The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[TJC_69]

I think I read somewhere that sexuality is predisposed genetically , so if that information was correct , ( haven't looked at all of the pages in this thread sorry ) , then all sexualitys are equally as awesome 👍

Personally , I knew I was hetero at around maybe 6 years old or younger . I liked girls and found them mysterious creatures . Now , they are women and we still have to learn about their mysterious quirks as we age My girlfriend being the case in point

In the poll , I voted '' OK for anybody '' as that's my view . It doesn't matter what sexuality you are , we are all the same underneath these '' labels '' we chose to give people 👍

 

[Quackjack]

Some dudes like penor. Big whoop.

 

[Schwartz]

Nothing importent, really. Some dudes like dudes, who cares?

Some dudes like penor. Big whoop.

Not quite sure what point you're trying to make with posts like this, but whatever.

I honestly believe homosexuality is- Err... Should be a non issue. I mean, whose rights does gay marriage violate? It's s "victimless crime," if you will.

 

[Joel]

Not quite sure what point you're trying to make with posts like this, but whatever.

I honestly believe homosexuality is- Err... Should be a non issue. I mean, whose rights does gay marriage violate? It's s "victimless crime," if you will.

He's making literally the same point as you.

 

[Daniel]

I've asked a few people in my class how it would directly affect them if same-sex marriage were to become legalised. They reply with "Well, it'll affect the priest at my church because he might get a lot of backlash for refusing to marry a gay couple."

What he didn't know was that the upcoming bill in New Zealand says that any church can refuse to marry a couple if it doesn't want to and there will be no backlash. So he's wrong in that regard...

 

[dylansan]

Another way to avoid backlash is to... not refuse to marry a gay couple? 💡

If you're opposing gay marriage because it would cause you backlash for opposing gay marriage because it would cause you backlash for opposing gay marriage... wouldn't it be pretty easy to solve that problem?

Unless the priest is against it for a different reason and the students don't actually agree with him.

 

[dylansan]

Edit: Blast this internet connection...

 

[Daniel]

Unless the priest is against it for a different reason and the students don't actually agree with him.

Obviously they're against it for other reasons. But when asked how it'll affect him personally, he said his church would get backlash (even though it wont due to what the Bill says).

 

[suzq044]

Raised Roman Catholic, and I do not care one way or another about gay people. They can do wtf they feel like, and honestly, who are you (general public, not directed to anyone in this convo) to tell other people how they should live?

I'm cool with it as long as they aren't .. overly public about it. I'm the same way about straight couples. I don't want to see you making out in public. Take it to a room.

I think people need to get over themselves and their judgementality towards other people in general.. ya know? Pay attention to what MATTERS. Like, idk - the next idiot that's going to run this country, or .. your own damned life? If it's not affecting you on/in a profoundly personal manner, then stop worrying so much about it. So much un-necessary stress these days, because OMG THEY DID WHAT?! .. lame <_<

 

[PeterJB]

I think that because we live in a society of both religious and non-religious people, the government should provide for the needs and desires of both. So I wouldn't really be that bothered if same-sex marriage was legalized, as long as churches are still allowed to choose whether they would conduct them or not.

 

[Quackjack]

He's making literally the same point as you.

I laughed when I saw this. Very true.

 

[Daniel]

Better spelling skills, pl0x:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10843389

 

[Crash]

Looks like gay marriage is approved in Maine and Maryland, and looks to be headed towards approval in Washington. Meanwhile, Minnesota looks to have rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

This will be the first election that voters have approved of gay marriage at the ballot box.

 

[counter345]

I had a sexually confused friend just a year ago. He asked me to be his boyfriend. (To be honest, I found it more of a compliment!) I, at the time, was:
1. Not interested in any kind of relationships going further than friendship
2. Had dealt with this situation before
3. Was very open minded
I kindly declined, but I felt quite sorry for him. He often flip-flopped in his girlfriends and boyfriends. Each time, it was a different gender. I think he was confused about what gender he preferred, and his homophobic mother, who threatened to throw him out if he said a word about him being gay, honestly didn't help. I remember him crying over the threats that his mother had laid down. It was clear; the damage that had been done to his mind had lead him to deep confusion not only about what gender he preferred, but also about what gender he "should" have preferred.

This is why I don't think it's a choice. People who are gay are being oppressed today; do you really think they would stay gay under this kind of pressure? I know if I were gay, I would choose to be heterosexual, because there's so much debate around the subject as well as the homophobia, etc.

 

[Callum B]

What irks me the most is when people say it's unnatural, yer, and so is flying! But you don't see people doing anti-plane political campaigns!
I see no problem with what way people swing so long as they don't jump on my groin'll area unexpectedly.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I had a sexually confused friend just a year ago. He asked me to be his boyfriend. (To be honest, I found it more of a compliment!) I, at the time, was:
1. Not interested in any kind of relationships going further than friendship
2. Had dealt with this situation before
3. Was very open minded
I kindly declined, but I felt quite sorry for him. He often flip-flopped in his girlfriends and boyfriends. Each time, it was a different gender. I think he was confused about what gender he preferred, and his homophobic mother, who threatened to throw him out if he said a word about him being gay, honestly didn't help. I remember him crying over the threats that his mother had laid down. It was clear; the damage that had been done to his mind had lead him to deep confusion not only about what gender he preferred, but also about what gender he "should" have preferred.

This is why I don't think it's a choice. People who are gay are being oppressed today; do you really think they would stay gay under this kind of pressure? I know if I were gay, I would choose to be heterosexual, because there's so much debate around the subject as well as the homophobia, etc.

Is he really confused, or is he Bisexual and doesn't know something like that exists?

 

[ScouserInExile]

What irks me the most is when people say it's unnatural, yer, and so is flying! But you don't see people doing anti-plane political campaigns!

To paraphrase Stephen Fry:
642 species are known to display homosexual tendencies. Only one displays homophobic tendencies. Which is the unnatural act here?

 

[Dennisch]

Even seals see it.

 

[Gonales]

I'm amazed i haven't seen this thread earlier. I'm female and homosexual, and quite comfortable with it.

Nobody should just judge homosexuals because of what they are. Some of us have had a lot of trouble because of it, and a lot still do. Even daily.
(for example) : http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=570344549658273&set=a.560048277354567.143546.122256581133741&type=1&theater

What I would like to state and ask, is simple. Let us be who we are, with the same pride and dignity everyone else has.
This, not specifically, but partially means not using the sentences: 'You're gay', or: 'That's so gay!', 'No homo', 'Fag' etc etc.

Just hoping someone actually notices this post.
Thanks,

Dominique.

 

[sumbrownkid]

The people who do say "that's gay" or "you're gay" to mundane things seldom have anything worth listening to to begin with.

My stance on haters to my creed and ethnicity is simple, and that's just ignoring them. Deprive them of the power of belittling.

 

[BobK]

Sign a petition to bring whoever did that to justice? Huh? Don't we have laws for that kind of thing?

 

[mazdaman]

I'm amazed i haven't seen this thread earlier. I'm female and homosexual, and quite comfortable with it.

Nobody should just judge homosexuals because of what they are. Some of us have had a lot of trouble because of it, and a lot still do. Even daily.
(for example) : http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=570344549658273&set=a.560048277354567.143546.122256581133741&type=1&theater

What I would like to state and ask, is simple. Let us be who we are, with the same pride and dignity everyone else has.
This, not specifically, but partially means not using the sentences: 'You're gay', or: 'That's so gay!', 'No homo', 'Fag' etc etc.

Just hoping someone actually notices this post.
Thanks,

Dominique.

And that's where freedom of speech plays a role in there.

 

[Gonales]

And that's where freedom of speech plays a role in there.

Freedom of speech is the trump card of the averagely intelligent. You do realise that FoS is not allowing people to be discriminating or offensive in any way?

 

[Famine]

Freedom of speech is the trump card of the averagely intelligent. You do realise that FoS is not allowing people to be discriminating or offensive in any way?

It's impossible to have freedom of speech while not allowing anyone to be offensive in any way - though it's certainly what we try to do in Europe, where we lock people up for questioning history or telling jokes.

Offence is taken, not given. Offence is entirely in the head of the listener and, though there are times people set out to cause it, it's impossible to predict who will take offence at what. Everyone has their own limits and the only way to avoid causing offence at all is to prevent all communication. Anything else fails at preventing people from causing offence - because anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time - which is why it should never even be a consideration.

 

[mazdaman]

It's impossible to have freedom of speech whil+e not allowing anyone to be offensive in any way - though it's certainly what we try to do in Europe, where we lock people up for questioning history or telling jokes.

Offence is taken, not given. Offence is entirely in the head of the listener and, though there are times people set out to cause it, it's impossible to predict who will take offence at what. Everyone has their own limits and the only way to avoid causing offence at all is to prevent all communication. Anything else fails at preventing people from causing offence - because anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time - which is why it should never even be a consideration.

+100 I speak the way I want or however i like. It is your option to take any offence to it.

If I say (no homo or that's gay) to a friend you they know I'm joking around not trying to offend any one from my face expression.

You should be able to tell weather someone is serious or not sometimes.

There is those other times where I can't tell but I do simply ask if there serious or not.

 

[Scaff]

+100 I speak the way I want or however i like. It is your option to take any offence to it.

If I say (no homo or that's gay) to a friend you they know I'm joking around not trying to offend any one from my face expression.

You should be able to tell weather someone is serious or not sometimes.

There is those other times where I can't tell but I do simply ask if there serious or not.

While that is entirely true what you also then have to accept is the consequences of what you are free to say.

I'm a firm believer it freedom of speech, but equally I'm a firm believer in holding people accountable for what they have said.

 

[FoolKiller]

Freedom of speech is the trump card of the averagely intelligent. You do realise that FoS is not allowing people to be discriminating or offensive in any way?

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free and progressive society. Without freedom of speech you could not discuss your homosexuality publicly because no one would have been allowed to question the religious-centric laws that made homosexuality illegal. But at the same time freedom of speech cannot be prevented from creating offense. If that were the case then discussing homosexuality would be illegal as some (albeit ignorant) individuals find it to be an offensive topic.

You cannot have freedom of speech only one way. All speech is allowed, by law, or it is not freedom of speech.

While that is entirely true what you also then have to accept is the consequences of what you are free to say.

I'm a firm believer it freedom of speech, but equally I'm a firm believer in holding people accountable for what they have said.

I agree with this, as it is the rules of property owners, such as Jordan and this site, that apply when on private property.

That said, I also believe there is a degree of overreaction in our society. A comedian on stage is a comedian on stage. They use offensive stereotypes in their jokes often for a laugh, but then while people (often not of the group they made fun of) are up in arms the comedian will be going home to their multiracial family or same sex partner.

 

[Gonales]

It's impossible to have freedom of speech while not allowing anyone to be offensive in any way - though it's certainly what we try to do in Europe, where we lock people up for questioning history or telling jokes.

Offence is taken, not given. Offence is entirely in the head of the listener and, though there are times people set out to cause it, it's impossible to predict who will take offence at what. Everyone has their own limits and the only way to avoid causing offence at all is to prevent all communication. Anything else fails at preventing people from causing offence - because anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time - which is why it should never even be a consideration.

That is not really true. People should realise that when they speak the meaning needs to be 100% clear, in my opinion. (Except for when people are joking, which is not the case here.)

While that is entirely true what you also then have to accept is the consequences of what you are free to say.

I'm a firm believer it freedom of speech, but equally I'm a firm believer in holding people accountable for what they have said.

100% agreed

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free and progressive society. Without freedom of speech you could not discuss your homosexuality publicly because no one would have been allowed to question the religious-centric laws that made homosexuality illegal. But at the same time freedom of speech cannot be prevented from creating offense. If that were the case then discussing homosexuality would be illegal as some (albeit ignorant) individuals find it to be an offensive topic.

You cannot have freedom of speech only one way. All speech is allowed, by law, or it is not freedom of speech.

I agree with this, as it is the rules of property owners, such as Jordan and this site, that apply when on private property.

That said, I also believe there is a degree of overreaction in our society. A comedian on stage is a comedian on stage. They use offensive stereotypes in their jokes often for a laugh, but then while people (often not of the group they made fun of) are up in arms the comedian will be going home to their multiracial family or same sex partner.

Reply to first bold text:
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order , or of public health or morals".

- Quoting wikipedia.

Reply to second bold text:
I agree that sometimes people overreact to things. But look at it the other way. Why use vocabulary that might be offensive so casually?

I mean, it's not hard to use a different saying and all would be well. Why use sayings that could possibly be offensive/hurtful if there is no need at all for them?

Hopefully this is maybe an eyeopener:
http://www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

 

[G.T.Ace]

I agree with you Gonales. I also think that certain stuff shouldn't be allowed to say. Hate speech comes to my mind.

 

[DK]

I'd think libel would be more worthy of punishment than hate speech.

One example stands out to me when dealing with hate speech. I'm sure some of us on this forum are aware of when a woman called Obama the N-word and hoped that he would get assassinated. Within days, her employers fired her. I think that might do more to combat bigotry than legislation - besides, anyone arrested for hate speech may end up being used as a martyr by the far-right.