Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

All I can say is the same stuff I've said before.

In princible, gays should be accepted as a part of the society. Mainly because while I think what they do is sick, it's not my place to decide as long as nobody is hurt in the process. Unlike some animalsex or paedophilia or somesuch, gay sex means two grownup people with the understanding and ability to make this choice.

However, I agree with Chev that holy religious rules should not change to support the modern trend. Otherwise they'd be nothing but opinions. And I also don't pretend to like this trend one bit.

To me, and to basically all of my heterosexual friends as well, seeing gay people make out is like seeing someone give a mouthjob to their dog. No pun intended, it's just that much out of the ordinary. Now despite what I've said before, on a strictly logical basis I can't claim that gay people should not have the right to make out in public. But I do think it a very valid point that it can be too disturbing for a normal heterosexual person.

That's right. I don't think it's just a matter of growing accustomed to it (well of course you can grow accustomed to being beaten every day by your parents, as some people could prove... but it's not like the consequences are too good from that either). I think that while the unnatural nature of gayness must be accepted because even "flaws" are a part of human nature and add to the whole, it must also be accepted that heterosexuals do indeed have a natural psychic defense against homosexuals. It must be accepted, that for some who might accept homosexuality for another as an idea, seeing it in action equals having sex with their own parents. And the nausea that is accompanied with such a thought.

What I hate the most about this thing is the trend to stick gays in every TV show. Sure, they can be quite funny with their strange sense of humour sometimes. But I still don't want to see them licking each other in every other show I look on TV. Or rather, used to look.

Bear in mind that I have a friend who is gay. And I've tried for what seems like several years to accept gayness as a normal thing that I can see in its every form and not care about. But I can't. I've realised the fact about myself and life in general that no person is supposed to accept or 'like' everything. Tolerate perhaps, but not like. I find gay people repulsive, and it's my right to feel that way. As personalities they can be ok, but to me two people of the same sex just don't belong together that way. And I'd prefer the gays kept their physical endeavors to their own bedchamber.

This is just my opinion. And I think it a far more openminded one than those of the people who really have no opinions on anything, but rather say "yes" to everything instead.

As a wise older friend of mine once said: "too much tolerance equals ignorance". And I agree.

 

Cesard,
great you eventually got the joke about that site, congrats

 

I didn't know that you were joking. It was too early in the day for me.

I am having fun at the moment pressing control and f , typing in a word of interest and seeing what advice the mighty chick.com has for me.

If anyone wants to see something very arrogant go to:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

This one is designed to spread fear "we expect to see a Muslim flag fly over the White House by 2010"

 

@ Cesard

Agreed, apart from: (Post before your last one)

Jesus himself said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17.)

If we discount the Old Testament and look at the New Testament, would someone like to provide a quote by Jesus condeming Homosexuality? I don't believe one exists. In fact the question of Homosexuality as a sin appears to come down to a matter of translation:

 

If having sex with someone of your gender is not sexual perversion, than what is?

Plus, if sex was expressly or even implicitly limited to marriage for heterosexuals, and marriage was between man and woman, then why make an exception for homosexual intercourse, which can only be non-marital? So much as that cute girl from the agora isn't your wife, neither is that guy, you know. Of course, one could argue that for men it wasn't considered sinful to have sex with female slaves (though not really free women), but how about lesbians then? Although lesbians can't perform insertion, whereas for male gay people it's possible to a limited degree, so we could say there's no intercourse between lesbians and problem solved :/.

Just a note: to whatever degree homosexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, to that degree it can't be considered sinful. Indulging in homosexual carnal activity is a different thing.

 

Wake up, kids! Lose your fears and just give it a try. There are two kinds of people: the sensual and tactile ones; and the uptights.

And the very middle class statement "mind you, I have a friend who's gay"! If anything is non-intellectual, this is it. Made me chuckle myself.

Oh, and chevalier: even the pope is more laid-back than you are. You really do believe the Vatican believes the stuff you believe them to believe, don't you?

 

This quote is highly problematic, and it's a point I've seen you raise numerous times. I'm not sure why a "father" is required to raise a child. A mother provides breast milk, but what can a father provide that another woman could not? Perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

From a medical point of view gay sex between men is very harmful to the body - I don't think you need me to explain further!

Personally I don't see the appeal in gay sex.

 

Ever met a man raised without a father?

Ever read anything the Pope wrote in the subject?

Try here: http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?query=homosexuality&CFGNAME=MssFindEN.cfg&en=x


Or here (lots): http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&QUERY=homosexual&EN=X&NO_DL=X

Thank you very much for kind invitation, but I'll stick to girls.

[ October 27, 2004, 15:01: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I don't think I'm taking it out of context, but this seems to read that any sexual activity outside of marriage is morally and reprehensibly wrong? Do you therefore judge that any heterosexual activity outside of marriage is as "wrong" as you are judging Homosexual activity? After all, they are mentioned in the same line.

I could probably argue that "No sex before marriage" is an abnormal attitude now, i.e. it is not the most commonly believed or practiced. I'm not saying it's a wrong attitide, just that few practice it.

Homosexuality is a natural thing, because you do actually get homosexual animals, one case that made the news a year or so back in Britain was of two male swans. I recall some Biologist friends at Uni discussing a study showing Rats also tend to homosexuality in over-crowded conditions.
Can you claim some animals are perverted? As the definition is "to depart from what is reasonable or required" then no, as you can't expect them to know what is reasonable or required. Is homosexuality a perversion? Only because people claim it to be so because for them, it is unreasonable.

A previous argument used by the scientic community for it being unnatural is the inability to pass on genes. However a recent study has shown the nature compensates by having siblings produce larger families.

Before the church decidided to go about codifing their means of controlling the populace, it wasn't exactly uncommon in the ancient world. It's recognised that the Greek Spartans had homosexual partners before they took wives. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the concept of it as a "sin" only arose to give more fervour to one countries soldiers attacking another country. Much as the Church changed it's mind about murdering people (in this case if they were non-christian) during the crusades.

 

Speaking as someone who thinks the Bible is an allegorical, entirely human work rather than being The Word Of God, I don't really care what homosexuals of either gender do with each other.

Religions, as private organizations, should be allowed to make rules prohibiting homosexual marriage if that's within the tenets of the belief system, but they absolutely DO NOT have the right to impose those beliefs on any other group or the society at large. Equally, it shouldn't be up to the state to discriminate against any of its (civil) law-abiding citizens.

Chev, amazingly enough you've actually said something I agree with in this thread: Equal right YES, Special rights, NO. The difference is that I see acknowledging a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner as being an equal right. Same with adoption of children. What matters is growing up in a stable, loving environment, not being steeped in the "proper" gender roles. Kids will get plenty of that from society at large - what they need at home is an environment that encourages human dignity and respect in all forms, not something that reinforces society's narrow-mindedness.

Pink TV? I doubt I'll watch, but I certainly don't care that it's on. I'm sure they'll broadcast nothing any more offensive the stuff some of the race-oriented stations air.

 

Well even if animals are homosexual that does not mean that it makes the practice normal. Animals do a lot of strange things like breed with their mother/daughter etc and I am sure most people here would say no es acceptible!

 

Yeppedy-yep, Knight of the Everfull Chalice, I did my share of reading. However, I threw in some degree of understanding as well.

What do you expect the Pope to say? "Cheers, mates, come to think of it, I've been wrong for all those years, sorry for that, now off you go and give each other a good hmph!"?

It will be a gradual process, same with abortion. Some day, maybe even in my lifetime, those strict interpretations and dogmas will have vanished - or the Catholic Church will have. The members of the Vatican are pragmatical about those things, they are old and experienced, change is nothing new to them. The task of the Church is to stall those social developments long enough to give the people who are full of fear some time to get their bearings.

Not that I wanted to imply that you should give me a try, but ... do you now what your prostate gland is? Girls could never give you that kind of pleasure!

Yee-Haw!

 

are you sure about that?

 

About what? That stimulating one's prostate does arouse sexual excitation? Yep, I'm sure.

Or do you mean that girls can stimulate my prostate as well? Well well, what a nasty boy you are, Cesard! I didn't know you had it in you, but you are right, man!

 

In the U.S., it's decided upon by the state. Most states say single people can adopt children, while others prohibit single people from adopting. In states where single people can adopt, it is possible for a gay person to adopt a child. I doubt they ask you what your sexual orientation is, and even if they did, one could always lie. However, it does not allow for a gay couple to adopt a child. So a gay woman can adopt a child, and her gay partner could adopt a child, but there's no way they could set it up where they both had joint custody of the child in the sense that they would both be considered parents.

In other states, they prohibit single people from adopting entirely, which effectively prohibits gay people from adopting children.

 

@ Darkthrone


I dreaded what you would have to say to this topic, as we seemingly were bound to disagree on most issues. Til now.

Wunderbar.


Yee-Haw?! tehehehe

Likewise I very much agree with Rallymama.

 

So if you're homosexual and want a child you just need to hop states and find one? Seems like the law has some catching up to do if they want to prohibit same-sex partners raising children.

Considering how most adoption agencies have religious backgrounds it's no surprise homosexuals find it hard to adopt. You couldn't pass a law that a huge majority of the 'service providers' disagree with.

 

Actaully, you won't have to hop much because, as I said, most states do allow single people to adopt children. That having been said, this is open to all single people, regardless of whether you're gay or straight. Now, no state says it's OK for two gay people to jointly adopt a child. Bob and Joe can't go down to the adoption center and try to adopt a child. However, Bob can do it on his own, and Joe can do it on his own. (Hmmm... I should have used two female names, as single men rarely attempt to adopt children.)