The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Daniel]

He gets my vote 👍

 

[Encyclopedia]

I'd vote for him just because of the poster (if it's real.)

 

[Carbonox]

Awesome discussion going on.

 

[daan]

Are those My Little Unicorns?

 

[Zenith]

Actually, I've only once ever had a gay man hit on me seriously. Not comfortable.

But it's a lot rarer than having loud, obnoxious heterosexual men hitting on women. Kind of an eye-opener on how they feel when they're around us..

I've had this happen to me once. Unfortunately my gaydar is unreliable and I had had a few drinks. It was only about 5 minutes into the conversation that I realized that he thought I was flirting with him. I just said that I had a lady and thanked him for the complement. Both of us went on our merry ways. Wouldn't say it was a comfortable experience, but I wasn't fearing for my sphincter or anything silly.

 

[arora]

Saying no to a man is no different then saying no to a lady. Although I suppose you could throw prison rape into the equation lol.

 

[Hasis]

Actually it was in the end Sauli Niinistö vs Pekka Haavisto. Sauli got 60 procents of the votes. And yes our sisu is big. Here is a little video from top gear with mika häkkinen:



EDIT: Removed part of my comment because people taught it was disrespectful

 

[hogger129]

Why is it such a big deal what other people do in their private lives? Especially when it has no effect on me?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

...that homo Pekka Haavisto...

I can't be the only one that thinks that sounds just a tad disrespectful..

 

[Danny]

Most certainly not.

I'm chalking this one up to language barrier.

 

[Hasis]

Sorry i didnt want to sound like a disrespective ****. Actually i wouldnt mind if he would be our president.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Actually, I've only once ever had a gay man hit on me seriously. Not comfortable.

Same, and it was quite possibly one of the most uncomfortable nights of my life; insisting on topping up my drinks (but never with the mix, just the alcohol), taking my phone out of my hands to add his number (and then proceeding to send lewd jokes throughout the night), and repeatedly asking me to take off my sweater and "get comfortable". It was at a mutual friend's house, and she had went to sleep, but not before telling me I could crash there for the night. Despite living "a few minutes" away, he decided he'd do the same. The kicker? When he inevitably asked if I was in a relationship, I made sure to say "nope, no girlfriend", and he corrected with "boyfriend". When I said I was right the first time, he told me I didn't have to lie, he knew.

I ended up leaving the house well after 2am that night because of how uncomfortable he made me. He left and followed me for the 30min walk to within a block of my nearest friend's house, constantly hounding me to come back with him. When I finally flipped out and told him to beat it in much less kind words, he did. And yet...

But it's a lot rarer than having loud, obnoxious heterosexual men hitting on women. Kind of an eye-opener on how they feel when they're around us.

My thoughts were, and still are, similar to these. I don't chalk him up as an example of gay guys who can't take no for an answer; I chalk him up as a person who can't. It happens on both sides of the sexual divide, as well as the sexual preference one. It made for one very interesting story at brunch the next day with my other friends, but if anything, it made me think about what girls have to deal with with aggressive guys at bars each week. It's really unnerving.

Most of my gay friends are really chill. No different, really, than most straight people.

Same situation over here 👍

 

[Antmeg26]

A person's partner is none of my business

 

[niky]

It made for one very interesting story at brunch the next day with my other friends, but if anything, it made me think about what girls have to deal with with aggressive guys at bars each week. It's really unnerving.

I left my stalker on a bus. Mine wasn't quite as involved as yours.

-

It's thoughts like that that keep me from going to nightclubs with my friends. Probably comes from being a perpetual resident of the "friend zone" and hanging around with too many girls, but I get awfully uncomfortable with how objectified girls become in that sort of environment.

Men aren't used to being the "prey". Though I've been that to some girls, too. At least most girls can't manhandle us if we refuse. Being in the physically weaker position really puts us off.

 

[Dennisch]

I have had quite a few free drinks thanks to my I don't care you're gay attitude. Gimme vodka and dance for me!

 

[Villain]

Are those My Little Unicorns?

No. Are you blind? They're pegacorns...

 

[Joel]

If it counts I tried on a pea coat from a vintage/hipster clothing store yesterday, I was trying on the coat outside, and when I walked in to check the price the (male, gay) store owner said it looked fabulous on me, went really nicely with my shirt, and that they're super warm.

You bet your ass I bought that coat

 

[Azuremen]

I have had quite a few free drinks thanks to my I don't care you're gay attitude. Gimme vodka and dance for me!

There is something nice about getting free drinks for being attractive

 

[fitftw]

If acting on homosexual desires is a sin, then acting on heterosexual desires would have to be an equal sin. Would someone like to oppose that statement with logic and reason?

 

[Danny]

If acting on homosexual desires is a sin, then acting on heterosexual desires would have to be an equal sin. Would someone like to oppose that statement with logic and reason?

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

There it is, in black and white.

 

[Joel]

If acting on homosexual desires is a sin, then acting on heterosexual desires would have to be an equal sin. Would someone like to oppose that statement with logic and reason?

The whole point of sexuality from most major religion's standpoint is to make a connection in a marriage and to have children. The idea is openness to procreation (meaning no contraceptives), and having sex within a monogamous marriage. A married couple having sex without contraceptives is fine in the eyes of most religions. A gay couple having sex is sinful because there's no "openness to procreation".

EDIT: Tree'd by Danny.

 

[fitftw]

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

There it is, in black and white.

I said using logic and reason.

Procreation is not a good enough reason to say hetero sex is ok while homo sex is not. Procreation is unnecessary to the planet. Why is the survival of humanity a necessity? If we all stopped procreating, humanity would die out. Why is that such a problem? For who and/or what is it a problem? Why do we need to bear children? Is there a goal, a purpose?

 

[Scaff]

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

There it is, in black and white.

That's a bible quote, its doesn't cover any logic or reason behind it.

The why we should kill gay people for being practicing homosexuals, which is a little further along:

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Because if we are going to accept Levidicus in its entire form, I can pretty much promise that every member of GT Planet has broken at least one of the laws it contains, and a large number to the degree that the penalty would be death.

Ever cursed your parents?

Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

The whole point of sexuality from most major religion's standpoint is to make a connection in a marriage and to have children. The idea is openness to procreation (meaning no contraceptives), and having sex within a monogamous marriage. A married couple having sex without contraceptives is fine in the eyes of most religions. A gay couple having sex is sinful because there's no "openness to procreation".

EDIT: Tree'd by Danny.

Which would make sense if the same section of the bible (and other parts of the OT) don't cover all the petty reasons to execute someone. Which includes children who are rude to parents. Logic that would seem to force pro-creation, yet advocate the harshest of penalties should the fruits of that procreation step out of line.

 

[Müle]

Because if we are going to accept Levidicus in its entire form, I can pretty much promise that every member of GT Planet has broken at least one of the laws it contains, and a large number to the degree that the penalty would be death.

Also, this:

 

[Scaff]

Also, this:

At least that one doesn't get you the death penalty (unless you say something rude about your mum).

 

[Joel]

I said using logic and reason.

Procreation is not a good enough reason to say hetero sex is ok while homo sex is not. Procreation is unnecessary to the planet. Why is the survival of humanity a necessity? If we all stopped procreating, humanity would die out. Why is that such a problem? For who and/or what is it a problem? Why do we need to bear children? Is there a goal, a purpose?

That's a bible quote, its doesn't cover any logic or reason behind it.

I'm not religious and I think my posting history in this thread should show I don't actually believe there's anything wrong with homosexuality. He asked why it was sinful, and Danny and I put up the religious backing for it. Sin is a distinctly religious word. Do I think homosexuality is sinful? Yes. Do I think it's morally wrong or in any way a bad thing? Of course not.

That being said, I agree with Scaff on how absurd and inconsistent the "laws" in the Bible are. There's no WBC holding signs saying "God hates kids who talk back to their parents", or "God hates people who eat shellfish". Despite that though, the act of homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in the bible, although a lot of other things are just as explicitly forbidden (like the whole tattoos and shellfish bit), but people argue them away as being "interpretation".

 

[fitftw]

Merriam-Webster says:

Definition of SIN. 1. a: an offense against religious or moral law . b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

So it's not a distinctly religious word.

 

[Joel]

Merriam-Webster says:

Definition of SIN. 1. a: an offense against religious or moral law . b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

So it's not a distinctly religious word.

Well okay then. Homosexuality is an offense against most religious law. It is not an action I consider (or anyone should consider) highly reprehensible. We're arguing about semantics here.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not religious and I think my posting history in this thread should show I don't actually believe there's anything wrong with homosexuality. He asked why it was sinful, and Danny and I put up the religious backing for it. Sin is a distinctly religious word. Do I think homosexuality is sinful? Yes. Do I think it's morally wrong or in any way a bad thing? Of course not.

That being said, I agree with Scaff on how absurd and inconsistent the "laws" in the Bible are. There's no WBC holding signs saying "God hates kids who talk back to their parents", or "God hates people who eat shellfish". Despite that though, the act of homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in the bible, although a lot of other things are just as explicitly forbidden (like the whole tattoos and shellfish bit), but people argue them away as being "interpretation".

Oh I agree with all you say here, however the point raised by fitftw is a very valid ones and certainly one that I would appreciate the input of those who believe its a sin.

We know that many religions consider it a sin, the question is why? Particularly given that aside for the 10 commandments (which don't mention it at all) most of the rest of the laws have been dismissed as out of date and many are just considered 'odd', particularly for Christians.

 

[fitftw]

If tattoos are up for interpretation, then why not homosexuality? Why is one okay and not the other? They are both forbidden in the bible but I don't see any hatred against tattoos like I do against homosexuality.