the point of death.

I guess the only example in nature I can think of besides humans is when a herd of cattle follows eachother off a cliff (Native americans used to do that as an easy way to slaughter them.) And thats instinct, they arent smart enough to believe they'll be OK.

 

[Jondot]

I dont know why "sodomy" is so highly used when arguing about homosexuality and morality. I'm bisexual and I have no desire for sodomy. The only answer I can think of is that its easy for religious folks to argue against something thats viewed as gross and "down low."

I think it's just an easy picking point because it's actually labeled by name in the Bible somewhere or other, so regardless of whether anyone's actually doing it or not it's still going to be brought up as one of the main 'sin' points. In addition to that, I think it's just a widely accepted point that it's the main sexual activity - regardless of whether you're from a religious background or not. Personally I'm the same as you - my desire for ...that... is no higher than my desire to stick it in any other ill-fitting socket, but when I've discussed it with a number of my (straight) friends they've tended to be surprised that I have no interest in it. Surprised to the point that I'm relatively certain they think I'm nearly asexual...