homosexuality

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

what is your view on homosexuality?

it's okay to be gay
32
82%
i love to sodomise other men!
0
No votes
it's immoral
4
10%
i'm a closeted homosexuel that goes around screaming god hates fags
1
3%
other
2
5%
 
Total votes: 39
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:44 pm

torig wrote:Thirdly, and finally, "sexual preference" is really the worst choice of words one could give that. Do you think it has a lot to do with preferring?


It certainly is a preference. Homosexuals are in no way unable to engage in heterosexual sex.


torig wrote:I'm hetereosexual, and I don't simply "prefer" women over men. I'm in no way attracted to men and seeing two men kiss kind of makes me cringe (I wouldn't even want to see more...). HOWEVER the problem lies with me, not them. Luckily, I can accept them, without passing judgement on their so-called "preference".


The smell and/or taste of many foods makes me feel sick, yet it is still a matter of preference when I don't eat them.

I understand your point, but I think "sexual preference" is an acceptable term.
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:44 pm

kentuckyfried wrote:
torig wrote:<snip>


Well spoken, honestly said. Good luck, I hope that something good comes from your post, a respectful intelligent reply from an opposing view if anything.


Thank you. I don't intend to insult those people. Also whether their God is called God or Allah matters not to me.
I'm just wondering how on earth someone can state "an almighty being" has created everything, just to then at some point say "Well, I feel _that_'s not right".
It's like people reading the Bible and saying "What God meant to say was...."... Pretty presumptuous, if you ask me (and I'm a non-believer, though I should state I was raised as a catholic.

I'm looking forward to a respectful intelligent reply ; if only to see what I, as a non-believer, have misinterpreted then, to be so wrong in my 'questions' :)

Also, for my second point (about God testing their faith) I wanted to add "Should both of us be right - you on the existence of a God, me on the testing of your faith through gays- *I* shall be the one praying for *your* soul. However, I think that would have been seen as me mocking their religion. I am not and so I didn't add that to that post ;)

@Stew then it must be because I'm not a native speaker. To me, preferring something, implies you have a free choice in the matter, and for some reason, you choose one above the other.
I don't know about anyone else, but for myself, I can safely state I don't simply prefer women over men. It's more like compulsive behaviour then ;)

edit: I had misread unable for able in your post stew. It's not because you are able; that you enjoy it.
Technically it would be possible for me to have sexual intercourse with a man -though I think viagra would be necessary to erhm ease the procedure- but that doesn't mean I'm not repulsed at the idea of it. Equally so, there are gays that are repulsed by the idea of sexual intercourse with a woman. Those that don't, are what we conventionally call bisexuals by the way :D
Last edited by torig on Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:46 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
kentuckyfried wrote:It would matter because it would be an extremely (in)famous discovery. The results of the scientific curiousity would very, very, quickly be 'proof' of the legitimacy of homosexuality as 'natural', unavoidable and very normal. If proven to be a legitimate part of human existence, would also be argued (incidentally) that if part of nature, than is also part of god's creation thus intentional and perfect.

(of course then the criers of 'abomination', as well mentioned by Mas Tnega, would quickly come to play too)


Race has always been known to be inherited, but it did nothing to stop racial discrimination. Gender is genetic, yet sexism is still prevalent and defended by many.

Christianity at least has never embraced the if it's genetic it's perfect idea and there is no indication the majority of Christians would change their views on homosexuality based on whether or not it is genetic.


All I'm saying is that definitive scientific research results would most likely fuel the pro homosexuality argument, would put the ball on nay sayer's side.
I'd love to argue for argument's sake, it would be far too easy, but I am just stating my views ;)
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:01 pm

kentuckyfried wrote:All I'm saying is that definitive scientific research results would most likely fuel the pro homosexuality argument, would put the ball on nay sayer's side.
I'd love to argue for argument's sake, it would be far too easy, but I am just stating my views ;)

Since when has scientific evidence ever been able to convince a zealot? Just look at the people who believe that no man has ever set foot on the moon, or who believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, or that the world is flat. The fact that sexual preference is largely or entirely beyond the control of the individuals in no way changes the arguments that anti-gay activists and apologists will make.

I take that back -- it might add one more to the mix: "scientists are all immoral atheists, and their 'proof' of a gay gene is the work of Satan." Either that, or the gene is a "cross that must be borne -- we all have our burdens."

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:06 pm

torig wrote:I've just had a thought. Well a few thoughts.
I'll try and formulate them in a non-offensive way, as much as possible, but I expect religious people to take offense anyhow. It's not my intention, but I can't refrain from saying these things.
With that disclaimer being given, here goes.

IF you religious types say that God created man to be like him and there is a master plan which considered gay sex evil and wrong, would you not think he would make it _impossible_ for people of the same sex to fall in love or lust for eachother?
Or are you implying the devine being "made an error"/oversight? :shock:

Secondly. If you still don't see my point, try accepting gays as a way for God to test your faith. Why would you merit heaven, if you didn't treat all people equally and with the necessary respect? Perhaps then, gays exist, so that on the Judgement Day your behaviour against them can be used as an argument for your Judgement.

Thirdly, and finally, "sexual preference" is really the worst choice of words one could give that. Do you think it has a lot to do with preferring?
I'm hetereosexual, and I don't simply "prefer" women over men. I'm in no way attracted to men and seeing two men kiss kind of makes me cringe (I wouldn't even want to see more...). HOWEVER the problem lies with me, not them. Luckily, I can accept them, without passing judgement on their so-called "preference".

What saddens me is the level of unopenmindedness (if that word exists) that people have.
What has religion -any religion except Buddhism, which I personally consider more a philosophy than a religion anyways- in any form ever done for the improvent of mankind and brought to it, besides war mongering, alienation of population groups, blood shedding and abuse/suppression of population groups by keeping them docile?
I'll stop here, as I'm getting worked up, and I have no intent on insulting people's beliefs. You're free to believe whatever you want, but your beliefs -over time- have done us more harm than good, if I'm allowed to speak my honest opinion.

Well, you haven't offended me.

I'm not the most eloquent person in the world, but I'll give it a shot. Your argument has one tremendous flaw in it. God did not create robots. He created beings and gave them the ability to make choices. God did create man in his image with the potential to be like him and gave him the instructions necessary to work towards that goal. Obviously, there's only one that's done it perfectly in this life. Had God wanted complete and total obedience without question as you imply, making it impossible to be gay etc, then he would have done so in all other areas such as murder, stealing, etc, etc.

Secondly, you are correct that we (as Christians) should not treat people differently. That is not to say that a [insert church/congregation] should ignore what it's members are doing and ignore the repeated behavior of a person that goes against its core teachings. Of course, as I said earlier, screaming "God hates fags" and degrading another human made in His image is different than explaining to a "follower" that his continued actions will lead the church to "put him/her out" for the sake of the rest.

Thirdly, and finally, I would say theirs just as much "unopenmindedness" on every side. As for religion bringing blood shed, war, etc, well that's the misuse of religion and I would say that man would do such things even if 100% of the species was aethist/agnostic/whatever else category you want.
User avatar
MrBunsy
level5
level5
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Postby MrBunsy » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:06 pm

xander wrote:So, if your argument is basically "don't fuck with the ancient sacrament of marriage between men and women," here is my counter-argument:
  1. Marriage is not, by definition, between a man and a woman. (though it can be)
  2. Marriage is not, by definition, a "sacrament." (though it can be)
  3. Marriage has changed through time, so conservatism is no argument. (assuming that it is an argument in the first place)

It wasn't quite my main point, but that was part of it.

Marriage in the current British society is still the joining of a man and a woman. I've no problem with the civil partnership, the legal enforcement of the rights of a gay couple as marriage does for a conventional couple. But 'Marriage' already has a definition, so why can't the new legal partnership have a different name?

If it's going to change then Stewsburntmonkey's suggestion of civil partnership being the legal name and Marriage being the religious name would probably be the best way to go.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:11 pm

MrBunsy wrote:But 'Marriage' already has a definition, so why can't the new legal partnership have a different name?

I think that I have sufficiently shown that marriage does not have a fixed definition, and that it has changed quite a bit over time. Your argument basically decomposes to the idea that marriage shouldn't change because it is the way it is now.

As to a new kind of legal entity (i.e. a civil partnership), the US tried a philosophy of "Separate but Equal" in the last century. It turns out that keeping things separate but equal is nearly impossible. I don't imagine it being much different in terms of marriage.

xander
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:12 pm

MrBunsy wrote:If it's going to change then Stewsburntmonkey's suggestion of civil partnership being the legal name and Marriage being the religious name would probably be the best way to go.


Although, you should remember that lots of churches will perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, so you'd end up with gay marriages anyway.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:15 pm

xander wrote: In other cultures, polygyny is very, very common. It was also quite common in Jewish culture, at one point in time (which is where the Mormons pull their ideas about polygyny from).


Nice try, but no. Keep looking. :wink:
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:23 pm

Feud wrote:
xander wrote: In other cultures, polygyny is very, very common. It was also quite common in Jewish culture, at one point in time (which is where the Mormons pull their ideas about polygyny from).

Nice try, but no. Keep looking. :wink:

Do you deny that Mormonism ever encouraged polygyny? Do you deny that some fundamentalist Mormons still practice polygyny?

I admit that my phrasing oversimplified the matter, because I was looking for a quick example, not a complete discussion of Mormon polygyny. So, while Mormonism no longer officially condones polygyny, and actively condemns it, it is a historical fact that it was encouraged at one point, and that some groups of Mormons still practice it.

Does this phrasing suit you better: "It was also quite common in Jewish culture, at one point in time (which is where historical Mormons, and certain modern groups of fundamentalist Mormons, pull their ideas about polygyny from)."

xander
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:36 pm

RE Stews/xander's responce to my 2nd paragraph, yes, I know and I quite agree, religion has no place in politics (yet somehow it strangely prevails and pushes laws through)

Really I'm playing devil's advocate here, since I can see fairly realistic reasons why a) someone with faith could find it immoral, and not be entirely bigotted in this department and in fact be justified in their beliefs and b) why many religiously influenced political parties try to enforce what are now hippocritical laws. It's not their place to do it but they still do.

Allowing these acts to go on, for them, could easily be seen as 'corrupting' those around them, and that is something they feel they should attempt to prevent or at least openly downplay. Not corrupting them to be gay, or to get into a rubber suit 4 nights a week, but their morals and beliefs about lust.

I do doubt many of those who outcry against these things initially feel that way, and are simply being zealots for pieces of scripture which typically don't have a lot of support. (edit made this clearer) However these things in the form of laws or denial-of-service ot the aim of discouragement may receive significant support from other people because of the above. I agree that it's pretty much wrong to do this, but I can see why they might do it, and I can see that there are actually some benefits for society not being a seedy love nest. Some people still need moral guidance, and they aren't getting it any more, mainly because of the hippocritical reasoning viewed to be behind these laws.

One notable problem now is that sex is not taboo and sex outside of marriage is the norm. Society is suffering for it in some departments because of inadequet alternatives - very specifically, teen pregnancy. I agree that having sex as being something never talked about, or being perceived clearly as wrong outside of marriage is not the best way to prevent young, single mothers (the father of the child having 'done a runner') from suffering as they often do, but you can't really deny that it 'worked' for quite a long time.

Regardless of which, I made my views clear in my 3rd paragraph, so, just see that's nothing personal.

Regarding the whole, marriage vs civil partnership deal, example, if you were islamic and you saw someone walking their dog and it relieved itself on the pavement, and the person said 'awww, he's done a big pile of qu'ran on the floor!', you'd be insulted. (yes this is hyperbole)
Last edited by The GoldFish on Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:38 pm

Nuke'em all :evil:
NMO
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:41 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Well, you haven't offended me.


Therefore I'm glad.

Ace Rimmer wrote:I'm not the most eloquent person in the world, but I'll give it a shot. Your argument has one tremendous flaw in it. God did not create robots. He created beings and gave them the ability to make choices. God did create man in his image with the potential to be like him and gave him the instructions necessary to work towards that goal. Obviously, there's only one that's done it perfectly in this life. Had God wanted complete and total obedience without question as you imply, making it impossible to be gay etc, then he would have done so in all other areas such as murder, stealing, etc, etc.


It's interesting that you equate what I said to obedience. So you too hold the belief someone who is gay "wants" to be gay?

I never had the intention of questioning anyone's convictions, so I won't go further than that one question, out of respect for your faith.
To me it looks odd that such an empowered being would go 'Hah, my creation. Looks like me, but just a bit more flawed" but your point was...interesting.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Secondly, you are correct that we (as Christians) should not treat people differently. That is not to say that a [insert church/congregation] should ignore what it's members are doing and ignore the repeated behavior of a person that goes against its core teachings. Of course, as I said earlier, screaming "God hates fags" and degrading another human made in His image is different than explaining to a "follower" that his continued actions will lead the church to "put him/her out" for the sake of the rest.


That does clear up your stance on the 'issue'. Thanks. It seems like you're willing to accept them as God's children as much as yourself, which I guess is all that matters in the discussion. Or am I reading things as I want them to appear to me?

Ace Rimmer wrote:Thirdly, and finally, I would say theirs just as much "unopenmindedness" on every side. As for religion bringing blood shed, war, etc, well that's the misuse of religion and I would say that man would do such things even if 100% of the species was aethist/agnostic/whatever else category you want.


The reason I said there is more "unopenmindedness" on the side of religions is obviously because nearly every religion seems to prescribe that non-followers are infidels and grave things will happen to them. Which has led to crusades and stuff like that.
I'm willing to grant you that it's not perhaps _entirely_ the fault of religion, but on the other hand such massive killings were supported by the top echelons of the said religions. There clearly is a problem with Churches then ; while some -if not most- points that are taken as a law by the letter seem to spread more hatred than they'll solve, which contrasts heavily with the implied good goals of most religions (to live in peace and harmony, according to a code...).

I'm not saying that war and blood shedding would be over if there wouldn't have been religion. But blood shedding and war _over_ religion is the most hypocritic thing that could occur, in all seriousness.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:45 pm

The GoldFish wrote:RSociety is suffering for it in some departments because of inadequet alternatives - very specifically, teen pregnancy.

I am not attempting to argue your main points -- I largely agree with them. However, this particular bit stuck out. Are changing attitudes about premarital sex the reason that so many young women are getting pregnant, or the fact that the age of marriage has moved back so far? 150-200 years ago, a girl was expected to get married at about the time that she became sexually mature, or a bit after (say 15-16 years old). Juliet was only 14 or 15 in Romeo and Juliet, yet no one questioned that she was old enough to get married, only that she was married into the wrong family. In the last 100 years, the age of marriage has gone up, along with a rise in unmarried pregnancies.

It is possible -- likely, even -- that societal permissiveness is at least partially responsible, but I think that the later age of marriage has a lot more to do with it.

xander
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:52 pm

xander wrote:
The GoldFish wrote:RSociety is suffering for it in some departments because of inadequet alternatives - very specifically, teen pregnancy.

I am not attempting to argue your main points -- I largely agree with them. However, this particular bit stuck out. Are changing attitudes about premarital sex the reason that so many young women are getting pregnant, or the fact that the age of marriage has moved back so far? 150-200 years ago, a girl was expected to get married at about the time that she became sexually mature, or a bit after (say 15-16 years old). Juliet was only 14 or 15 in Romeo and Juliet, yet no one questioned that she was old enough to get married, only that she was married into the wrong family. In the last 100 years, the age of marriage has gone up, along with a rise in unmarried pregnancies.

It is possible -- likely, even -- that societal permissiveness is at least partially responsible, but I think that the later age of marriage has a lot more to do with it.

xander


In addition such things get much more attention now than they have previously, which skews our perception of how common they are. There has always been a lot of liberal sex in society, but it was largely accepted and/or overlooked before modern media made obsessing about it a common pastime. The number of Pope's who had kids for example is pretty amazing and there are several instances of Pope's who were known to engage in homosexual behavior. Mistresses are incredibly common historically as are illegitimate children. These things are nothing new and may not even be more common now than they have been historically.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests