The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Denur]

I think that depends on your own personal definitions of sexuality. I spent some time reading the book Nobody Passes by Matt Sycamore earlier this year which addresses the very nature of that statement. Placing someone into a "category" more often than not does a disservice to themselves, and their way of life. Granted, we as human beings prefer to categorize things in order to make our lives easier, but I'm of the mindset that sexuality is something that cannot be easily placed into anything. You like what you like, and that may include some things in regards to your own sex, or some other "deviance" that others may find strange, or downright horrifying. Trying to conform to a single definition for some of these people who may identify as LGBT may be extremely difficult, and in some cases, may be downright impossible. Which of course limits their own acceptance not only with heterosexuals, but with the gay communities as well.

My point is that one is born gay, bi, or hetero. That could be because of genetics or because of some event during pregnancy or a combination of both. This is still not clear. The only thing that is clear though, is that a person does not choose to be gay, merely to live according his/her feelings (or not).

 

[Omnis]

I think this sentence reveals a depth of misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality that is probably quite common but is still quite staggering, not to mention patronising. Good institutions should not encourage homosexual people to question their sexuality, but accept it. The very idea that one's sexual preference can be changed at all is highly debatable, nevermind the morality of actually trying to persuade someone that their sexual preference is wrong and in need of change.

I was talking about christian institutions. And my point was that good ones encourage doing something seen as good through christian eyes as opposed to just hating gays.

I'd like to encourage you to only consider women who share your specific racial/ethnic background.

After all, if God didn't intend white people to marry only white people and black people to marry only black people, why are there distinct races?

Which is a bit like saying 'Good institutions encourage everyone that's not caucasian to consider changing their skin colour'.

These are logically irrelevant.

 

[Duke]

These are logically irrelevant.

Umm, not really.

 

[Joey D]

I was talking about christian institutions. And my point was that good ones encourage doing something seen as good through christian eyes as opposed to just hating gays.

The KKK encourages its members to lynch black people, this is seen as doing something good through the eyes of the KKK. That doesn't make it right though, does it?

What one considers doing good is not always good for everyone.

 

[Famine]

If we just step back for a second...

Omnis said Christian institutions that are considered "good" ones tend to dislike the sin rather than the sinner, as opposed to disliking the sinner as well as the sin.

Omnis didn't say that he thinks good Christian institutions are ones which dislike the sin rather than the sinner.

 

[Jondot]

I was talking about christian institutions. And my point was that good ones encourage doing something seen as good through christian eyes as opposed to just hating gays.

Which is commendable, but it's still a fairly ridiculous thing for an organisation to advise as a way of moving forward.

These are logically irrelevant.

Are they? I was making a comparison between homosexuality and another fundamentally unalterable factor in order to highlight just how absurd such an 'encouragement' is. What's logically irrelevant about that?

 

[Keef]

Which is commendable, but it's still a fairly ridiculous thing for an organisation to advise as a way of moving forward.




Are they? I was making a comparison between homosexuality and another fundamentally unalterable factor in order to highlight just how absurd such an 'encouragement' is. What's logically irrelevant about that?

You've been tree'd:

If we just step back for a second...

Omnis said Christian institutions that are considered "good" ones tend to dislike the sin rather than the sinner, as opposed to disliking the sinner as well as the sin.

Omnis didn't say that he thinks good Christian institutions are ones which dislike the sin rather than the sinner.

 

[Jondot]

Yeah, I read it And I didn't think it bore any relevance to the argument I was making.

His point was that said institutions don't hate gays but instead encourage them to change. My point was that it's commendable, but still grossly misinformed.

I wasn't having a go at Omnis over the 'good' institutions issue (which is what Famine is trying to clear up), but was tackling the advice of said institutions. The question of who believes them to be 'good' never arose

 

[Touring Mars]

My point was that it's commendable, but still grossly misinformed.

I wouldn't even say it was commendable - sure, it is preferable to simply demonising homosexuality, but it is still far from commendable in my book... aside from the massive assumption that one's (homo)sexuality can be consciously chosen or even 'reversed' (which I don't accept at all, but nevermind), it merely encourages people to think that it is acceptable to challenge others over their sexuality, or that it is acceptable to think that one's religious beliefs are more 'right' that someone else's sexual orientation.

 

[Omnis]

Umm, not really.

Homosexuality is a behavior. Skin color is not a behavior.

The KKK encourages its members to lynch black people, this is seen as doing something good through the eyes of the KKK. That doesn't make it right though, does it?

What one considers doing good is not always good for everyone.

That's quite a stretch, Joey. There's a big difference between murdering someone for being gay and asking them to reconsider.

Which is commendable, but it's still a fairly ridiculous thing for an organisation to advise as a way of moving forward.

Are they? I was making a comparison between homosexuality and another fundamentally unalterable factor in order to highlight just how absurd such an 'encouragement' is. What's logically irrelevant about that?

Well as long as they're not doing any harm then I don't see what the problem is. And I don't buy the "but questioning their ways all the time isn't right" line. Gay people get less grief from Christians than I do from women. Just because someone's gay doesn't mean they're fragile or immature. And besides, you guys are looking at the christian motive backwards. They're not challenging other people's sexuality just because they're different or whatever. That's pretty arrogant. The motive is to save them from what they believe to be sinning. And, if I were gay, I would see that as an incredibly thoughtful and compassionate gesture, even if I still would keep my predilection for the same sex. Same thing like dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses.

I already answered your second paragraph by saying that homosexuality (emphasis on -sexuality) is a behavior as opposed to something like skin color. That fact has nothing to do with the nature/nurture argument, though I personally believe that homosexuality-- "gayness" would probably be a better word-- is at least largely brought about by experiences instead of genetics or heredity. I live in Fort Lauderdale and know a lot of gays (two in my family), gays married (to women of course) with children, and a male-to-lesbian transsexual with 4 kids from his pre-op marriage. Most of them are not really homosexual at all, but are just gay in companionship.

 

[Joey D]

That's quite a stretch, Joey. There's a big difference between murdering someone for being gay and asking them to reconsider.

My point wasn't a stretch though. Basically it boils down to that just because the organisation thinks it's good or right, doesn't actually make it good or right.

 

[Sureboss]

Homosexuality is a behavior. Skin color is not a behavior.

Now, you don't mean that being homosexual in itself, is a behaviour, do you? Otherwise you are digging yourself in to some deep doo-doo.

Actually, I can't see were you are coming from, I thought I did, but everyone's "sexual behaviour" is driven by hormones, but differs from person to person. Feels like you are just using a stereotype, then again, I might be over-interpreting you.

 

[homeforsummer]

Homosexuality is a behavior. Skin color is not a behavior...

...I already answered your second paragraph by saying that homosexuality (emphasis on -sexuality) is a behavior as opposed to something like skin color. That fact has nothing to do with the nature/nurture argument, though I personally believe that homosexuality-- "gayness" would probably be a better word-- is at least largely brought about by experiences instead of genetics or heredity.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic, and at the very least is hormonal and therefore very hard to control.

So I can completely understand the comparisons with skin colour. For a great many people homosexuality is something they cannot change. None of the gay people I know have made "a choice" to become gay, they simply realised that they were gay. I also know a few people who even "tried" the opposite sex before they came out and this just reaffirmed that it really wasn't for them.

This is why it can be offensive to people if you're trying to "encourage" them away from homosexuality. In this sense and with the above considered, it is like encouraging someone to be white rather than black, or even encouraging someone to be male rather than female. It's trying to change something that cannot be changed.

 

[Zrow]

And, if I were gay, I would see that as an incredibly thoughtful and compassionate gesture, even if I still would keep my predilection for the same sex. Same thing like dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses.

There's a point where it just becomes annoying and insulting. I think we've reached that point.

 

[Omnis]

You guys can't be serious. Yes, homosexuality is a behavior. But, like I said, most "gays" just have companionship and aren't sodomizing eachother 24 hours a day. You're not homosexual until you engage in sexual activity/behavior. The Church doesn't have a favorable view of such behavior anyway, regardless of whether it's between man and woman or what. That's why I said that perhaps "gayness" is a better word for the lifestyle we're all talking about as opposed to "homosexual" which is more descriptive of the specific activity/behavior.

My point wasn't a stretch though. Basically it boils down to that just because the organisation thinks it's good or right, doesn't actually make it good or right.

But in this case it's harmless. So it doesn't matter either way. Seriously-- I have yet to meet a gay who is upset with it/them. So why keep being so PC and making much ado about nothing?

 

[homeforsummer]

You guys can't be serious. Yes, homosexuality is a behavior.

Yes, I am serious. You cannot even begin to deny that homosexuality can be genetic (not implying it always is, but there are definite signs). There's more than enough evidence out there and I challenge you to go out and find one genuine homosexual (i.e, not an attention seeking girl claiming she likes to "experiment") who says they've made a choice to be gay. We're talking about people who quite often knew they had feelings for the same sex before they even knew what "gay" was.

 

[Omnis]

Yes, I am serious. You cannot even begin to deny that homosexuality can be genetic (not implying it always is, but there are definite signs). There's more than enough evidence out there and I challenge you to go out and find one genuine homosexual (i.e, not an attention seeking girl claiming she likes to "experiment") who says they've made a choice to be gay. We're talking about people who quite often knew they had feelings for the same sex before they even knew what "gay" was.

I never denied that it could be genetic, but I think it's largely nurtured into being.

However, you're not even arguing about the same thing I was talking about. You're not on the same page. I don't think there's anything more for me to add to my argument.

 

[homeforsummer]

You seem insistant that homosexuality is behaviour. I'm saying there's strong evidence to suggest that it's genetic. You're also saying that you believe homosexuals should be encouraged not to partake in behaviour that for them is something they feel natural. I'm disagreeing. How are we not on the same page?

 

[Omnis]

You seem insistant that homosexuality is behaviour. I'm saying there's strong evidence to suggest that it's genetic. You're also saying that you believe homosexuals should be encouraged not to partake in behaviour that for them is something they feel natural. I'm disagreeing. How are we not on the same page?

The quality of being genetic has no obverse relationship to whether it's a behavior. It could be genetic behavior or learned behavior. But it's still a behavior. So you're arguing something completely different about which I haven't challenged and is not relevant to my argument.

 

[Danny]

Guys... you're having two seperate arguements.

 

[Prosthetic]

I wonder how different the polls would be if they were public... (I'm not saying it should, because it shouldn't.)

 

[Joey D]

But in this case it's harmless. So it doesn't matter either way. Seriously-- I have yet to meet a gay who is upset with it/them. So why keep being so PC and making much ado about nothing?

You don't know it's not harmless though, people can suffer mental conditions by you telling them what they are doing is morally wrong.

I'm making a big deal about it because basically you are suggesting the good institutions dictate how people that aren't part of that organisation should live their lives. This is also not to mention we don't know for sure if homosexuality is a choice or not. If it's not then basically you are telling people they "handicap" and should change.

It's not being PC either, I'm against people meddling it other people's affairs barring their choices are legal.

 

[Omnis]

You don't know it's not harmless though, people can suffer mental conditions by you telling them what they are doing is morally wrong.

I'm making a big deal about it because basically you are suggesting the good institutions dictate how people that aren't part of that organisation should live their lives. This is also not to mention we don't know for sure if homosexuality is a choice or not. If it's not then basically you are telling people they "handicap" and should change.

It's not being PC either, I'm against people meddling it other people's affairs barring their choices are legal.

No, like Famine said, I was suggesting that the good ones are those don't breed hate. And nobody is dictating anything to anyone. It's merely a calling that can be easily discarded. Again, I don't see the big deal.

 

[eiriksmil]

Bumping this because I'm just surprised over a lot of the BS that's written here..

We as straight people can't decide whether you're born homosexual or if it's cultural.. I think it's both, I think some queer people are straighter than they know at the end of the day. But tell that you think it's unnatural to be gay and that it's just a cultural issue to someone who are, most of them will tell you they've always swung that way.. It's like when people don't understand why I'm building cars, they will never get it anyway because to them it's just cars. Same with straight vs gay, as a straight dude you won't understand why gay people are gay, the gay people just know they are.

I don't think God is against gay people, I think that's the words of the people who wrote the Bible.. After all, God loves everyone, right?
Homosexuals don't reproduce, that's the only unnatural thing about queers in my eyes.

I don't have a problem with gay guys at all. I do have a problem with guys being feminine though, I just think it's nasty but I just close my eyes and keep on walking. Like with the two half-naked guys holding around each other in an ad below here, gotta admit I feel unpleasant when looking at it so I look away.. Simple as that.

 

[Lucas]

I don't think God is against gay people, I think that's the words of the people who wrote the Bible.. After all, God loves everyone, right?

Right. Something that people seems to be forgetting, however...

I do have a problem with guys being feminine though, I just think it's nasty but I just close my eyes and keep on walking.

Depends on what you mean by feminine. Somebody speaking with a feminine accent is not something that bothers me. My uncle has been gay for years already, and I only noticed last year (not actually noticed, I was told by my mother and my brother). He brought this guy to our house for my father's birthday, and after they left, that guy told me "Good bye, cute". That told me something was going on. As I said, I don't have a problem with that at all. But when someone starts dressing more or less like a girl, that's where I start to get disgusted. I'm not saying they can't do it in front of me, but I do say I will not look that way.

EDIT: Just looking at the gay ad. Doesn't bother me at all.

 

[ExigeEvan]

So you have no problem with homosexuality, but you strongly dislike those that don't conform with the superficial nature of gender-specific clothing? Interesting.

 

[eiriksmil]

I have a problem with people dressing up to stereotypically gay clothing

The dude next door here is the perfect example of a feminine dude, dresses like a girl with pink T-shirts and tight pants, walking past his room you always here either a boy band or a ballade on and he makes more high-pitched noises than any girl I've ever met. To me that's just wrong in so many ways.. It's not the way he swings I care about, in fact he claims he's straight, but the way he dresses. On the other hand I went to school with an openly gay dude who always dressed very well, hung out with the girls and spoke like your stereotypical gay dude, and still found him rad. He never dressed really feminine, he never made moves on the straight guys and how people talk doesn't bother me

 

[Lucas]

So you have no problem with homosexuality, but you strongly dislike those that don't conform with the superficial nature of gender-specific clothing? Interesting.

Exactly. I don't find people being homosexual disgusting, but I do find disgusting men dressing like women. It's not a rule that as a homosexual, you have to dress like a woman, so that allows me to like one type of person and dislike another type of person.

 

[Exorcet]

I'd just like to point out that cross dressing doesn't exist. Clothing-gender rules are man made. Just about the only thing that "should" be limited to one gender is the bra.

 

[Danny]

Just about the only thing that "should" be limited to one gender is the bra.

And that's for waaaay different reasons...