Homosexuals...?!

[Anonymous Last]

One cold hearted son'a'bitch.
"He's a cold-hearted snake
Look into his eyes
Oh oh oh
He's been tellin' lies
He's a lover boy at play
He don't play by the rules
Oh oh oh
Girl don't play the fool--no"
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000000WGF.01._PE8_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Tea Barking]

Humans shouldnt be, we are a freak of nature, end of discussion.

[Anonymous Last]

Humans shouldnt be, we are a freak of nature, end of discussion.

Freaks like sex. Yeah!

[nebbit]

If we went by my theory of evolution, people being born sterile would be those nature is selecting as unneccesary.

We are all necessary, even you :D

[PimpDaShizzle]

DaShizzle here, and I kind of just did a little scanny-scan-scan over the recent post, saw something about homo-parents being okay and more patient. What a load of crap (in my opinion). How can you say two people are more patient cause they're gay? That's wack'dilly'fo'really, seriously.

And, having gay parents isn't the same as having a single parent. Not even close. Now it's gay parents, then it's no parents, then, next thing you know we've got kids in the corn fields with some fruit named Johna. You wouldn't want that would you? And yes, I am well aware of the fallacy commonly called the slippery slope, and I take offence when people reffer to my reasoning as being fallacious.

Gay parents, that's like midgets gettin behind the wheel of a big rig. Just wouldn't make sense. If you want some gay parents, move to Switzerland. Or as I like to call it, Svitz-ur-laund.

Can lesbians raise a boy? Um, maybe if that boy plans on getting the crap kicked out of him everyday for using girly deoderant. It'd happen too, and ya'll know it. He'd show up to shower after gym and wrap the towel around his chest.

Can two homo guys raise a Daughter? Hopefully not, that's disturbing for one, and sick for two. Would you let your daughter go over to their house, knowing they'd be watching the Bird Cage all day while doing arts and crafts? I wouldn't.

It's all my opinion though.

[mack]

Humans shouldnt be, we are a freak of nature, end of discussion.

:confused:

might I ask you to elaborate?

[sisboombah]

DaShizzle here, and I kind of just did a little scanny-scan-scan over the recent post, saw something about homo-parents being okay and more patient. What a load of crap (in my opinion). How can you say two people are more patient cause they're gay? That's wack'dilly'fo'really, seriously.

And, having gay parents isn't the same as having a single parent. Not even close. Now it's gay parents, then it's no parents, then, next thing you know we've got kids in the corn fields with some fruit named Johna. You wouldn't want that would you? And yes, I am well aware of the fallacy commonly called the slippery slope, and I take offence when people reffer to my reasoning as being fallacious.

Gay parents, that's like midgets gettin behind the wheel of a big rig.

It's all my opinion though.

one of my friends had two mums...nothing wrong with it at all...as long as they give the child what it needs that is all a child needs...some kids come from a family with a mum and a dad and have a ****ty life and im not saying that two parents of the same sex would in no way give a child a ****ty life...there will be some same sex parents that wont give the child a good life and there will be some that will give them a brilliant life. its just the same as same sex parents, some are **** and some are great.

[Tea Barking]

:confused:

might I ask you to elaborate?


You sure can ask me :)

[Anonymous Last]

...having gay parents isn't the same as having a single parent. Not even close. Now it's gay parents, then it's no parents, then, next thing you know we've got kids in the corn fields with some fruit named Johna. You wouldn't want that would you? And yes, I am well aware of the fallacy commonly called the slippery slope, and I take offence when people reffer to my reasoning as being fallacious.

Gay parents, that's like midgets gettin behind the wheel of a big rig. Just wouldn't make sense. If you want some gay parents, move to Switzerland. Or as I like to call it, Svitz-ur-laund.

Can lesbians raise a boy? Um, maybe if that boy plans on getting the crap kicked out of him everyday for using girly deoderant. It'd happen too, and ya'll know it. He'd show up to shower after gym and wrap the towel around his chest.

Can two homo guys raise a Daughter? Hopefully not, that's disturbing for one, and sick for two. Would you let your daughter go over to their house, knowing they'd be watching the Bird Cage all day while doing arts and crafts? I wouldn't.

It's all my opinion though.


If a gay/lesbian couple will provide a fantastic loving home for a child then I say great... good for them. It's all about the child and not the parent's sexual preference.

Sometimes a brother just gotta think outside the litter box, yo.

[undercoverlover]

DaShizzle here, and I kind of just did a little scanny-scan-scan over the recent post, saw something about homo-parents being okay and more patient. What a load of crap (in my opinion). How can you say two people are more patient cause they're gay? That's wack'dilly'fo'really, seriously.

And, having gay parents isn't the same as having a single parent. Not even close. Now it's gay parents, then it's no parents, then, next thing you know we've got kids in the corn fields with some fruit named Johna. You wouldn't want that would you? And yes, I am well aware of the fallacy commonly called the slippery slope, and I take offence when people reffer to my reasoning as being fallacious.

Gay parents, that's like midgets gettin behind the wheel of a big rig. Just wouldn't make sense. If you want some gay parents, move to Switzerland. Or as I like to call it, Svitz-ur-laund.

Can lesbians raise a boy? Um, maybe if that boy plans on getting the crap kicked out of him everyday for using girly deoderant. It'd happen too, and ya'll know it. He'd show up to shower after gym and wrap the towel around his chest.

Can two homo guys raise a Daughter? Hopefully not, that's disturbing for one, and sick for two. Would you let your daughter go over to their house, knowing they'd be watching the Bird Cage all day while doing arts and crafts? I wouldn't.

It's all my opinion though.


i think you're focusing on the stereotypes too much. And what's wrong with a girl watching the birdcage???? And arts and crafts--must be the devil :rolleyes:

So lesbians don't the difference between deoderant for boys and girls?
And gay guys just watch the birdcage all day long and dress up like Liza?

[Anonymous Last]

i think you're focusing on the stereotypes too much. And what's wrong with a girl watching the birdcage???? And arts and crafts--must be the devil :rolleyes:

So lesbians don't the difference between deoderant for boys and girls?
And gay guys just watch the birdcage all day long and dress up like Liza?


I think the devil dresses up like Liza and uses little boy lesbian antiperspirant... but those pits still smell like a birdcage to me.


Strong enough for the devil but made for gay parents.

:D ;D

[PimpDaShizzle]

Maybe ya'll are right. But I think you're not. I'm gonna look at it this way though. Now'a'days, atleast on TV and we all know TV is right, it seems like all parents suck. So, I say, we flip-the-switch-on-the-manuscript and get some wilderbeast to raise the next few generations. Those things are fierce. The kids would be fierce. Imagine some kid that was riased by a normal parents at an interview, blah blah blah, yeah he/she was probably be boring. Now person raised by wilderbeast goes in, he's f*cking hired on the spot, BAM! Guaranteed. The boss has never seen anyone rummage through papers like that before... with their NOSE! That kid would probably just poop wherever they wanted, now that's confindence.

All I'm sayin is that two mommies or two daddies can't give a kid a proper up bringing. And, that also means that single parents are lacking some key elements. Do some searches on the ol' internet for psychological jounrnals that cover this topic (psychology is completely biased in this topic though, because the whole homo thing is way left wing and the majority of psychologist are lefties too). I'm too lazy, but I'm sure one of you has it in you.

[Anonymous Last]

Maybe ya'll are right. But I think you're not. I'm gonna look at it this way though. Now'a'days, atleast on TV and we all know TV is right, it seems like all parents suck. So, I say, we flip-the-switch-on-the-manuscript and get some wilderbeast to raise the next few generations. Those things are fierce. The kids would be fierce. Imagine some kid that was riased by a normal parents at an interview, blah blah blah, yeah he/she was probably be boring. Now person raised by wilderbeast goes in, he's f*cking hired on the spot, BAM! Guaranteed. The boss has never seen anyone rummage through papers like that before... with their NOSE! That kid would probably just poop wherever they wanted, now that's confindence.

All I'm sayin is that two mommies or two daddies can't give a kid a proper up bringing. And, that also means that single parents are lacking some key elements. Do some searches on the ol' internet for psychological jounrnals that cover this topic (psychology is completely biased in this topic though, because the whole homo thing is way left wing and the majority of psychologist are lefties too). I'm too lazy, but I'm sure one of you has it in you.

Give this man the tastiest, granolaiest, most Rabelaisian cookie your baking heart can concoct!

[John McClane]

DaShizzle here, and I kind of just did a little scanny-scan-scan over the recent post, saw something about homo-parents being okay and more patient. What a load of crap (in my opinion). How can you say two people are more patient cause they're gay? That's wack'dilly'fo'really, seriously.

And, having gay parents isn't the same as having a single parent. Not even close. Now it's gay parents, then it's no parents, then, next thing you know we've got kids in the corn fields with some fruit named Johna. You wouldn't want that would you? And yes, I am well aware of the fallacy commonly called the slippery slope, and I take offence when people reffer to my reasoning as being fallacious.

Gay parents, that's like midgets gettin behind the wheel of a big rig. Just wouldn't make sense. If you want some gay parents, move to Switzerland. Or as I like to call it, Svitz-ur-laund.

Can lesbians raise a boy? Um, maybe if that boy plans on getting the crap kicked out of him everyday for using girly deoderant. It'd happen too, and ya'll know it. He'd show up to shower after gym and wrap the towel around his chest.

Can two homo guys raise a Daughter? Hopefully not, that's disturbing for one, and sick for two. Would you let your daughter go over to their house, knowing they'd be watching the Bird Cage all day while doing arts and crafts? I wouldn't.

It's all my opinion though.Tell me, when you were a kid did your parents love you? If the answer is yes then hear this. A parents love is all that's needed to make a kid turn out right. You hear of all this kids that are really trouble makers. It's because they parents didn't love them right or teach them values. If a parent loves their kid and teaches them values then it doesn't matter what their sexual preference is. That's just my view on this issue.

[AboveTheClouds]

I agree with you John.

[nebbit]

It's all my opinion though.

Thank goodness for that :p now I can disgard everything you have written. :bored:

[PimpDaShizzle]

John - Yeah, okay, you're kind of right I think. I said, I THINK. Parents need to love their children, but they also need to teach them important life lessons, like how to chop wood with a large axe, how to wear clean looking clothes that are actually really dirty, how to pick up on chicks, how to chug beer like a man. You give me the burliest-butch-lesbian, and even compared to some "girlie man", the guy would have this ingrained gene that says, I can kick ass. Unless that man was raised by an over powered mom that smothered him and made him knit sweaters for the neighbors grandma, that would be a different story. I'm say, girls need a mom, and boys need a dad. First of all, most of the time a kid being raised by homo's is adopted, which by its self carries an increased probability of social problems and personal problems. Second, this kids got homo's as parents, which is gonna be more problems. Not from the parents, but from their peers. A boy raised by two moms is eaither gonna need a really close family friend to act as the father figure (which you hear about father figures a lot from kids with single parents or mother figures, think about that) or he's gonna be a whimp, or rebel and treat his mom's like crap.

I saw something on the discovery channel about these elephants. There was this punk ass boy elephant that was causin' all sorts of ruckus, punching other elephants, poking them, playing mean tricks and stuff, just a badass. That was until they dropped off this big ass male elephant, it respected the other elephants and was mature, then it kicked the little boy elephants ass. The little boy elephant was cool from then on. THINK ABOUT IT.

And, the bottom line is, homo's just want kids to try to prove something.

[7thson]

John - Yeah, okay, you're kind of right I think. I said, I THINK. Parents need to love their children, but they also need to teach them important life lessons, like how to chop wood with a large axe, how to wear clean looking clothes that are actually really dirty, how to pick up on chicks, how to chug beer like a man. You give me the burliest-butch-lesbian, and even compared to some "girlie man", the guy would have this ingrained gene that says, I can kick ass. Unless that man was raised by an over powered mom that smothered him and made him knit sweaters for the neighbors grandma, that would be a different story. I'm say, girls need a mom, and boys need a dad. First of all, most of the time a kid being raised by homo's is adopted, which by its self carries an increased probability of social problems and personal problems. Second, this kids got homo's as parents, which is gonna be more problems. Not from the parents, but from their peers. A boy raised by two moms is eaither gonna need a really close family friend to act as the father figure (which you hear about father figures a lot from kids with single parents or mother figures, think about that) or he's gonna be a whimp, or rebel and treat his mom's like crap.

I saw something on the discovery channel about these elephants. There was this punk ass boy elephant that was causin' all sorts of ruckus, punching other elephants, poking them, playing mean tricks and stuff, just a badass. That was until they dropped off this big ass male elephant, it respected the other elephants and was mature, then it kicked the little boy elephants ass. The little boy elephant was cool from then on. THINK ABOUT IT.

And, the bottom line is, homo's just want kids to try to prove something.
Yeah..that and CRAP!!!

[nebbit]

Yeah..that and CRAP!!!

Ditto :yup:

[Anonymous Last]

And, the bottom line is, homo's just want kids to try to prove something.

Yeah..that and CRAP!!!
Ditto :yup:


fo' sheezy?

Consider yourself lucky or me twisted, as I put fingers to keyboard, all for you.

When I *sniff* think of all the countless and tragic little hairy, three horned- male elephant deaths, due to the poor little things getting their necks *sniff* cracked by big male elephants in the hope and quest to find honey. (Young male elephants stink of honey. Don't cha know?)
It's sad...
F@ck it… I can’t go on.

Sadly, they are now all but extinguished from the face of the earth. Certain factions would have you believe pollution was to blame, still others would tell you they have left us for we touch ourselves, and a few particularly verbose nutters claim the UKIP Wales is to blame. I'll set the record straight:

Although they are fantastical creatures, they aren’t entirely things of myth. They first came into being when the earth was still flat, and the clouds made of fire, and mountains stretched up to the sky. The mighty, yet docile, three horned elephant had two sets or arms, two sets of legs, and two faces peering out of one giant head... with three hiorns of course. This allowed them to watch all around them and to talk while they read.

You have to realize, the world was still ripe with magic at that time, and no malefic force had yet thought to touch the children of the earth. Have I not mentioned the other denizens of this wobbly sphere? Let me address that now, as they were a curious lot, and not at all what you’d expect if you read such fairy tales as “The Bible” and “The Origin of Species”…you’d be much better off if you stuck to such tomes as “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” or perhaps “The Origin of Species”…but that’s just my opinion, and you don’t want that.

There were three sexes then:

One that looked like two men glued up back to back, called the children of the sun
Similar in shape and girth were the children of the earth, they looked like two girls rolled up in one
And the children of the moon, they were like a fork shoved on a spoon, they were part sun, part earth part daughter, part son

Sounds like a pretty fantastic time and place to find yourself a three horned elephant, now doesn’t it? I’d have to agree, there was no war, no poverty, no reality television, not even the smallest amount of strife to be found. Well, that was only partly true (although, there really was no reality television) because what our fancifully apportioned friends failed to realize, is that deific manifestations of our worst personal failings were espying them from above, with their ever so stylish green-tinted glasses. The strength and defiance shown by our tenants of paradise, found its way into the jaded heart of a preternatural pantheon most pugnacious in its putrescence.

Harbinger sharbinger…do you want me to stop telling this tale? It’s not very fun from here on out, and no one would question your decision to back out at this point. If it makes you feel any better, I cried like a little girl (for proper context, please realize I’m a very large girl) the first 100 times I heard this story, and to this day, I’ve never gotten all the way through it without a little mist forming in my (Tuba Uterina [Fallopii]; Fallopian Tube; Oviduct).

Ok, so you toughed it out? Good on ya, mate… I’ll make this quick, but I can’t promise painless. It’s the sort of pain you cannot avoid though, it’s the pain of childbirth, the pain of moving from finger painting to long division, the pain of realizing the French Revolution was neither truly French, nor ultimately revolutionary…but I digress.

So all this blue-planet bliss just couldn’t be tolerated by those wayward elementals whose glamour portrayed them as gods. Outraged that simple mortals would dare trespass on their stranglehold on pleasure, they formulated various and sundry (not to mention heavily clichéd) plans to strike fear into the content to be content populace of Mother Earth. Thor, oh mighty smiter that he is, thought to smite our progenitors (oops, poor word choice…think you could forget I said that? Superb!) as he had smitten…smoted, smiteded the giants. It was a really really successful giantcide he was able to levy agin the world, no one is arguing that, Hagrid be dammed, but that wasn’t exactly what the assembled assemblage had in mind. Zeus, in his finite wisdom had a better idea. In a previous campaign he’d had great success de-legging whales and turning dinosaurs, save Barney and Denver, into lizards. Therefore, ergo, concordantly, he summoned his most excellent bolts of lightening and did cleave him some children of the sun, moon, and earth.

Sounds like the end of our earthbound merriment, doesn’t it? I have to agree, it sounds simply dreadful for our just-wanted-to-be-left-alone heroes. I won’t dissemble, there was a heap of wailing and keening and general Jesus-f@cking-Christ-what-the-f@cki?ing going on around that time, and can you blame them? These malevolent bolts of God-decreed electricity shot down like shining blades of a knife, and it ripped right through the flesh of the children of the sun, and the moon and the earth. Not content with the damage they had wreaked, some Indian god sewed the wounds up in a hole, and Osiris and the gods of the Nile gathered up a big storm to blow a hurricane, to scatter them away, in a flood of wind and rain.

I believe the meaning behind this all is that we make our own gods, with what we think, what we say and what we do. These gods suck. And if we don't behave they'll get medieval on us once again (ok, it wasn’t quite the Middle Ages, it was a few thousand years before that, give or take an eon) and cut us down once more, and we'll be hopping round on one foot and looking through one eye.

No, that can’t be the meaning, that’s far too depressing, let me try again, if you don’t mind:

If this story has taught you anything, let it teach you that once upon a time we were all one, a big fleshly living Pangaea of hope, and we can get back to that bliss, if we keep our wits about ourselves and are mindful of what life/nature/ka is trying to tell us. For one day you may find someone, and you’ll swear by their expression that the pain down in their soul, is the same down in your own…that's the pain, cuts down a straight line, down through the heart; we call it love. So wrap our arms around each other, try to shove yourselves back together, when you are making love, making love.

It’s a sad sad story how we became lonely two-legged creatures, but it's also the story of the origin of love.


What does any of this have to do with the noble and damn near extinct little male elephants or homosexuals? Admittedly, not much, but it’s sort of a pretty story, and I thought you might want to know it.

[John McClane]

John - Yeah, okay, you're kind of right I think. I said, I THINK. Parents need to love their children, but they also need to teach them important life lessons, like how to chop wood with a large axe, how to wear clean looking clothes that are actually really dirty, how to pick up on chicks, how to chug beer like a man. You give me the burliest-butch-lesbian, and even compared to some "girlie man", the guy would have this ingrained gene that says, I can kick ass. Unless that man was raised by an over powered mom that smothered him and made him knit sweaters for the neighbors grandma, that would be a different story. I'm say, girls need a mom, and boys need a dad. First of all, most of the time a kid being raised by homo's is adopted, which by its self carries an increased probability of social problems and personal problems. Second, this kids got homo's as parents, which is gonna be more problems. Not from the parents, but from their peers. A boy raised by two moms is eaither gonna need a really close family friend to act as the father figure (which you hear about father figures a lot from kids with single parents or mother figures, think about that) or he's gonna be a whimp, or rebel and treat his mom's like crap.

I saw something on the discovery channel about these elephants. There was this punk ass boy elephant that was causin' all sorts of ruckus, punching other elephants, poking them, playing mean tricks and stuff, just a badass. That was until they dropped off this big ass male elephant, it respected the other elephants and was mature, then it kicked the little boy elephants ass. The little boy elephant was cool from then on. THINK ABOUT IT.

And, the bottom line is, homo's just want kids to try to prove something.
You really are obtuse. :yup:

[PimpDaShizzle]

You really are obtuse. :yup:

Your smiley face was pleasing. I was happy to be "obtuse," proud of myself, I even told some of my friends "Guess what guys, I'm obtuse, how bout' that."

All that was fine until I looked up the word. I would like to disagree now.

[PimpDaShizzle]

fo' sheezy?

Fo' Sheezy' - Slang Fo'; Fo' Sho', or Sho' Nuff', or Yeah Aight', or Coo, or For Sure my Friend.

And by the way, excellent story. I didn't read it, just parts, but the parts I did read, especially about magic and people glued together, was GOOD STUFF.

[John McClane]

Your smiley face was pleasing. I was happy to be "obtuse," proud of myself, I even told some of my friends "Guess what guys, I'm obtuse, how bout' that."

All that was fine until I looked up the word. I would like to disagree now.
Haha!! That's a good one. I have a story like that. My Spanish teacher said that this one kid asked how to say the b-word in Spanish so, she said the first b-word that came to mind; bajo. Well, one of her students asked why that kid kept calling everybody short. :)

[adidasss]

well, i got to about page 7 of this "debate".....i think all the basic viewpoints were expressed...

well, i suppose i just wonder what the stance of those who are so against homosexuality would be if they were born gay.....i think this thread would have been a lot shorter.....and i wonder if they would have a bit more compassion for those of us that were thrust into enviroments and families that hate you and want you dead for no particular reason at all......even the ones you hold dearest to your heart....for something you did not choose to be.....

it's very easy to pass judgment on something you know nothing about...

[Anonymous Last]

well, i got to about page 7 of this "debate".....i think all the basic viewpoints were expressed...

well, i suppose i just wonder what the stance of those who are so against homosexuality would be if they were born gay.....i think this thread would have been a lot shorter.....and i wonder if they would have a bit more compassion for those of us that were thrust into enviroments and families that hate you and want you dead for no particular reason at all......even the ones you hold dearest to your heart....for something you did not choose to be.....

it's very easy to pass judgment on something you know nothing about...

I liked it better with the Everlast quote.

[adidasss]

pshhh.....;)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

fo' sheezy?

Consider yourself lucky or me twisted, as I put fingers to keyboard, all for you.

When I *sniff* think of all the countless and tragic little hairy, three horned- male elephant deaths, due to the poor little things getting their necks *sniff* cracked by big male elephants in the hope and quest to find honey. (Young male elephants stink of honey. Don't cha know?)
It's sad...
F@ck it… I can’t go on.

Sadly, they are now all but extinguished from the face of the earth. Certain factions would have you believe pollution was to blame, still others would tell you they have left us for we touch ourselves, and a few particularly verbose nutters claim the UKIP Wales is to blame. I'll set the record straight:

Although they are fantastical creatures, they aren’t entirely things of myth. They first came into being when the earth was still flat, and the clouds made of fire, and mountains stretched up to the sky. The mighty, yet docile, three horned elephant had two sets or arms, two sets of legs, and two faces peering out of one giant head... with three hiorns of course. This allowed them to watch all around them and to talk while they read.

You have to realize, the world was still ripe with magic at that time, and no malefic force had yet thought to touch the children of the earth. Have I not mentioned the other denizens of this wobbly sphere? Let me address that now, as they were a curious lot, and not at all what you’d expect if you read such fairy tales as “The Bible” and “The Origin of Species”…you’d be much better off if you stuck to such tomes as “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” or perhaps “The Origin of Species”…but that’s just my opinion, and you don’t want that.

There were three sexes then:

One that looked like two men glued up back to back, called the children of the sun
Similar in shape and girth were the children of the earth, they looked like two girls rolled up in one
And the children of the moon, they were like a fork shoved on a spoon, they were part sun, part earth part daughter, part son

Sounds like a pretty fantastic time and place to find yourself a three horned elephant, now doesn’t it? I’d have to agree, there was no war, no poverty, no reality television, not even the smallest amount of strife to be found. Well, that was only partly true (although, there really was no reality television) because what our fancifully apportioned friends failed to realize, is that deific manifestations of our worst personal failings were espying them from above, with their ever so stylish green-tinted glasses. The strength and defiance shown by our tenants of paradise, found its way into the jaded heart of a preternatural pantheon most pugnacious in its putrescence.

Harbinger sharbinger…do you want me to stop telling this tale? It’s not very fun from here on out, and no one would question your decision to back out at this point. If it makes you feel any better, I cried like a little girl (for proper context, please realize I’m a very large girl) the first 100 times I heard this story, and to this day, I’ve never gotten all the way through it without a little mist forming in my (Tuba Uterina [Fallopii]; Fallopian Tube; Oviduct).

Ok, so you toughed it out? Good on ya, mate… I’ll make this quick, but I can’t promise painless. It’s the sort of pain you cannot avoid though, it’s the pain of childbirth, the pain of moving from finger painting to long division, the pain of realizing the French Revolution was neither truly French, nor ultimately revolutionary…but I digress.

So all this blue-planet bliss just couldn’t be tolerated by those wayward elementals whose glamour portrayed them as gods. Outraged that simple mortals would dare trespass on their stranglehold on pleasure, they formulated various and sundry (not to mention heavily clichéd) plans to strike fear into the content to be content populace of Mother Earth. Thor, oh mighty smiter that he is, thought to smite our progenitors (oops, poor word choice…think you could forget I said that? Superb!) as he had smitten…smoted, smiteded the giants. It was a really really successful giantcide he was able to levy agin the world, no one is arguing that, Hagrid be dammed, but that wasn’t exactly what the assembled assemblage had in mind. Zeus, in his finite wisdom had a better idea. In a previous campaign he’d had great success de-legging whales and turning dinosaurs, save Barney and Denver, into lizards. Therefore, ergo, concordantly, he summoned his most excellent bolts of lightening and did cleave him some children of the sun, moon, and earth.

Sounds like the end of our earthbound merriment, doesn’t it? I have to agree, it sounds simply dreadful for our just-wanted-to-be-left-alone heroes. I won’t dissemble, there was a heap of wailing and keening and general Jesus-f@cking-Christ-what-the-f@cki?ing going on around that time, and can you blame them? These malevolent bolts of God-decreed electricity shot down like shining blades of a knife, and it ripped right through the flesh of the children of the sun, and the moon and the earth. Not content with the damage they had wreaked, some Indian god sewed the wounds up in a hole, and Osiris and the gods of the Nile gathered up a big storm to blow a hurricane, to scatter them away, in a flood of wind and rain.

I believe the meaning behind this all is that we make our own gods, with what we think, what we say and what we do. These gods suck. And if we don't behave they'll get medieval on us once again (ok, it wasn’t quite the Middle Ages, it was a few thousand years before that, give or take an eon) and cut us down once more, and we'll be hopping round on one foot and looking through one eye.

No, that can’t be the meaning, that’s far too depressing, let me try again, if you don’t mind:

If this story has taught you anything, let it teach you that once upon a time we were all one, a big fleshly living Pangaea of hope, and we can get back to that bliss, if we keep our wits about ourselves and are mindful of what life/nature/ka is trying to tell us. For one day you may find someone, and you’ll swear by their expression that the pain down in their soul, is the same down in your own…that's the pain, cuts down a straight line, down through the heart; we call it love. So wrap our arms around each other, try to shove yourselves back together, when you are making love, making love.

It’s a sad sad story how we became lonely two-legged creatures, but it's also the story of the origin of love.


What does any of this have to do with the noble and damn near extinct little male elephants or homosexuals? Admittedly, not much, but it’s sort of a pretty story, and I thought you might want to know it.
I liked it better when Hedwig sang it, but it is a beautiful story, indeed.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I liked it better when Hedwig sang it, but it is a beautiful story, indeed.

but i could swear by your expression that the pain down in your soul was the same as the one down in mine...

Origin of Love? ;)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

but i could swear by your expression that the pain down in your soul was the same as the one down in mine...

Origin of Love? ;)
We're teetering dangerously on the edge of a sing-along, I can feel it! :D And wouldn't this be JUST the thread for it?!

[adidasss]

i love how the thread got rediculous after the 8th page......:)
EDIT: i also think it's very interesting how it's more socially acceptible to be a lesbian than a gay man....7thson mentioned it....men think of girl on girl action as very erotic, and i don't think you can say the same for women....regarding man on man action.....*is unnecessarily graphic*

[gummo]

Interesting how this thread got bumped up because I was about to go looking for it.

My philosophy professor said yesterday that she thinks homosexuals should tell people they are homosexual and if she knows someone is a homosexual she will tell people.

That's funny because I think she is a lesbian but she is in the closet. (this is beside the point however)

I don't agree that anyone should feel the need to "out" themselves just for the sake of letting others know. And who are you to "out" someone else???

Why is it that people assume you are straight, gay or whatever...what's it matter?

For the people who think it is sick or gross or whatever, maybe you should get your mind out of the gutter because there is more to a homosexual relationships than just sex. No one can help who they are attracted to or fall in love with.

[Pyro Tramp]

I have no problem with gay people (except the overtly flambouant guys who seem to be gay just for the image which they throw in everyones face) but i do disagree with gay marriage.

My 2 Cents.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

i love how the thread got rediculous after the 8th page......:)
EDIT: i also think it's very interesting how it's more socially acceptible to be a lesbian than a gay man....7thson mentioned it....men think of girl on girl action as very erotic, and i don't think you can say the same for women....regarding man on man action.....*is unnecessarily graphic*
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I have no problem seeing man-on-man action... except that they're usually over-groomed to a blinding sheen. :p I find it more erotic to see two attractive men together than a woman with a man who's totally gone couch potato.

I do have a bit of an aversion to seeing two women together, but it's because you can't turn around without seeing it, any more. I think the media frenzy over lesbianism is actually down to yet another attempt to sell sex to men, rather than any understanding for, or appreciation of actual lesbians.. or women, for that matter.

[adidasss]

Interesting how this thread got bumped up because I was about to go looking for it.

My philosophy professor said yesterday that she thinks homosexuals should tell people they are homosexual and if she knows someone is a homosexual she will tell people.

That's funny because I think she is a lesbian but she is in the closet. (this is beside the point however)

I don't agree that anyone should feel the need to "out" themselves just for the sake of letting others know. And who are you to "out" someone else???

Why is it that people assume you are straight, gay or whatever...what's it matter?

For the people who think it is sick or gross or whatever, maybe you should get your mind out of the gutter because there is more to a homosexual relationships than just sex. No one can help who they are attracted to or fall in love with.
wow....your professor can essentially ruine someones life.....people have legitimate reasons for not telling certain people.....however, everyone wants to be accepted and by telling ( people you trust of course...funny but that's still how it is ) you're letting them get to know you better ( even though you're just searching for aproval ). in any case,it's rather hard keeping it to yourself, and lying does get tedious after a while....could cause some problems if you never tell anyone i suppose....

and has anyone seen the l-word( tv series )? i cought it these past holidays.....man, i never knew lesbians were so attractive and promiscuous.....go figure....

[blibblobblib]

...but i do disagree with gay marriage.

My 2 Cents.What makes you disagree with it?

[Pyro Tramp]

Fair enough gay couples can be in love with each other, but i think marriage is a tradition between men and women and something that should be kept that way. I really disagree with children being raised by same sex parents and if marriage becomes exceptable, then i think that will. While i'm happy enough for gays couples, i don't think they should be extended the same rights as straight couples, the way i'm wired just says there's something wrong with it.

[ash_is_the_gal]

7thson mentioned it....men think of girl on girl action as very erotic, and i don't think you can say the same for women....regarding man on man action.....*is unnecessarily graphic*

are you kidding me?!

[Anonymous Last]

Fair enough gay couples can be in love with each otherI think they'll be very happy to know this.

[Pyro Tramp]

Well, people often disregard the fact that gay couples can actually be in love- i'm saying that i can understand that they can be.

Don't pick holes. :(

[Anonymous Last]

Well, people often disregard the fact that gay couples can actually be in love- i'm saying that i can understand that they can be.

Don't pick holes. :(

Sorry... that kind of stuff just taps me on the shoulder sometimes.

Pick holes, that's funny.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Fair enough gay couples can be in love with each other, but i think marriage is a tradition between men and women and something that should be kept that way. I really disagree with children being raised by same sex parents and if marriage becomes exceptable, then i think that will. While i'm happy enough for gays couples, i don't think they should be extended the same rights as straight couples, the way i'm wired just says there's something wrong with it.
Ok, but WHAT is wrong with it?
What is wrong with gay couples being able to be on each other's health insurance through work? What is wrong with gay couples being able to be legally recognised in any way, when they often own homes and cars and pets and share households for decades together? Why are those partnerships less important to the people in them than a hetero partnership? (And please note: I'm asking about the people IN them, not to you. You're not in any partnership right now. And once you are, the only one you'll be in is your own. Other people's legal partnerships won't be yours and won't affect you.)

[adidasss]

are you kidding me?!
no why? that's just the opinion i encounter from all but one woman i know, so that's how i made that conclusion....although some of them are willing to accept gay love, they still think men having sex with each other is "icky"....far from being erotic....i think it's just funny how homophobic men are ok with lesbians and find lesbian sex erotic.....are you saying that the majority of women find gay men having sex erotic? because that would be news to me....

[Pyro Tramp]

Ok, but WHAT is wrong with it?
What is wrong with gay couples being able to be on each other's health insurance through work? What is wrong with gay couples being able to be legally recognised in any way, when they often own homes and cars and pets and share households for decades together? Why are those partnerships less important to the people in them than a hetero partnership? (And please note: I'm asking about the people IN them, not to you. You're not in any partnership right now. And once you are, the only one you'll be in is your own. Other people's legal partnerships won't be yours and won't affect you.)


I don't think we should be arguing other who's opinion is correct, since we both are already. But if you want to know what i think is wrong i'm not sure i can answer. I've been brought up without any homosexual influences, marriage has always been something heterosexual couples share and has traditionally always been that way. I think i feel that gay couples, something that others consider wrong completely, shouldn't have the right to marry as it would be like saying their relationship is the same as that of a man and woman(i've said im happy enough for couples so don't think i'm a gay basher) which i can't help believing isn't.

[Tacitus]

marriage has always been something heterosexual couples share and has traditionally always been that way. I think i feel that gay couples, something that others consider wrong completely, shouldn't have the right to marry as it would be like saying their relationship is the same as that of a man and woman(i've said im happy enough for couples so don't think i'm a gay basher) which i can't help believing isn't.

How far back do you want to take this 'tradition'? Sisters dancing barefoot at the wedding so they would be sure of getting a husband? Not marrying on a Saturday (it was unlucky for Victorians)?

Gay marriage goes back to Roman times, is that not traditional enough?

Seriously though, do you actually think your life (or anyone else's) will be made worse by a same sex couple signing a few bits of paper and throwing a party? If they're being truthful to themselves, they're already in a loving relationship with hopes and aspirations of having a 'life' partner. So why not make it official?

The health insurance and inheritance benefits have already been covered. :)

http://www.unison.ie/images_papers/news/41/11790/pictures/326460.jpg
Relax guys, he's in a hetrosexual marriage...

[adidasss]

i think gay partnerships should be legalised, but of course, i myself am not too keep on it being called a marriage, nor do i think it should be sanctioned by the church....i was brought up a catholic, can't escape it.....still have a lot of prejudices ( that's why i still think it's funky to hear someone reffer to their gay partner as husband or wife ).....maybe that will change one day...

[Tacitus]

i think gay partnerships should be legalised, but of course, i myself am not too keep on it being called a marriage, nor do i think it should be sanctioned by the church....i was brought up a catholic, can't escape it.....still have a lot of prejudices ( that's why i still think it's funky to hear someone reffer to their gay partner as husband or wife ).....maybe that will change one day...


What we're talking about here (and correct me if I'm wrong, it happens too often for comfort) are Civil partnerships and Civil ceremonies, not Church weddings.

The ex Mrs T and myself didn't have a Church wedding either, we wouldn't have been comfy with it.

It was still a cast iron, legal marriage. :)

[blibblobblib]

I think i feel that gay couples, something that others consider wrong completely, shouldn't have the right to marry as it would be like saying their relationship is the same as that of a man and woman(i've said im happy enough for couples so don't think i'm a gay basher) which i can't help believing isn't.
I know you can't describe what you feel is 'wrong' about gay marriage, but surely you must be able to see that it is WRONG to say that a gay marriage is worth far less than a hetrosexual marriage? They both mean exactly the same thing and they are both performed for exactly the same reason (Ok well maybe not religious weddings). Whats the difference between them? The sex. Nothing more.

[gummo]

i think gay partnerships should be legalised, but of course, i myself am not too keep on it being called a marriage, nor do i think it should be sanctioned by the church....i was brought up a catholic, can't escape it.....still have a lot of prejudices ( that's why i still think it's funky to hear someone reffer to their gay partner as husband or wife ).....maybe that will change one day...

I'm not trying to pick away at what you said but if a straight man and woman get married but are not catholic and do not get married in a catholic church, do you agree with them being called a married couple?

[Pyro Tramp]

I just think some things should be left as they are. Men are meant to be with women. I'm not saying men can't be with men or women with women but the way i'm wired is

man + womam = correct, therefore marriage is the defining moment of that relationship and should be kept for that.

[adidasss]

What we're talking about here (and correct me if I'm wrong, it happens too often for comfort) are Civil partnerships and Civil ceremonies, not Church weddings.

The ex Mrs T and myself didn't have a Church wedding either, we wouldn't have been comfy with it.

It was still a cast iron, legal marriage. :)
em....yeah, same goes for civil ceremonies....i'm just not comfortable calling it marriage or wedding....or the husband and wife part....what i'm trying to say is that it SOUNDS strange....husband....doesn't feel right...I'm not trying to pick away at what you said but if a straight man and woman get married but are not catholic and do not get married in a catholic church, do you agree with them being called a married couple?
yes...

[Caitlyn]

They are preserving the sanctity of marriage, so that two gay men who've been together for twenty-five years can't get married, but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved! ~ Lea DeLaria

[gummo]

yes...


So if marriage is a catholic thing but straight people can get married outside the catholic church, then why can't gay people get married outside the catholic church?

[Anonymous Last]

So if marriage is a catholic thing but straight people can get married outside the catholic church, then why can't gay people get married outside the catholic church?

Sarah my friend, being gay in the Catholic Church is only allowed when it involves a minor and the law prohibits minors from being married.

[gummo]

Sarah my friend, being gay in the Catholic Church is only allowed when it involves a minor and the law prohibits minors from being married.

:rotfl:

[adidasss]

So if marriage is a catholic thing but straight people can get married outside the catholic church, then why can't gay people get married outside the catholic church?
you're missing the point, i'm all for the legalisation of a gay relationship, but i'm against it being called marriage....i blame social conditioning...
Sarah my friend, being gay in the Catholic Church is only allowed when it involves a minor and the law prohibits minors from being married.
those kind of statement piss me off beyond belief, it's very trendy to bash the catholic church in america these days isn't it?

[Anonymous Last]

those kind of statement piss me off beyond belief, it's very trendy to bash the catholic church in america these days isn't it?


Whoa, whoa, whoa... (that means stop horsy in American)! Take it easy. I kid around with it all and I'll apologize to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit later. But I'm sorry you feel the way you do. Please understand that America didn't tell those Priests to do there do on those kids. I don't know who did. (They should have hired some hottie nuns.) Would it have made you feel better if I attacked the Cub Scouts of America instead?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I just think some things should be left as they are. Men are meant to be with women. I'm not saying men can't be with men or women with women but the way i'm wired is

man + womam = correct, therefore marriage is the defining moment of that relationship and should be kept for that.
The legalization of gay marriage will not make it mandatory.

You can still pick your own mate. You just stay out of the business of curtailing other people's choices.

What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if the government decided that we need to keep the population from growing any more, and there was a lottery held to see who could be straight and who had to choose a same-sex partner. And you pick the 6" straw. Now YOU have to find the man of your dreams, because other people say so. It goes counter to what your gut tells you, not to mention your heart, and a few other parts. You're not attracted to men. But your government and the society in which you live tell you "this is what is moral".

[adidasss]

i just hate the fact that now all catholic priests are considered pedophiles, you know the percentage of sick twisted bastards in the catholic clergy is the same if not lower than in regards to the general population, it's just that their position is so high profile... you get a couple of maniacs, now everybody is a maniac....

[Anonymous Last]

i just hate the fact that now all catholic priests are considered pedophiles, you know the percentage of sick twisted bastards in the catholic clergy is the same if not lower than in regards to the general population, it's just that their position is so high profile... you get a couple of maniacs, now everybody is a maniac....

I know what you mean and I agree. Though, truly I was just kidding with it all. I have nothing against any religion and I didn't want to come off heartless with my humor. I send my daughter to a Catholic school and there are no problems...except the Parish tries to shake me down like the mafia. Later I'm going to have a sit down.

[Pyro Tramp]

The legalization of gay marriage will not make it mandatory.

You can still pick your own mate. You just stay out of the business of curtailing other people's choices.

What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if the government decided that we need to keep the population from growing any more, and there was a lottery held to see who could be straight and who had to choose a same-sex partner. And you pick the 6" straw. Now YOU have to find the man of your dreams, because other people say so. It goes counter to what your gut tells you, not to mention your heart, and a few other parts. You're not attracted to men. But your government and the society in which you live tell you "this is what is moral".

That would never happen. They'd use birth control to stop the population growing. Anyway, your scenario seems to be implying that I don't think gay couples should exist at all. I just think marriage should be reserved for heteros and perhaps gays can have thier own equivalent.

I don't get why you can't accept that I believe marriage should be reserved for men and women...

[SamsoniteDelilah]

That would never happen. They'd use birth control to stop the population growing. Anyway, your scenario seems to be implying that I don't think gay couples should exist at all. I just think marriage should be reserved for heteros and perhaps gays can have thier own equivalent.

I don't get why you can't accept that I believe marriage should be reserved for men and women...
I can't accept it because I think people should not censor healthy things in each other. And obviously the scenario I sketched won't happen... I mean... it's inconcievable that the government would attempt to dictate who we form a life with, in the form of allowing rights and priveledges only to those they approve of... right?

The must enduring relationship I know of is between two men, who used to be my business partners. I find it heartbreaking that they have spent their lives together... 20+ years now... and their partnership is considered by some to be "less" than that of heterosexual people who barely know each other but get a marriage licence. I consider that wrong, because I think a marriage should be more than a legal arrangement, and more than two people of certain types, posing like the topper on a cake, and pretending it means something.

I also know a lesbian couple who have two little sons. Those little boys have everything they need to be healthy and happy, and they are. You can see it. I have known lots of people.. on the other hand.. who had a parent of either gender and one of those parents was barely involved in their upbringing. Having two loving parents is much more valuable than the gender of those parents. Role models of each gender can still be made available... it's just the conditioning that is less. And I don't put much value on the "girls are pink and boys are blue" conditioning - I climbed too many trees in younger days not to see over that stuff.

You are saying that gay couples are all well and good, but that they should not be considered the equal of couples that have one of each gender. You're right: I can't accept that, especially when you have nothing to point to but a vague feeling that "something's not right". If you have no change in your own life or the choices available to you, then why dis-allow or discriminate on behalf of others? It isn't logical. It's control that you should not seek to assert.

Lastly, I have a lot to say on this topic because I know busloads of homos. That doesn't mean I'm typing my fingers into bloody stumps, over here. :D I'm perfectly calm and not upset with you in any way. I asked you some questions because I wanted to know what you thought. The fact that I now think that what you think isn't particularly developed... doesn't mean I don't like you. I just hope you'll keep thinking about it. You seem a fair-minded person in other things. I jsut think that there needs to be a distinction drawn between what we want for ourselves and where we draw the line, by use of the legal system, for others.

[Pyro Tramp]

I fully apreciate your point 100% and am not saying there's anything wrong with it, just something about gay marriage sits a little funny with me.

[adidasss]

hahaha....man, you're so asking for neg rep.....;)

EDIT: twas a joke, noone give the lad neg rep....

by the way ash, i'm still waiting on the explanation for the "are you kidding?" statement you made....you can't just say something like that and not elaborate on it.....

[Pyro Tramp]

What, i'm not allowed an opinion because it's different to other peoples?

[adidasss]

What, i'm not allowed an opinion because it's different to other peoples?
oh sorry, i thought you read the part when she says that it pisses her off slightly when someone says that "something just doesn't sit right with gay marriages" and doesn't explain it further.....which would make your response seem like a slight provocation....

and hey man, you can think what you like, to paraphrase Britney Spears...it's your prerogative....;)

[Anonymous Last]

and hey man, you can think what you like, to paraphrase Britney Spears...it's your prerogative....;)

...or Bobby Brown.

[Pyro Tramp]

Oh, i didn't read that bit- sorry Sammy. I said from my upbringing and having no exposure to gays probably has led to why i always associate marriage with men and women and not gays. It's just how what i think. Not arguing against anyone or saying im right.

[Ophelia]

Oh, i didn't read that bit- sorry Sammy. I said from my upbringing and having no exposure to gays probably has led to why i always associate marriage with men and women and not gays. It's just how what i think. Not arguing against anyone or saying im right.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate it...I myself had a similar upbringing, traditional, christian school etc. No exposure to gay people (which I knew of), I could even say I had little exposure to people of a different race.

I have a very different attitude than you with regards to this topic, therefore there is obviously a time were alot of personal choice comes into what we accept. We take responsibility for our own beliefs, after we figure out what we have been exposed to and learnt through primary socialisation, peers, environment influences and all that jazz.

All this confirms is that people are very different, open and closed to different things....a big melting pot.

[adidasss]

yes, but you can't deny the influence your upbringing and social conditioning has on your opinions. try as i might, i can't entirely shake the catholic standards that were drilled into my scull from childhood and are being shoved down my throught on a daily basis by everyone arround me ( sad part being that i'm gay )....you can't help but to start questioning certain things about yourself, to embrace certain standards....so i totally know where pyro is coming from, it was easier for him to embrace those standards as a norm ( being straight living in a hetero society), and it's very difficult to shake them at this point....

[ash_is_the_gal]

by the way ash, i'm still waiting on the explanation for the "are you kidding?" statement you made....you can't just say something like that and not elaborate on it.....

what? i just was disagreeing with what you said.

[adidasss]

what? i just was disagreeing with what you said.
what does that mean, that you think most girls find gay men having sex erotic?

[Sleezy]

The must enduring relationship I know of is between two men, who used to be my business partners. I find it heartbreaking that they have spent their lives together... 20+ years now... and their partnership is considered by some to be "less" than that of heterosexual people who barely know each other but get a marriage licence. I consider that wrong, because I think a marriage should be more than a legal arrangement, and more than two people of certain types, posing like the topper on a cake, and pretending it means something.

Bravo. :yup:

I fully apreciate your point 100% and am not saying there's anything wrong with it, just something about gay marriage sits a little funny with me.

Like everyone said, it's just not an idea you're used to. That's all. And let me tell you, there's absolutely nothing wrong with opening yourself a little more. I think part of the problem for some people is that they don't want to seem like they're against homosexuality, especially if they don't know much about it (or if they're afraid of the proverbial firing squad they might get in return) - but they're also reluctant to try to understand or get more experience, like homosexuality is some kind of sin that'll taint you just putting yourself close to "it."

I also know a lesbian couple who have two little sons. Those little boys have everything they need to be healthy and happy, and they are. You can see it. I have known lots of people.. on the other hand.. who had a parent of either gender and one of those parents was barely involved in their upbringing. Having two loving parents is much more valuable than the gender of those parents.

Yes! :yup:

I was recently reading the arguments of some guy on this issue, and he was trying to condemn homosexuals as parents by promoting the Christian family model: one father and one mother. But he doesn't understand that, in the real world, the application doesn't always measure up to the standard. He was trying to place this model over the most loving and stable homosexuals parents, and that's just not right.

yes, but you can't deny the influence your upbringing and social conditioning has on your opinions. try as i might, i can't entirely shake the catholic standards that were drilled into my scull from childhood and are being shoved down my throught on a daily basis by everyone arround me ( sad part being that i'm gay )....you can't help but to start questioning certain things about yourself, to embrace certain standards....so i totally know where pyro is coming from, it was easier for him to embrace those standards as a norm ( being straight living in a hetero society), and it's very difficult to shake them at this point....

But the measure of a learned, secure human being is how well he questions himself. When you just blindly accept what is shoved down your throat, especially when it's something as important as faith, you're doing yourself a great injustice. How well can you accept yourself when you don't question (and subsequently validate or debunk) that which is inside you? Asking questions is natural as it is essential to our collective well-being. If no one asked any questions, then how could we learn what is and isn't true, or what does and doesn't make sense to us?

[adidasss]

everyone asks questions, but that doesn't mean we can sudenly become tabula rasa, a clean slate, it's very difficult to get rid of your prejudices...it's a long process....it begins with asking questions....but it takes a long long time.....

[ash_is_the_gal]

what does that mean, that you think most girls find gay men having sex erotic?

am i allowed to say such a thing on here?

im going to go peel & eat a bananna now...

[adidasss]

am i allowed to say such a thing on here?

im going to go peel & eat a bananna now...
really?......i'm sorry, i can't wrap my head arround that......i just don't buy it....

[Thursday Next]

really?......i'm sorry, i can't wrap my head arround that......i just don't buy it....

Why not??

[adidasss]

dunno really....

[blibblobblib]

Pyro, you need to go out and actually meet some gay people. Im not like talking about going to a club and having a snog. Just seeing the other side of the fence. I hope you do one day.

[gummo]

Pyro, you need to go out and actually meet some gay people. Im not like talking about going to a club and having a snog. Just seeing the other side of the fence. I hope you do one day.


He will...he will

It's all a matter of time until he has a friend or a relative who comes out.

[hazii82]

wish I had come in on this earlier

[Pyro Tramp]

I know gay people, my neighbour is gay, my friend from college is gay, my friend at Uni is a lesbian, as are some of her friends who i know. I'm pretty sure i'm a lot younger than the Sammy or Blib, and probably a fair bit more niave- Sammy you're posts have certainly opened my mind a lot more, but still something with it aint right to me. Maybe in years to come, as i become wiser and homosexuality more common I may think differently. So till then.

[ash_is_the_gal]

really?......i'm sorry, i can't wrap my head arround that......i just don't buy it....

to be honest...i can't say this with utmost confidence, but...

i'd say its a guilty pleasure that most woman wouldn't admit to...

[Revenge of Mr M]

I know (well, acquainted with) scores of gay people. About 80% (well, ok not that many, but it seems like) of the guys who went to my secondary school have come out over the years. I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of homosexuality myself. Not because I think its wrong or anything, i just don't understand how a guy would not be turned on by this (http://www.platinum-celebs.com/celebs-wallpapers/penelope_cruz/penelope_cruz008.jpg) or this (http://my.toast.com.au/uploaded_images/kate-hudson-729162.jpg) for instance

[Tacitus]

Maybe in years to come, as i become wiser and homosexuality more common I may think differently. So till then.

I would say that there are far more gay people in this big ole world than, say, ginger people. How much more 'common' do you want? :)

http://secure.etstours.com/Content/TourPics/EltonJohn-2005_300x268.jpg

One in twenty?

[Sleezy]

really?......i'm sorry, i can't wrap my head arround that......i just don't buy it....

Most men find two women having sex erotic. How is the opposite so unfathomable?

[Pyro Tramp]

I would say that there are far more gay people in this big ole world than, say, ginger people. How much more 'common' do you want? :)


One in twenty?


Well, common as in receive just media representation for one, and common as in more socially accepted etc, i wasn't talking quanitities.

[adidasss]

Most men find two women having sex erotic. How is the opposite so unfathomable?
sorry, i've been sorrounded by homophobes all my life, that should explain a lot...

[Sleezy]

sorry, i've been sorrounded by homophobes all my life, that should explain a lot...

But that's what I'm saying, you're not trying to think like someone of the opposite sex. Not that it really matters in relation to this topic anyway...

[Tacitus]

Well, common as in receive just media representation for one, and common as in more socially accepted etc, i wasn't talking quanitities.

So you want more folks to 'accept' gay people before you take the plunge? Same goes with the media...

It's a good job you don't apply the same criteria to movies eh? :)

I'm not having a go, by the way, it's just a bit difficult for me to comprehend the reasoning. ;)

[adidasss]

But that's what I'm saying, you're not trying to think like someone of the opposite sex. Not that it really matters in relation to this topic anyway...
no, i asked the question in the first place because i was trying to apply the same logic with men to women but from personal experience that logic didn't apply.....i was wondering why that is, why do homophobic men find lesbian sex erotic ( hetero men find naked female bodies erotic, so two naked women=better than one, and they don't find lesbian sex offputting and unnatural....) but homophobic women find gay sex disgusting ( even though they should find the male body attractive )...i think it's interesting....one wonders why that is.....( oh and do stop me if this is getting too vulgar or graphic for this site )

[Sleezy]

Oh, I see.

Well, I've noticed that men seem to be more visually stimulated than women (though I don't know if it's true or not). That could be one reason.

[ash_is_the_gal]

but homophobic women find gay sex disgusting ( even though they should find the male body attractive )...i think it's interesting....one wonders why that is.....

i already said no!

( oh and do stop me if this is getting too vulgar or graphic for this site )

perhaps you should...

[adidasss]

i already said no!

you may feel that way but i think it's a fair assumption that 99% of homophobic women don't share your feelings...

and no reason to get upset....:)

[ash_is_the_gal]

you may feel that way but i think it's a fair assumption that 99% of homophobic women don't share your feelings...

and no reason to get upset....:)

i am not upset, i was just emphasizing my point....because, i said it already.

and NO! no no no! :D

[adidasss]

yes...yes! yes! yes!

[gummo]

Probably 99% of homophobic women find man on man sex disgusting. Hence the term, homophobic. For straight women who are not homophobic, I bet a lot of them either are attracted or else couldn't give a flying turd about homosexual sex.

However, I admit to being bisexual and No, I am not attracted to man on man sex. I don't find it disgusting, just not what I'm into.

[nebbit]

Probably 99% of homophobic women find man on man sex disgusting. Hence the term, homophobic. For straight women who are not homophobic, I bet a lot of them either are attracted or else couldn't give a flying turd about homosexual sex.

:yup:

[ash_is_the_gal]

i love you mofo woman...so much! :p

[Equilibrium]

lol this was a very fun thread for me.(if you read the first 2 or 3 pages you would know lol)

maybe when i have more time ill come back and post my opinions.

[Golgot]

Everyone gets so vocal on these subjects...

disappreement

Wha? ;)

[Dazed&Confused]

I don't understand why I am getting such bad rep for this, I really didn't intend to insult anyone. I don't like being called moronic, foolish, cowardly, and everything else I was called. Giving someone bad reputation points even when they went out of their way to say they ACCEPT gay people, they just don't agree with it.

I won't back down from what I said earlier. But, I will rephrase so that everyone who bad reped me will see that I am in fact an accepting person, going to a college in which 55% of the students are either gay or bi. So if anything, I'll be around more gay people the next 4 years than most of my life.

Although I ACCEPT gay people, I personally would never do anything like it because I don't think its right. I don't think fighting is right either, but I don't reject someone or anything just because they were in a fight. See wwhat I am saying?
I ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT get it???
I mean what more do I need to say, except CHANGE my opinion, which I will not.

I think it's wrong too along with many scientists and psychologists who believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder

[adidasss]

I think it's wrong too along with many scientists and psychologists who believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder
damn!! i never realized i was crazy!! holy crap....*runs to a psychiatrist so maybe he can cure him*....

you're retarded.

[Golgot]

I think it's wrong too along with many scientists and psychologists who believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder

Wanna back that statement up with some sources?

I shall leave you with Malcolm the very camp cat (http://www.thecatgallery.com/images/Mel-cat-face.jpg) in the mean time. (Don't go near him. He's mad he is).

[ash_is_the_gal]

so Golg...do you have a picture demand service where i can request a picture of a cat doing anything? cause i'd really like to test that theory, if you don't mind!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Wanna back that statement up with some sources?

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual.

For more info on homosexuals, read this: http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm

[Golgot]

so Golg...do you have a picture demand service where i can request a picture of a cat doing anything? cause i'd really like to test that theory, if you don't mind!

Oh yes, i have cats for every occasion. Just shout in the shout box and one will arrive (to save the day (http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9327/42ccec472c3cd7sm.jpg))

[Golgot]

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual.

For more info on homosexuals, read this: http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm

Thanking you senyor Sexy. Have a bit of rough (http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5246/construction6wt.jpg) as your prize ;)

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'm afraid to click that. I'm at work. I'll look at it later. ;)

[Golgot]

Get ready for a big surpriiiise :D

[adidasss]

I shall leave you with Malcolm the very camp cat (http://www.thecatgallery.com/images/Mel-cat-face.jpg) in the mean time. (Don't go near him. He's mad he is).

http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/2236/rotfl3qo.gifhttp://img328.imageshack.us/img328/2236/rotfl3qo.gifhttp://img328.imageshack.us/img328/2236/rotfl3qo.gif

you're one crazy bastard....

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Gg, you may be suprised, too. They've disabled hotlinking from that site. ;)

Sexy, thanks for posting that. It's suprising that homosexuality was mis"diagnosed" as recently as 1972, but heartening to know that there is no official voice behind the fearful ignorance of those who don't understand.

[Golgot]

Gg, you may be suprised, too. They've disabled hotlinking from that site. ;)

Homophobes!

Have they? Still works for me. Ah well, i'll host it somewhere then...

[blibblobblib]

damn!! i never realized i was crazy!! holy crap....*runs to a psychiatrist so maybe he can cure him*...
Are you gay adidasss?

[adidasss]

Are you gay adidasss?
i'll let you know after i visit the psychiatrist....there might still be a chance i'm not....

[Sexy Celebrity]

Who is gay or bisexual at Movie Forums? I, myself, am a gay man.

[Golgot]

Out! Out!

(that's two outs)

[adidasss]

Who is gay or bisexual at Movie Forums? I, myself, am a gay man.
lets start a club!!...we can throw tea parties.....and stuff....

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I am a gay man, trapped in the body of a voluptuous woman.
Curse the luck.

[SmegFirk]

http://web.tiscali.it/fabioracco2/images/Whois05.gif

"perhaps you is all homosexuals"

[Revenant]

I'm the odd one out. I'm celibate. http://www.silenthillforum.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/daisy.gif

[Caitlyn]

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual.

For more info on homosexuals, read this: http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm


Thanks for the link Sexy... A psychiatrist, Dr. Charles Socarides, was widely responsible for perpetrating the myth that homosexuals were all mentally ill… he believed that male homosexuality was the result of having an overbearing mother and a weak uncaring father… and claimed to have cured numerous homosexuals during the 1960's... ironically enough, one of his own sons turned out to be homosexual…

[SmegFirk]

Thanks for the link Sexy... A psychiatrist, Dr. Charles Socarides, was widely responsible for perpetrating the myth that homosexuals were all mentally ill… he believed that male homosexuality was the result of having an overbearing mother and a weak uncaring father… and claimed to have cured numerous homosexuals during the 1960's... ironically enough, one of his own sons turned out to be homosexual…
That Dr. Charles Socarides always seemed a little weak to me...



His wife was a little overbearing, too.

[Caitlyn]

His wife was a little overbearing, too.


Which one... ;)

[Darth Stujitzu]

Why can't we all just try to get along????
Live and let live is my moto, but it is my general finding that most men can be really sleazy, gay or straight.
I'm a 100% woman loving kinda guy, but I'm not homophobic, I just love women tooooooooooo much!!!!
Why is it though if you do spurn the advances of a sleazy gay guy that you're homophobic??? :eek:
Yes, I've heard them all, " all men are gay " :nope:
" you won't know unless you try it " :yawn:
" I could turn you gay " :scream: :nope:
I guess working in a mostly gay bar has definetly assured me of my sexual preference, you single ladies just don't know how lucky you are!!!!! :randy: :nope: :laugh:

Anyhoo, this post was done with humour, please no tizzy fits or name calling, I have worked with loads of gay men and women, some I liked and were friends with, others I wasn't so keen on, that's life, you won't get on with everybody no matter how hard you try.

[adidasss]

Why can't we all just try to get along????
Live and let live is my moto, but it is my general finding that most men can be really sleazy, gay or straight.
I'm a 100% woman loving kinda guy, but I'm not homophobic, I just love women tooooooooooo much!!!!
Why is it though if you do spurn the advances of a sleazy gay guy that you're homophobic??? :eek:
Yes, I've heard them all, " all men are gay " :nope:
" you won't know unless you try it " :yawn:
" I could turn you gay " :scream: :nope:
I guess working in a mostly gay bar has definetly assured me of my sexual preference, you single ladies just don't know how lucky you are!!!!! :randy: :nope: :laugh:

Anyhoo, this post was done with humour, please no tizzy fits or name calling, I have worked with loads of gay men and women, some I liked and were friends with, others I wasn't so keen on, that's life, you won't get on with everybody no matter how hard you try.
i think you are a bit homophobic...i have no idea who came on to you with those phrases, but what i don't understand is why straight people are so touchy about men hitting on them...just say no thanks for gods sake....it should really be taken as a compliment....

i just don't get it....

[SamsoniteDelilah]

i think you are a bit homophobic...i have no idea who came on to you with those phrases, but what i don't understand is why straight people are so touchy about men hitting on them...just say no thanks for gods sake....it should really be taken as a compliment....

i just don't get it....
Come see me, honeybunches, I can straighten you out. ;) ;) ;)






















If that creeped you out, then you understand what Darth is talking about. He specifically said it was sleazy men's come-ons he objected to. Anyone disrespecting the preferences of another person is going to send them running for the hills if they keep at it. Doesn't mean the one running is scared of them... just that they're not interested and not being heard.

[Darth Stujitzu]

Like I stated men are sleazy weather they're gay or straight.
Cheesy chat up lines are cheesy no matter if they're coming from gay or straight men.
I have been called homophobic and racist in the past, mostly by ignorant people who didn't know me, I am neither, my post was written with humour and wasn't meant to cause offence.
The guy who used those lines on me tried relentlesly for about 2 years to " convert " me, and whilst at first I just laughed it off, after a while it became tedious and annoying.
I treat people as individuals, to me it's all about who the person is, their personality, and what makes them tick, I have friends in all shapes ,sizes , genders, colour and sexual preference,one of my flatmates in New York is a lesbian who had a sex change and is now a gay man, so if you still think I'm homophobic,sorry, but I'm happy with my attitude towards people in general, and don't consider myself homophobic.

One last thing to think about, you state I should have taken it as a compliment and just said no, I did several times, even my girlfriend was ready to punch the guy, but why then did the guy label me homophobic? If I acted the same way towards a girl, I'd be called sleazy, or a stalker.
Anyway, this was always going to be a complicated thread, as stated no offence is meant, please read both my posts again, and bear in mind most of my posts on this forum are of the humourous nature, and I have no problem taking the piss out of myself.

[adidasss]

Come see me, honeybunches, I can straighten you out. ;) ;) ;)
why sammy, i didn't know you were interested in young boys...*flies to L.A.*..;)

If that creeped you out, then you understand what Darth is talking about. He specifically said it was sleazy men's come-ons he objected to. Anyone disrespecting the preferences of another person is going to send them running for the hills if they keep at it. Doesn't mean the one running is scared of them... just that they're not interested and not being heard.
nah, i think i can pick up a bit of a macho attitude, usually people who are a bit homophobic feel the need to say they're not....people who have absolutely no problems don't bother to explain themselves because there's nothing to explain....


EDIT: hahaha...i just read your post, don't worry darth, i wouldn't be offended even if you were a homophob ( i have no idea if you are or not...i make wild accusations a lot of times...what can i say )...don't get all excited man, it's all cool....

[Darth Stujitzu]

Sometimes you just can't win!!!!
That's my main problem with forums, you can never properly judge what tone a post is written in.
If you knew me adidasss, then I would accept what you say, but hey lets agree to disagree or something.


P.S. Me, macho????
Don't buy into that macho guy stuff, more an arty type of guy.

[adidasss]

hahha...sorry darth...read my edit....me and you=cool as school....;)

[Darth Stujitzu]

Ok, group hug, but no pinching!!!!! :laugh:
Wait is that a torch in your pocket........ :eek:

[adidasss]

no, i'm just really happy to see you!!*grabs darths ass* woooaah!!;)

[Darth Stujitzu]

That'll be £ 25 please, frontal grabs are £ 50 a pop!
Oh wait, you've small hands, we'll call it £ 35!!!!!

[adidasss]

That'll be £ 25 please, frontal grabs are £ 50 a pop!
Oh wait, you've small hands, we'll call it £ 35!!!!!
so you think your ass is worth that money? why, i do believe a randy smiley is in order... :randy: :randy: :randy:

[blibblobblib]

P.S. Me, macho????
Don't buy into that macho guy stuff, more an arty type of guy.
Can i take you to dinner Darthy? I know a FABULOUS restaurant where all they have on the menu is ******s and peas and the waitress is called Taloolah Baloo.

[Darth Stujitzu]

You see Adidasss, Blib is still asking me out, and not even a rubber band in sight!!!!
Going back to New York In July Blib, fancy a drink in Chelsea????

[Caitlyn]

Did you hear about the Scottish drag queen? He wore pants. ~ Lynn Lavner





Sorry... :D

[Darth Stujitzu]

Did you hear about the Scottish drag queen? He wore pants. ~ Lynn Lavner





Sorry... :D


Did you substitute Scottish for Irish???

[Caitlyn]

Did you substitute Scottish for Irish???


:nope: 'Tis the way I found it...

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Can i take you to dinner Darthy? I know a FABULOUS restaurant where all they have on the menu is ******s and peas and the waitress is called Taloolah Baloo.
:D Blibby, that AV and sig make me grin. I'm going to see Hedwig... screened at Dreamworks on Thursday. Can't wait!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Can i take you to dinner Darthy? I know a FABULOUS restaurant where all they have on the menu is ******s and peas and the waitress is called Taloolah Baloo.

Darthy... sounds like Dorothy. Miss Judy Garland. Oh, my, the gayness! The gayness!

[Darth Stujitzu]

Darthy... sounds like Dorothy. Miss Judy Garland. Oh, my, the gayness! The gayness!



Who you callin' Dorothy, its Rebecca, but only on the weekends! :laugh:

[dojo]

I have nothing against them. I had a coleague who's loved died in a car crash. it was one of the few occasions I have seen a man cry. Then it just hit me: if something happened to my BF I think I would be devastated ... I have cried for 1 month just because he left to Germany for some months ... I can't imagine living without him. So .. I think THEY love as much as WE love. As long as they are not trying to convince me or somebody I love about anything, they are just OK.

[blibblobblib]

So .. I think THEY love as much as WE love. As long as they are not trying to convince me or somebody I love about anything, they are just OK.
FANTASTIC insight there. THEY certainly can be OK at times. You know once i saw a hedgehog looking forelorn next to another dead hedgehog on the side of the road. Turns out THEY love like we do too!You see Adidasss, Blib is still asking me out, and not even a rubber band in sight!!!!
Well.....wait until you meet Taloolah. Oh the things she can do with rubber bands and cocktail sticks. It'll make your eyes water....In a good way!

As for Chelsea, IM THERE.:D Blibby, that AV and sig make me grin. I'm going to see Hedwig... screened at Dreamworks on Thursday. Can't wait!
ARG Sammy i am Jeeeelous. Let me know how it was seeing it on the big screen again! Ive been meaning to see the Hedwig for a long long time, ever since you reccomended it to me an eon ago. But i never got around to it until last Saturday night. And i was blown away. Absoloutly superb. Great great music and what an awsome script. John Cameron Mitchell actually might be a legend i think.

[Unas]

I hope i can be forgiven for not ploughing through all 20 pages of this thread, but i read the first few. My two cents, in regard to the subject as well as those posts: why does there even have to be a purpose to homosexuality, why does it have to contribute to society ? Is there a problem with it being not 'natural' ? If they are happy that way and they're not particularly harming anyone with it, it should be ok. There's already so much on this planet that aren't really contributing to it or that aren't natural and we aren't talking/discussing/complaining about those things (or not as much at least).

As far as god's intentions go, i don't really think he's out there. And if he were i still don't think anyone should not be gay because he doesn't want you to. He enabled your life and made you able to think and decide for your own, so then he should let you do just that.

[Unas]

To answer to OP's post:

Not nearly all people accept homosexuality at this moment, but there's progress. I believe that in the future it will be even more accepted. It's one of those ideas that people need time to get used to.

As for knowing gay people, I myself am bisexual, so that sort of counts i guess :P and i do know some people that are either homo or bisexual, not at all different from other people really.

[adidasss]

it's been a while since this thread was bumped hasn't it....
one thing that i just can't figure out is why so many people hate homosexuals...i mean truly despize homosexuals....i don't mind people who don't agree with that ( although i don't understand why not ), but people who go out of their way to show you how much they hate you ( even though they don't know you ), i just don't get it....how can you HATE someone who has not harmed you in any way?.....and 9 times out of 10 these hateful people will tell you they're christians...the hypocracy is overwhealming.....

[Golgot]

Maybe you should turn your cheeks to them ;)

(Alright, not funny. I know things are pretty fiesty out your way)

[adidasss]

Maybe you should turn your cheeks to them ;)

(Alright, not funny. I know things are pretty fiesty out your way)
i don't know if i've mentioned it before, but we are a country who's parlamentarians can get away with saying "******" in parliament....( with sniggering response from the rest of the parliament )...that pretty much sums up the general attitude towards homosexuals in Croatia....

[blibblobblib]

i don't know if i've mentioned it before, but we are a country who's parlamentarians can get away with saying "******" in parliament....( with sniggering response from the rest of the parliament )...that pretty much sums up the general attitude towards homosexuals in Croatia....
Move to England and you can dance down the street wearing a long white dress and black satin gloves whilst singing elecro trance beats and no one would bat an eyelid!

Although they would almost definatly lock you in the Big Brother house.

[John McClane]

What I don't understand is how people can say homosexuality is disgusting without giving a reason. I know a friend that says it's disgusting. I ask why and he says it's JUST disgusting. So are we to say it's disgusting to love? Seems like an odd way of thinking to me.

And why hate someone with out getting to know them? I mean, even just a little bit. I usually have a better reason why I hate someone. Such as they act like an @$$ or they're immature. And that's after having maybe 2 or 3 conversations with them. But it's better then not talking to them and saying they're bad.

[adidasss]

in most cases i can dismiss such people because they're usually retards....but what puzzles me more is intelligent people that have a problem with it. i get religious people, although i would say i'm religious myself and have found a way to be both gay and religious at the same time...
as far as the sexual part is concerned, i really would like some homophobe to explain just why they find sex between two men disgusting and not between two women...
i've often tried talking sensibly to homophobes but i always hit a wall...it's very hard to change someones mind about it....but i can't help but to try...

[Lance McCool]

You don't have to be a retard to have a problem with gay people.

I think homophobia usually stems from a person's upbringing, their community and, of course, their religion. Some people are just scared by the idea of homosexuality because it seems so far from the norm to them. And sometimes the only way these people can handle it is by lashing out with violence and hatred.

i've often tried talking sensibly to homophobes but i always hit a wall...it's very hard to change someones mind about it....but i can't help but to try...

When you've been in that mindset for a long enough time, it's understandable that you might be a little reluctant to change.

[John McClane]

as far as the sexual part is concerned, i really would like some homophobe to explain just why they find sex between two men disgusting and not between two women...
i've often tried talking sensibly to homophobes but i always hit a wall...it's very hard to change someones mind about it....but i can't help but to try...There are those that believe both are disgusting. I have a friend that believes both to be disgusting. Then there are some who see nothing wrong with either one. (Me) The ones that see sex between two of the same is because they wouldn't think of doing it. While the other same members sex wouldn't be a problem because it doesn't involve their sex whether it be male or female. If that made any sense. Haha!

[adidasss]

You don't have to be a retard to have a problem with gay people.

I think homophobia usually stems from a person's upbringing, their community and, of course, their religion. Some people are just scared by the idea of homosexuality because it seems so far from the norm to them. And sometimes the only way these people can handle it is by lashing out with violence and hatred.
no i didn't mean all homophobes are retards...just the ones that go out of their way to insult and berate you for no perticualr reason....

[Lance McCool]

no i didn't mean all homophobes are retards...just the ones that go out of their way to insult and berate you for no perticualr reason....

Yeah, and I totally agree. But they're not usually doing it for "no reason". They're usually doing it because they have a serious moral issue with homosexuality.

Personally, I've got no problem with that lifestyle. But I do feel that a person's beliefs and their intelligence are two different things altogether. A card-carrying KKK member can still have an IQ of 140.

[adidasss]

Yeah, and I totally agree. But they're not usually doing it for "no reason". They're usually doing it because they have a serious moral issue with homosexuality.
yes, but i would think that being violent in your dislike towards homosexuals would have to be because you feel somehow threatened.....and i don't see why or how....if you don't agree with that "lifestyle" just ignore it....
if people in my village knew i was gay they would completely ostracise me, some might get violent...and i'm trying to rationalize it...why would anyone care what others do in the bedroom? do i care what they do? i think not....

[adidasss]

Personally, I've got no problem with that lifestyle. But I do feel that a person's beliefs and their intelligence are two different things altogether.
i don't agree, i think you'll find many more intelligent people amongst liberal minds than with religious people....percentage wise i mean....

[Lance McCool]

i don't agree, i think you'll find many more intelligent people amongst liberal minds than with religious people....percentage wise i mean....

That may be, but I don't think it's as lopsided as you seem to believe.

[Golgot]

i don't agree, i think you'll find many more intelligent people amongst liberal minds than with religious people....percentage wise i mean....

Heheheh. Hold on to your hat. Yods will probably try and scalp you for that ;)

I agree with Lance's general thrust (imprudent pun intended) - beliefs and instincts can permeate all our onion-layers of rationality and subtlety.

Perhaps it's partially a question of the beliefs and instincts we start with?

[adidasss]

Heheheh. Hold on to your hat. Yods will probably try and scalp you for that ;)

I agree with Lance's general thrust (imprudent pun intended) - beliefs and instincts can permeate all our onion-layers of rationality and subtlety.

Perhaps it's partially a question of the beliefs and instincts we start with?
yes well, i DID say percentage wise,i'm sure there are plenty of people with above average intelligence in both groups...


oh and you'll have to explain what you meant in the rest of that post like i'm a three year old...what is partially a question of the beliefs we start with? you lost me...

edit: i also wonder if people like yoda, who is if i'm not mistaken very religious, can have gay people as close friends...he has been very PC about the whole issue so i'm not sure where he stands on that....

[Purandara88]

You're talking about a complex subject with a multitude of causes. For many, there's obviously a seriously irrational element that originates either in religious dogmatism or in early socialization.

On the other hand, it's hard to look rationally at the gay culture and the gay lifestyle as they have come to be constructed in the West without acknowledging the seriously self-destructive streak that permeates both.

[adidasss]

what is the self-destructive streak that permaetes both?
even if people have a problem with promiscuity, is that a reason to hate someone?

[Golgot]

oh and you'll have to explain what you meant in the rest of that post like i'm a three year old...what is partially a question of the beliefs we start with? you lost me...

Ugh, um, short story would be:

The beliefs we're exposed to at an early age permeate our thoughts in later life, but they don't necessarily dictate how explorative or intelligent we are as adults.

I do reckon, however, that those brought up with God/Devil religions are more liable to zone in on 1/0 certainties - and are extra limited by having to rationalise their experiences through the treatises of their religious books.

That's not to say that those brought up in 'secular' environments aren't also given 'polarised' views of the world to varying degrees - and that they don't endorse comfortable certainties when 'given the chance'.

Me and Yods had a go at justifying the advantages/logic of either side in a thread called something like 'World Spirituality vs Orthodox Christianity' years back. But it's barely decipherable to even native speakers ;)

I guess i'm saying, the religiously-bred ain't dumb, but they might not question as broadly as those brought up under less authority-limited rules-of-thumb.

(That's just no clearer is it ;))

[Purandara88]

what is the self-destructive streak that permaetes both?

Promiscuity in the age of AIDS is obviously the most prominent (and promiscuity itself has risk factors that go way, way beyond susceptibility to STD's), but there are a whole range of risky behaviors that are prevalent in the gay community, most notably substance abuse

even if people have a problem with promiscuity, is that a reason to hate someone?

Life doesn't always break down into simple memes like 'hatred' or 'tolerance.' You're talking about reactions that, even on the negative side, run the gamut from general uneasiness about the particulars of the gay lifestyle, to a distaste for the politicization of sexual choice, to anger at a community that has tried to equate the prohibition on same sex marriage with the Holocaust and Jim Crow, to 'God Hates F@gs!' You can't reduce that to simple 'hatred' without losing the whole range of meaning, intent, and causation that variety implies.

[adidasss]

Ugh, um, short story would be:

The beliefs we're exposed to at an early age permeate our thoughts in later life, but they don't necessarily dictate how explorative or intelligent we are as adults.

I do reckon, however, that those brought up with God/Devil religions are more liable to zone in on 1/0 certainties - and are extra limited by having to rationalise their experiences through the treatises of their religious books.

That's not to say that those brought up in 'secular' environments aren't also given 'polarised' views of the world to varying degrees - and that they don't endorse comfortable certainties when 'given the chance'.

Me and Yods had a go at justifying the advantages/logic of either side in a thread called something like 'World Spirituality vs Orthodox Christianity' years back. But it's barely decipherable to even native speakers ;)

I guess i'm saying, the religiously-bred ain't dumb, but they might not question as broadly as those brought up under less authority-limited rules-of-thumb.

(That's just no clearer is it ;))
i'm pretty sure that the ability to question things is directly connected with intelligence and has little to do with someones religious background...( and intelligence is genetically conditioned no? how can someones religious beliefs influence that?)...i never said the religiously bred are dumb...i'm just saying that in my experience, people who are less religious and more liberal in their way of thinking are on average more intelligent than those who accept things they have been taught without giving much thought to it. it's useless trying to have a intelligent discussion about homosexuality with retarded people who refuse to think outside the box....what am i saying..it's useless trying to talk to anyone who is set in their way as you yourself have experienced in this very thread....escape is obviously a very intelligent person yet very much constrained by his religious beliefs...it was a matter of choice for him i'm sure as he is intelligent enough to question those beliefs....which saddens me a great deal more than people who simply can't do any better than what they have been taught....am i making any sense? it's 6am and i haven't slept....this post may well be retarded....:)Promiscuity in the age of AIDS is obviously the most prominent (and promiscuity itself has risk factors that go way, way beyond susceptibility to STD's), but there are a whole range of risky behaviors that are prevalent in the gay community, most notably substance abuse



Life doesn't always break down into simple memes like 'hatred' or 'tolerance.' You're talking about reactions that, even on the negative side, run the gamut from general uneasiness about the particulars of the gay lifestyle, to a distaste for the politicization of sexual choice, to anger at a community that has tried to equate the prohibition on same sex marriage with the Holocaust and Jim Crow, to 'God Hates F@gs!' You can't reduce that to simple 'hatred' without losing the whole range of meaning, intent, and causation that variety implies.
you're right, there are varying degrees of homophobia..and i don't understand any of them.....i don't understand why homosexual "behaviour" is considered moraly wrong, i don't understand why people are disgusted by homosexuals or why anyone would have a problem with gay marriages...i don't see how any of that would concern anyone personally....
i don't know in what sense the equasion of homosexuals to the holocaust was made, but lets not forget, homosexuals were also included in the holocaust and were hated just as much as jews....the comparison with the position of jews during the nazi rule in germany does stand to a certain extent...at least where i live...because we are generally hated and forced to hide our sexual prefferences to avoid problems...
and the behaviour of gay people in the west is hardly representative of the entire gay comunity...( what ever the hell that is )....


slight digression, i'm very much pissed off that religion is still the prevailing factor why certain citizens are prevented from excersizing their rights as members of society ( equal in every way ). even in countries such as the US where the separation between the church and the state is supposed to be implemented, gay marriages are still not legalized....can anyone tell me why?


exuse the sucky spelling...;)

[nebbit]

if people in my village knew i was gay they would completely ostracise me, some might get violent.......

That is really sad for you Addie, I send you a :kiss: from my little village in Australia that has a lot of Homosexuals, who are well thought of and respected :yup:

[adidasss]

That is really sad for you Addie, I send you a :kiss: from my little village in Australia that has a lot of Homosexuals, who are well thought of and respected :yup:
meh...it's how things are....i try not to dwell on it too much...i wont be living there anyway....

[Purandara88]

you're right, there are varying degrees of homophobia

There you go with the absurdly reductive memes again. There's simply no way that you can write off a whole array of entirely rational objections to gay culture and gay politics as they currently exist with short hand references like 'homophobia.'


..and i don't understand any of them

Of course you don't. You're gay and your life and experience is situated such that any critical appraisal of homosexuality as it exists in the West is alien to your experience.

i don't know in what sense the equasion of homosexuals to the holocaust was made, but lets not forget, homosexuals were also included in the holocaust and were hated just as much as jews

I've seen this claim advanced before, but there's precious little historical evidence for it. The SS and the SA were both notorious among regular German formations for their lax discipline, and the tolerance of homosexuality in those units (at a time when it was still a crime against good order and discipline in every military force on earth) was a big reason for that reputation. The Holocaust is such a foundational element of the moral myth making of our world that many groups, including gays, have tried to glom a little of its pity party magic from the real victims (Jews and Gypsies), but it doesn't make such claims historically accurate.

[adidasss]

There you go with the absurdly reductive memes again. There's simply no way that you can write off a whole array of entirely rational objections to gay culture and gay politics as they currently exist with short hand references like 'homophobia.'
sure i can...would you mind going a little deeper and actually explaining those "rational" objections to gay culture and politics?



I've seen this claim advanced before, but there's precious little historical evidence for it. The SS and the SA were both notorious among regular German formations for their lax discipline, and the tolerance of homosexuality in those units (at a time when it was still a crime against good order and discipline in every military force on earth) was a big reason for that reputation. The Holocaust is such a foundational element of the moral myth making of our world that many groups, including gays, have tried to glom a little of its pity party magic from the real victims (Jews and Gypsies), but it doesn't make such claims historically accurate.

"The Nazi's passed other laws that targeted sex offenders. In 1933, they enacted the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Measures for Protection and Recovery. This law gave German judges the power to order compulsory castrations in cases involving rape, defilement, illicit sex acts with children (Paragraph 176), coercion to commit sex offenses (paragraph 177), the committing of indecent acts in public including homosexual acts (paragraph 183), murder or manslaughter of a victim (paragraphs 223-226), if they were committed to arouse or gratify the sex drive, or homosexual acts with boys under 14. The Amendment to the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases dated June 26, 1935, allowed castration indicated by reason of crime for men convicted under paragraph 175 if the men consented. These new laws defined homosexuals as "asocials" who were a threat to the Reich and the moral purity of Germany. The punishment for "chronic homosexuals" was incarceration in a concentration camp. A May 20, 1939 memo from Himmler allows concentration camp prisoners to be blackmailed into castration."

the rest can be found here: http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html

[Purandara88]

You're aware that internment is not equivalent to the systematic extermination of Jews and Gypsies, right, and that the Nazi laws specifically dealt with offenders who habitually practiced their sex acts in public (i.e. deviants)?

[John McClane]

You're aware that internment is not equivalent to the systematic extermination of Jews and Gypsies, right, and that the Nazi laws specifically dealt with offenders who habitually practiced their sex acts in public (i.e. deviants)?You do know some would say you'd be historically incorrect by placing Gypsies along with the Jews, right?

[adidasss]

You're aware that internment is not equivalent to the systematic extermination of Jews and Gypsies, right, and that the Nazi laws specifically dealt with offenders who habitually practiced their sex acts in public (i.e. deviants)?

get a life man....or read the article...

[Purandara88]

You do know some would say you'd be historically incorrect by placing Gypsies along with the Jews, right?

Some would say that, and they'd be wrong. The Nazis targeted the Jews and Gypsies for systematic extermination, a far cry from the sporadic incarceration of other supposed 'undesirables.' In this, there is a commonality of experience among Jews and Gypsies that wasn't shared by other groups.

[Purandara88]

get a life man....or read the article...

Did you even read your own quote?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

... Some people are just scared by the idea of homosexuality because it seems so far from the norm to them...
I think if everyone on this planet found out tonight what everyone else was doing in their bedrooms, there would be a whole lot of people tomorrow with their hair shocked white. ;)

Part of the difficulty that homosexuals face is people's ignorance about "the gay lifestyle" (see: Purandura's posts about risk, which suggest that those things go hand in hand). Straight people are very damned freaky in the bedroom too, but no one makes such assumptions. We're shocked to find out what Bob down the street does with his dog, because "OMG he seemed so normal". But yet we make all sorts of unfounded assumptions of "abnormality" about the sex lives of homosexuals. It's stereotyping, and it's dumb.

[adidasss]

Did you even read your own quote?
my quote was a part of a bigger article to which i provided a link....
there's plenty of sources on the net about homosexuals and their position during the nazi/fashist reign....you could try googling it...or you could keep saying unsupstantiated bullshit...your choice....
the fate of homosexuals may not have been identical to that of the jews and gypsies, but to say that it was tolerated is utter crap....
also, you're twisting my words, if you read my initial response to your first mention of the holocaust, i said that the position of homosexuals was SIMILAR to that of jews during the nazi reign, not equal...i never said they were systematically exterminated like the jews were....

[SamsoniteDelilah]

You're talking about a complex subject with a multitude of causes. For many, there's obviously a seriously irrational element that originates either in religious dogmatism or in early socialization.

On the other hand, it's hard to look rationally at the gay culture and the gay lifestyle as they have come to be constructed in the West without acknowledging the seriously self-destructive streak that permeates both.
This is where the tangent started, and it's not even a logical assumption you're making. It's just as possible to look rationally at the gay culture (and the dingleberries of stigma attached to it) as it is any other subculture. To the extent that homosexuals are 'self-destructive', they're much more stigmatised, and unfairly so. It would be very difficult (by which I mean "impossible") to separate cause and effect, in that relationship.

[Purandara88]

I think if everyone on this planet found out tonight what everyone else was doing in their bedrooms, there would be a whole lot of people tomorrow with their hair shocked white. ;)

Part of the difficulty that homosexuals face is people's ignorance about "the gay lifestyle" (see: Purandura's posts about risk, which suggest that those things go hand in hand). Straight people are very damned freaky in the bedroom too, but no one makes such assumptions. We're shocked to find out what Bob down the street does with his dog, because "OMG he seemed so normal". But yet we make all sorts of unfounded assumptions of "abnormality" about the sex lives of homosexuals. It's stereotyping, and it's dumb.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that homosexuals are the only people who practice 'kinky' sex or engage in risky or promiscuous sexual behavior. What has been argued, and pretty convincingly, I might add is that promiscuity, risky sex and 'kinky' sex are much more prevalent among homosexuals (at least in Western societies) than among the general population, and certainly that attitudes toward these behaviors are much less negative within the gay community. This is particularly true of male homosexuals, which is ironic, given that the risks for them are higher than for any other demographic.

Obviously, there are a lot of factors that feed this. Social isolation and persecution creates an incentive for transgressive behavior, or at least removes the disincentive against it. This is reinforced by the dymanics of group identity formation, which place a premium on developing new norms of behavior to define and delineate the subculture. Throw in the fatalism, mental illness and substance abuse that often accompany the sort of emotional trauma that an isolated and ostracized person faces, and you've pretty much got a recipe for precisely the sort of rootless, risky sexual adventurism that is extremely common in the gay community.

The danger with complex social phenomena is in simplifying them down to slogans, binary oppositions and the like. At that point, you step out of reality and into the realm of duelling symbols, which serves no productive purpose (but does tend to feed the egos of the combatants; it's the same reason we continue to have religious wars even though everyone knows intellectually that nothing positive comes of them).

This is as much true of 'homophobia' as it is of homosexuality itself, because you're talking about a multiplicity of often tenuously related ideas, concepts, and dogmas, some reasonable and rational, some bigotry of the most naked sort. You face the same problem with racial issues, where there is a tendency to just dump anything less than aquiesence to the claims of the current civil rights elite as 'racism,' lumping in people who point out that there are issues internal to the black community that need to be addressed with guys who drag old black men behind their trucks for recreation.

To my way of thinking, the 'God Hates F@gs' folks are divisive, one track, retrograde morons. And so are the guys who try to crash the St. Paddy's parade in rollerblades and sequined penis pouches. Both groups live in a phony world of abstract symbols and simple solutions, while the rest of us have to muddle around in the real world, where we all have to find some way to functionally co-exist (which means, among other things, that dominant society has to make basic accomodations that allow people to live fear free lives with access to the same basic rights and privileges, and that some ethnic groups and subcultures need to do a better job policing their own behavior).

[adidasss]

I don't think anyone has ever argued that homosexuals are the only people who practice 'kinky' sex or engage in risky or promiscuous sexual behavior. What has been argued, and pretty convincingly, I might add is that promiscuity, risky sex and 'kinky' sex are much more prevalent among homosexuals (at least in Western societies) than among the general population, and certainly that attitudes toward these behaviors are much less negative within the gay community. This is particularly true of male homosexuals, which is ironic, given that the risks for them are higher than for any other demographic.

Obviously, there are a lot of factors that feed this. Social isolation and persecution creates an incentive for transgressive behavior, or at least removes the disincentive against it. This is reinforced by the dymanics of group identity formation, which place a premium on developing new norms of behavior to define and delineate the subculture. Throw in the fatalism, mental illness and substance abuse that often accompany the sort of emotional trauma that an isolated and ostracized person faces, and you've pretty much got a recipe for precisely the sort of rootless, risky sexual adventurism that is extremely common in the gay community.
extremely common??? have you done some research for this or are you once again talking out of your ass??

[Purandara88]

This is where the tangent started, and it's not even a logical assumption you're making. It's just as possible to look rationally at the gay culture (and the dingleberries of stigma attached to it) as it is any other subculture. To the extent that homosexuals are 'self-destructive', they're much more stigmatised, and unfairly so. It would be very difficult (by which I mean "impossible") to separate cause and effect, in that relationship.

It's also often hard to seperate cause from effect with regard to criminality and many other social phenomena, postive as well as negative; there are just too many variables involved. Homosexuality is a macrocultural phenomenon, and, like criminality, it has to be viewed at a functional level. And functionally, it doesn't really matter which is 'cause' and which is 'effect,' the real world results are the same. Functionally, there are elements of gay culture as it exists in the West that have serious negative consequences, most particularly for members of the communities themselves.

[nebbit]

Functionally, there are elements of gay culture as it exists in the West that have serious negative consequences, most particularly for members of the communities themselves.

And those risks don't exist in the rest of the population :rolleyes: Here in Australia the incidence of sexually transmitted diease in the homosexual community is going down, they are being quite responsible and practicing safe sex, while in the rest of the comunity it is going up :yup:

[Purandara88]

And those risks don't exist in the rest of the population :rolleyes:

Of course they do. Unprotected anal sex is risky regardless of the orientation of the practitioners, it's just far more prevalent among men who have sex with men than among the population at large.

Here in Australia the incidence of sexually transmitted diease in the homosexual community is going down, they are being quite responsible and practicing safe sex, while in the rest of the comunity it is going up :yup:

And, as in America, the rate itself is still vastly higher than among heterosexuals (at least among men).

There was actually a similar phenomenon in the US in the mid 1990s, when STD and especially AIDS rates among gay men declined precipitously at a time when infection rates were climbing among heterosexuals (though the actual rates remained astronomically higher among gay men than any other demographic, and still do). Then ARV's came along and HIV is no longer an automatic death sentence, and the infection rate in the gay community is climbing again with the increased incidence of risky behaviors.

[John McClane]

Some would say that, and they'd be wrong. The Nazis targeted the Jews and Gypsies for systematic extermination, a far cry from the sporadic incarceration of other supposed 'undesirables.' In this, there is a commonality of experience among Jews and Gypsies that wasn't shared by other groups.Oh really? So I guess they just killed them a more special way huh?

[Purandara88]

They by and large DIDN'T kill them, which makes the experience fundamentally different than that of Jews and Gypsies, who were targeted for systematic and total extermination.

[7thson]

(and the dingleberries of stigma attached to it)

This is about the most wonderful, witty, humorus statement I have read in a long time.:)

[Lockheed Martin]

Oh my, no. I'm sorry to wade into someone else's debate, but this is just all a little too familiar. It's like one of those medieval mystery plays, a different troupe of actors performing the same story with the same dialogue up and down the country, never deviating from the set text. Oh well, let's see if I can contribute something new.

For me the homosexuality debate is largely fluff, hijacked by homosexual pressure groups, right-wing idealogues and iconoclasts eager to score points off political correctness.

First let me just say that Purandara's reasoning and factual accuracy are sublime, except possibly dragging the Nazis into it. I have never before encountered anyone straight with such a level-headed and clear-eyed view of the problems facing the gay scene. Although, he's made the mistake of unquestioningly categorising all homosexuals as part of "the gay community", which largely exists independently ethnicity, class and economic situation in the public imagination.

The truth is that there's a massive amount of further sub-categorisation inside the community. Homosexuals from the lower socio-economic groupings are much more likely to engage in unprotected sex than homosexuals from more priviledged backgrounds and the professional classes. The same is true of the heterosexual community. Homosexuals from working-class, poorly educated and highly religious backgrounds are more likely to be stigmatised or fully ostracised and therefore develop the mental disorders that Purandara described, whereas homosexuals from tolerant backgrounds are more mentally robust. Homosexuals aren't a special case, like members of any other outgroup there's a great deal of variation between individuals.

Speaking as an educated man from an upper-middle class background, my sexual orientation has had very little impact on the way I live my life. I haven't adopted any of the mannerisms associated with homosexuality, I'm not any more promiscuous or prurient than my straight peers, my only chemical dependencies are nicotine and caffeine and my psychological health is top-hole. The gay men from my particular strata of the community are as likely to be involved in "the scene" as a typical middle-class caucasian male is to be a member of a white power movement. It happens, but not much.

Anyway, I personally believe a greater acceptence of homosexuality has been growing down the years. Even though it was only legalised here in the 60's there had been a defacto don't ask/don't tell policy in operation for half a decade before, at least. As my grandfather put it, homosexuals were largely tolerated in London society as early as the 30's as long as they didn't flaunt it. True, there have been numerous high-profile cases of homosexual witchunts, from Oscar Wilde to Alan M. Turing (a truly fascinating man, I suggest you read up on him if you've got the time) but these were largely to appease the mob. The homosexuality prejudice horror stories are part of gay mythos, and like any mythology they've been magnified over the decades.
The "gay explosion" of the 80's coincided with the birth of true postmodernism. With the media expanding to the point that every voice could be heard and every opinion aired the erosion of unifying social institutions and established opinion accelerated, it's much harder to regard gays as the family-destroying, child-molesting monster out-of-the-Closet when they're running their own television stations, publishing their own newsletters and making their own movies that put across the "realities" of gay life.
And there's also good old capitalism to thank. While gays have money, there'll always be business to chase the pink pound/dollar and nothing greases the gears of acceptance than a marketing department with an eye to a new demographic.

Of course, homosexuality is still far from being regarded as as normal as heterosexuality. But that doesn't bother me, as long as we're not being lynched in the streets and the law treats me the same, I'm happy.

[Sexy Celebrity]

OK, Miss Ovaltine Queen, where do you get the facts that all/the majority of upper class homosexuals don't practice unprotected sex, don't have gay mannerisms, don't use drugs (poor gays have money to buy all the drugs?) and are basically good little boys who get partnered, smile at the hope of a perfect homophobia free world, and live their lives collecting money and decorating their big house with their beloved husband?

Any homosexual will try unprotected sex for a variety of reasons, including desire, the thrill of danger, and the belief that nothing bad will happen. This isn't an education/economics issue, it's a personal issue. Psychology does play a role, but I don't believe it's based on if you were brought up upper class or not. I think there's a lot of stuff about homosexuality and it's origins that aren't being addressed, especially since it's classified as not a mental disorder anymore. Risky sex behaviors are the same behaviors that occured before the AIDS scare, back during the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's and even before that. Rich men had condomless sex with men back then too, and they had the gay mannerisms - lisping, flamboyant behavior, such and such.

As for what causes homosexuality, I personally don't think homosexuality is genetic. I know gay people can have a gay relative - I do too - but my gay cousin was brought up without a father. I hardly got to know my dad, and thus I learned a lot from women (my mom and older sister) and I always felt distant from other boys. I think homosexuality is actually something developed. I think it's possible that I could have been steered towards heterosexuality or even bisexuality if things had been different - and I'm saying that a lot of things would have had to happen differently, not just one incident in my life being removed. People joke that if you do something girly to a little boy he's gonna grow up gay. I think there's some truth to this. I think childhood does play a pivotal role in the development of your sexuality.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

It's also often hard to seperate cause from effect with regard to criminality and many other social phenomena, postive as well as negative; there are just too many variables involved. Homosexuality is a macrocultural phenomenon, and, like criminality, it has to be viewed at a functional level. And functionally, it doesn't really matter which is 'cause' and which is 'effect,' the real world results are the same. Functionally, there are elements of gay culture as it exists in the West that have serious negative consequences, most particularly for members of the communities themselves.
Need I point out the glaring flaw in your logic? Homosexuality is not a choice. People are villified for their natural affections and proclivities, for something that harms no one. It's the stigma that does the harm. If you can make the same arguement for criminal acts, I'd love to see it.

[John McClane]

They by and large DIDN'T kill them, which makes the experience fundamentally different than that of Jews and Gypsies, who were targeted for systematic and total extermination.Have ya seemed to notice that you've taken the top of the charts on post ratings for the negative? You've climbed to 3rd rank on All Time negative in just one month. No offense, but do you actually think I'm going to listen to you?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I don't think anyone has ever argued that homosexuals are the only people who practice 'kinky' sex or engage in risky or promiscuous sexual behavior. What has been argued, and pretty convincingly, I might add is that promiscuity, risky sex and 'kinky' sex are much more prevalent among homosexuals (at least in Western societies) than among the general population...
No. They aren't. That was exactly my point. They aren't, in any significant way. You're confusing stereotype with actual fact. Silly.

, and certainly that attitudes toward these behaviors are much less negative within the gay community. This is particularly true of male homosexuals, which is ironic, given that the risks for them are higher than for any other demographic.
That makes no sense.

Obviously, there are a lot of factors that feed this. Social isolation and persecution creates an incentive for transgressive behavior, or at least removes the disincentive against it. This is reinforced by the dymanics of group identity formation, which place a premium on developing new norms of behavior to define and delineate the subculture. Throw in the fatalism, mental illness and substance abuse that often accompany the sort of emotional trauma that an isolated and ostracized person faces, and you've pretty much got a recipe for precisely the sort of rootless, risky sexual adventurism that is extremely common in the gay community.
And in the straight community. You seem to be actively seeking a skewed perspective. Believe it if you want to, but don't try to sell it here.

The danger with complex social phenomena is in simplifying them down to slogans, binary oppositions and the like. At that point, you step out of reality and into the realm of duelling symbols, which serves no productive purpose (but does tend to feed the egos of the combatants; it's the same reason we continue to have religious wars even though everyone knows intellectually that nothing positive comes of them).
Smartly said. No one is doing that here, though.

This is as much true of 'homophobia' as it is of homosexuality itself, because you're talking about a multiplicity of often tenuously related ideas, concepts, and dogmas, some reasonable and rational, some bigotry of the most naked sort. You face the same problem with racial issues, where there is a tendency to just dump anything less than aquiesence to the claims of the current civil rights elite as 'racism,' lumping in people who point out that there are issues internal to the black community that need to be addressed with guys who drag old black men behind their trucks for recreation.
adidasss already pointed out that there are degrees of homophobia. Sorry if you don't like the term, but it still applies. Webster, in his best-selling book "Dictionary", defines the term as fear of, or contept for, homosexals. Granted, you've displayed a contempt for many, many groups of people, but that just makes you an allophobe.

To my way of thinking, the 'God Hates F@gs' folks are divisive, one track, retrograde morons. And so are the guys who try to crash the St. Paddy's parade in rollerblades and sequined penis pouches. Both groups live in a phony world of abstract symbols and simple solutions, while the rest of us have to muddle around in the real world, where we all have to find some way to functionally co-exist (which means, among other things, that dominant society has to make basic accomodations that allow people to live fear free lives with access to the same basic rights and privileges, and that some ethnic groups and subcultures need to do a better job policing their own behavior).
Hilariously, you've tagged the word AND used the @. You're even scared of the terminology, aren't you? :laugh: Do you honestly believe that the average homosexual even owns a penis pouch and roller blades? One or the other, perhaps, but BOTH? Please. Have you ever met a real live gay person? They're not this stereotype you're promoting. Talk about oversimplification a little more, won't you?

I think you finally came out with one piece of the puzzle here, though: "the rest of us have to muddle about..." in our joyless lives, where words like "blithe" and "carefree" and "joyous" are practically never seen... and then you have to go and see those gay boys, breezing past you in those sassy penis pouches as you watch achingly from the sidelines. Poor Purandura. And rather than go get skates for yourself, you want to throw marbles under those guys. Tsk.

[Lockheed Martin]

Ovaltine Queen? That's a new one. I'm not even sure what it means. According to Wikipedia, Ovaltine is a malt-based hot drink with cocoa flavouring. So, uh. I still don't get it. Pleasing assonance, though.

Anyway, on with the debate. If we're dragging sources into it, I used an article from my university's LiOn (literature online) due to a lack of relevant articles on the internet. It was snappily entitled "Perspectives on the LGBT community" and was published in the 1994 edition of the International Social Science Journal, a publication from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. So, it might be a little out of date twelve years down the line. But hey, I grabbed what I could and worked around it.

And I didn't state that "all/the majority of upper class homosexuals don't practice unprotected sex" I said that homosexuals in the higher socio-economic brackets were less likely to. A statement my source supports. You can believe that background, education and material wealth don't influence an individual homosexual's likelihood of engaging in unprotected sex, experiencing a mental breakdown or becoming dependent on drugs if you like, as there's no study I can find that incontrovertibly proves you wrong.

And, well, I just used myself as an example, but a large proportion of my (admittedly, highly unrepresentative) gay peers are the same. Although your description of "good little boys" is pretty much spot-on when it comes to the aspirations of most of the gay men I know. Like I said, they're members of the professional middle class and their first alleigance probably is to "get partnered, smile at the hope of a perfect homophobia free world, and live their lives collecting money and decorating their big house with their beloved husband" above getting involved with gay rights. And what's wrong with that from a homosexual point of view? Despite objections to materialism and the banality of bourgeoise life, it says a lot when homosexuals have been accepted into a community to the extent they don't feel the need to be any different.

As I stated in my first post, the key is individual difference. Social groupings are far from concrete. You could have been born the son of a lawyer and a vicar and been educated in medicine at Oxford and still cruise the clubs every saturday for highly adventurous, unprotected sex with anyone who'll touch you. You're just less likely to do so. We're all individuals, but our upbringings and the opportunities that they bring will shape us in one way or another.
As to how homosexuals behaved before the AIDs thing, well, that doesn't really matter, does it? AIDs changed everything. And back then homosexuals developed the mannerisms as a way of notifying other homosexuals that they were gay. It must've been hard to find a partner when propositioning a man without being very sure first could get you a custodial sentence. Homosexuality changes, like anything else. Young gays today are different to the gays of a generation ago, and I'd hope so to. Just as you'd expect a third-generation Indian immigrant to Britain to have different attitudes and behave differently to his grandfather.

And, causes. Jesus, this is a tough one. When they first mapped the human genome they claimed there wasn't a gene for homosexuality, then they suggested their might be one responsible for some sort of trigger enzyme in the womb, then that study was refuted. It's all up in the air. A lot's been suggested down the years, from it being a natural mechanism to help ease overpopulation to it being a neurotransmitter imbalance or a mutation in the hippocampus that causes it to become more feminine. Like many aspects of the human behaviour the exact cause of homosexuality is probably rooted in either the structure or chemical composition of the brain, both things which Scientists understand far less than how the universe was created. The clumsy ways it's been "treated" down the years beggar belief, from good old Skinnerian Cognitive-Behavioural therapy through libidio-supressing injections to just plain hacking away at the living brain with any flat peice of metal to hand. Personally, I'm glad it's no-longer classified as a mental illness, probably because it isn't. It doesn't negatively impact the individual directly, or society at large and even if it was, it can't be permenantly treated anyway.

Although, we both have terrifyingly similar upbringings. any chance you're an alternate-reality version of me? If so, has Halle Berry starred in a decent movie yet?

[Purandara88]

Need I point out the glaring flaw in your logic? Homosexuality is not a choice. People are villified for their natural affections and proclivities, for something that harms no one. It's the stigma that does the harm. If you can make the same arguement for criminal acts, I'd love to see it.

1. The prevailing view is that 'homosexuality' has a number of different causative factors. In some, it seems to be a genetic orientation, among others, a reaction to environmental factors (often trauma), and in some, simply a choice. There are, in effect, many different 'homosexualities,' and blanket statements about causation and choice are, frankly, misplaced.

2. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, sexual behavior is. There are a lot of people born with impulsive personality disorders that don't have a choice as to their impulses, but we still hold them responsible when they act on those impulses. Pedophilia is also a sexual orientation, does that make child molestation acceptable? I mean, these people can't help how they were born, can they?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

1. The prevailing view is that 'homosexuality' has a number of different causative factors. In some, it seems to be a genetic orientation, among others, a reaction to environmental factors (often trauma), and in some, simply a choice. There are, in effect, many different 'homosexualities,' and blanket statements about causation and choice are, frankly, misplaced.
There is, no doubt, a small percentage for whom it is simply a choice. I stand by my point that villification of the whole group is immoral and unproductive.

2. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, sexual behavior is. There are a lot of people born with impulsive personality disorders that don't have a choice as to their impulses, but we still hold them responsible when they act on those impulses.
You're holding an entire group responsible for the acts of a few. And that few is NOT as you have suggested, a significantly larger percentage of the gay community than it is in the straight one. In short, it's bigotry.

Pedophilia is also a sexual orientation, does that make child molestation acceptable?
You aren't really this stupid, right?

I mean, these people can't help how they were born, can they?
You appear to still be trying to villify homosexuality. You're conveniently overlooking the glaring difference between homosexuality and the criminal acts you're attempting to compare it to: it hurts no one. What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is not my business (unless they can teach me a few tricks).

[adidasss]

1. The prevailing view is that 'homosexuality' has a number of different causative factors. In some, it seems to be a genetic orientation, among others, a reaction to environmental factors (often trauma), and in some, simply a choice. There are, in effect, many different 'homosexualities,' and blanket statements about causation and choice are, frankly, misplaced.

2. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, sexual behavior is. There are a lot of people born with impulsive personality disorders that don't have a choice as to their impulses, but we still hold them responsible when they act on those impulses. Pedophilia is also a sexual orientation, does that make child molestation acceptable? I mean, these people can't help how they were born, can they?
oh brother....here we go with the pedophilia comparison....i thought that you had a bit more sense....
i'd like to see you cite the research that proves homosexuality is a result of trauma...that would be swell...or that it's a choice for that matter...
need i even point out the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia?

[Darth Stujitzu]

Ok, so here's my tupence on the argument.
No child is born biased, racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc, they are influenced by their peers as they develope into adulthood.
From reading some of Purandura's posts, it appears apparant that a rather sheltered upbringing and biased view on homosexuals has been the case, to compare homosexuals with paedophiles suggest ignorance and a strong case of homophobia.
Paedophiles pray on young children without consent in an illegal practice, so where you draw comparisons with homosexuals baffles me.
I live my life with a " live and let live " policy, I'm a people person, if I like you it's because I like your personality, and has nothing to do with your religious, sexual or racial preferences, and similarly if I dislike you it's purely because I don't like your personality.
Our society is too quick to label and condemn, everybody seems to have a label to hide behind these days, and I think this is part of the reason why such stereotypes exist.
People are individuals, and as such their choices in life should be respected rather than challanged or condemned.
How you can group all homosexuals together is baffling, perhaps you need to take a step back from your predjudices and look again with fresh eyes.

[Monkeypunch]

Why, I ask you, why did I know who was the reason for the return of this thread before I even looked? LOL.

[Purandara88]

There is, no doubt, a small percentage for whom it is simply a choice. I stand by my point that villification of the whole group is immoral and unproductive.

I would agree that it is unproductive, though artificial constructs like 'morality' have no interest for me. 'Right' and 'wrong' are monkey in the sky bull****. Function is what matters.

You're holding an entire group responsible for the acts of a few. And that few is NOT as you have suggested, a significantly larger percentage of the gay community than it is in the straight one. In short, it's bigotry.

Statistically, gay men have on average 4-10 times as many sexual partners in their lifetimes (despite lower life expectancy) than straight men. Now granted, a lot of this is caused by extreme outliers in a statistically small community (about 2-3% of the male population), as well as to the removal of the obstacle that the considerably lower rates of promiscuity among women presents to heterosexual male promiscuity, but there's absolutely no doubt that promiscuous and risky sexual behavior is more common among gay men than the general population, nor that it is socially accepted within the gay community to a degree that it is not in general society.


You aren't really this stupid, right?

I take it you weren't aware that pedophilia is considered to be a form of deviant orientation all its own, rather than a subset of some other orientation (that is, molestors tend not to be 'straight' pedophiles or 'gay' pedophiles, but simply pedophiles; their attraction isn't sex/gender linked but rather to children, period)?

You appear to still be trying to villify homosexuality. You're conveniently overlooking the glaring difference between homosexuality and the criminal acts you're attempting to compare it to: it hurts no one.

No, I'm not villifying homosexuality, merely pointing out the flaw in your logic. The argument you advanced is, essentially, that people cannot be held accountable for acting on their natural inclinations, when, in fact, we hold people accountable for acting on inborn impulses all the time. I'm not saying that homosexuality is equivalent to violent criminality or pedophilia, just that a particular act being motivated by a 'natural' orientation or inclination does not in and of itself make that act acceptable.

[nebbit]

I stand by my point that villification of the whole group is immoral and unproductive.

:yup:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I would agree that it is unproductive, though artificial constructs like 'morality' have no interest for me. 'Right' and 'wrong' are monkey in the sky bull****. Function is what matters.
Morality isn't bull****. It's a function of society.

Statistically, gay men have on average 4-10 times as many sexual partners in their lifetimes (despite lower life expectancy) than straight men. Now granted, a lot of this is caused by extreme outliers in a statistically small community (about 2-3% of the male population), as well as to the removal of the obstacle that the considerably lower rates of promiscuity among women presents to heterosexual male promiscuity, but there's absolutely no doubt that promiscuous and risky sexual behavior is more common among gay men than the general population, nor that it is socially accepted within the gay community to a degree that it is not in general society.
Source?


I take it you weren't aware that pedophilia is considered to be a form of deviant orientation all its own, rather than a subset of some other orientation (that is, molestors tend not to be 'straight' pedophiles or 'gay' pedophiles, but simply pedophiles; their attraction isn't sex/gender linked but rather to children, period)?
I'm saying it's retarded to drag pedophilia into this topic at all. I don't know why you keep doing it.

No, I'm not villifying homosexuality, merely pointing out the flaw in your logic. The argument you advanced is, essentially, that people cannot be held accountable for acting on their natural inclinations, when, in fact, we hold people accountable for acting on inborn impulses all the time. I'm not saying that homosexuality is equivalent to violent criminality or pedophilia, just that a particular act being motivated by a 'natural' orientation or inclination does not in and of itself make that act acceptable.
Wouldn't it be convenient for you if that was what I actually said? It's not though. And this is, from my observation, your idea of debate: when you can't counter a point, you throw together a strawman that you then renounce.

What I said was that you're down on a large group of people in reaction against the actions of a few, which actions actually cause harm to no one and which actions are not peculiar to the group you're attacking. Also, that gays don't need your approval to be gay, and your insistence that they should is... well... evil.

[adidasss]

I'm not saying that homosexuality is equivalent to violent criminality or pedophilia, just that a particular act being motivated by a 'natural' orientation or inclination does not in and of itself make that act acceptable.
what makes it unacceptable?

[Purandara88]

No. They aren't. That was exactly my point. They aren't, in any significant way. You're confusing stereotype with actual fact. Silly.

Statistically speaking, you're simply wrong.

Moving on...

That makes no sense.

Sure it does, AIDS is VASTLY more prevalent among homosexual men than among the rest of the population, and anal sex (regardless of gender of the participants) is the sexual act most likely to result in the transmission of HIV/AIDS. So yeah, the risks of promiscuity and unprotected sex for a gay man are much, much higher than they are for a straight man.

Smartly said. No one is doing that here, though.

Sure it is. That's precisely what throwing around terms like 'homophobe' amounts to.

adidasss already pointed out that there are degrees of homophobia. Sorry if you don't like the term, but it still applies. Webster, in his best-selling book "Dictionary", defines the term as fear of, or contept for, homosexals. Granted, you've displayed a contempt for many, many groups of people, but that just makes you an allophobe.

Oh ho! Out of arguments I see, better consult the dictionary!

Providing a definition for a term whose purpose is nothing short of discursive terror (provide a damning label and you don't have to, you know, address arguments that make you uncomfortable).

Hilariously, you've tagged the word AND used the @. You're even scared of the terminology, aren't you? :laugh:

The choice was between 'f@gs' and 'fags'. Since the board has a ******* autocensor, the former is obviously preferable to the asterisks.

Do you honestly believe that the average homosexual even owns a penis pouch and roller blades?

Do you honestly believe that the average person who questions some elements of gay culture as constructed in the West is a member of Westboro Baptist Church?

The context should have been fairly obvious, sister. The comparison was between nutjobs on one end and nutjobs on the other, not a suggestion that the nutjobs are normal.

[Purandara88]

I really, really don't understand the autocensor. GD is censored, but fag isn't?

Let's try a few, for ****s and giggles.

****
****
Piss
****
*******
Mother****er
**********
******
Kike
******
Honky
Slope
Gook

[Purandara88]

Yeah, the forum definitely either needs a better autocensor or needs to dispense with it altogether.

[Golgot]

what makes it unacceptable?

Ach come on, I'm not sure he's said that. He's just saying that even if a tendency is biologically-driven, that wouldn't automatically make it 'right'.

(I include the apostrophes so that Purahrah doesn't feel i've made any gargantuan moral judgements here)

Ugh, too tired to try and pour any water on this fire tho :D

[Golgot]

I don't want to know what a Slope is.

[adidasss]

Ach come on, I'm not sure he's said that. He's just saying that even if a tendency is biologically-driven, that wouldn't automatically make it 'right'.

(I include the apostrophes so that Purahrah doesn't feel i've made any gargantuan moral judgements here)

Ugh, too tired to try and pour any water on this fire tho :D
ok, sorry, i really thought he was implying that...otherwise i see no need in pointing out something that is clear to everyone....tautology comes to mind...a word i have learned from you...( hopefully i used it right, i AM a croatian after all...:D) ;)

[Purandara88]

Morality isn't bull****. It's a function of society.

It's made up, it's an invented mechanism of social control with no basis in reality.

Source?

You're the one making claims that go against conventional wisdom on the subject, where's your source?

I'm saying it's retarded to drag pedophilia into this topic at all. I don't know why you keep doing it.

I made one off hand reference, you're the one who keeps bringing it back up.

And you still haven't addressed the flaws in your logic that I raised.


Wouldn't it be convenient for you if that was what I actually said? It's not though. And this is, from my observation, your idea of debate: when you can't counter a point, you throw together a strawman that you then renounce.

Here's the actual quote:

Need I point out the glaring flaw in your logic? Homosexuality is not a choice. People are villified for their natural affections and proclivities

How does that differ in any functional way from saying "If it's natural, it's acceptable"?

[Purandara88]

As for 'evil,' there's no such thing. It's a bogeyman to keep the kids in line. Reality makes no such distinction.

[nebbit]

I would agree that it is unproductive, though artificial constructs like 'morality' have no interest for me. 'Right' and 'wrong' are monkey in the sky bull****. Function is what matters.

:rolleyes:

[Golgot]

As for 'evil,' there's no such thing. It's a bogeyman to keep the kids in line. Reality makes no such distinction.

You're on speaking terms with reality? ;)

I'm gonna back-track to this quote to clash with you on this...

...artificial constructs like 'morality' have no interest for me. 'Right' and 'wrong' are monkey in the sky bull****. Function is what matters.

You've still gotta make judgement calls on the facts at hand (when trying to determine 'function', and best practice concerning it).

Judgement is a 'monkey on the ground' bit of trickery which is far from being without its own flaws. It's an 'artificial construct' too. Morality, a sense of justice, and the judgement of what actions are better or worse... all these things draw from the same well in some ways, it seems. They even serve similar functions too :)

Cool your heels a little before you decide there's no place in this world for the words 'right' and 'wrong'. That's all.

---

And now, to be controversial... I'd have to say...

I don't see that Purandara's logic has let him down so far.

-Being gassed for being Jewish is worse than the other examples of gay-persecution presented previously.
-There does seem to be more inherent risk involved in homosexual promiscuity.
-Homosexuality seems to have both 'nature' and 'nurture' components (shockingly ;))

If he goes on to say that all homosexuals should be rounded up and pelted with Take That albums, then i'd say he's gone awry. But until then, most of the guy's arguments here are fine by me.

---

On the Sexy/Lockheed mini-spate - I'd say good points made by both. It looks like you guys are in the hold of the ole nature-nurture debate tho, to an extent. That's gonna be one hell of a ride ;)

---

Summary: Nil-point to anyone that believes Nazi gay monkeys have rights.

;)

[Purandara88]

Judgement is a 'monkey on the ground' bit of trickery which is far from being without its own flaws. It's an 'artificial construct' too. Morality, a sense of justice, and the judgement of what actions are better or worse... all these things draw from the same well in some ways, it seems. They even serve similar functions too

There's certainly a semantic difficulty in distinguishing between the two. Obviously, once you conceptualize either, you're dealing with a certain level of shorthand, symbolism and, hence, artificiality and 'unreality,' if I may use the term.

However, there does seem to be a major (and here goes that word again) functional difference between morality,which posits that there are standards independent of the consequences of actions that must be taken into account when ascribing value to those actions, and judgment, which ascribes value on the basis of reality itself (that is, according to the material consequences of action). Morality in a sense devalues the real in favor of idealized symbols, which, frankly, seems quite useless.

Some would, I suspect, construct this as a difference between competing moralities ('absolute' morality vs. 'situational' morality), but there are two major problems with such a thesis:

1. it implies that reality is still subordinate to the larger symbol 'morality'

and

2. it ignores that 'situational' morality is still governed by assumptions of right and wrong that exist outside the situation itself, and merely mitigates value judgments according to circumstance.

[Golgot]

There's certainly a semantic difficulty in distinguishing between the two.

Moralists says there is an evident truth. 'Judges' say there is a truth that will be known, and in the mean-time we make decisions based on what we've got. (Or that the truth is evident until investigations prove otherwise ;)).

Both approaches serve the same 'function' tho (to 'pervert' your word ;)) - to decide best-action.

Both rely on a form of trust - a symbolic language of expected norms and tricky interpretations.

It's too late in the night for me to offer anything other than these 'poetic' musings on the similarities and differences between morality and judgement.

And for what it's worth, i suggest we start another thread to try and tackle some of it - coz it's a fun topic :). (And ironically, i think we're mainly on the same side concerning this one ;))

[adidasss]

If he goes on to say that all homosexuals should be rounded up and pelted with Take That albums, then i'd say he's gone awry. But until then, most of the guy's arguments here are fine by me.

i disagree....

here's why:
Promiscuity in the age of AIDS is obviously the most prominent (and promiscuity itself has risk factors that go way, way beyond susceptibility to STD's), but there are a whole range of risky behaviors that are prevalent in the gay community, most notably substance abuse

prevalent, if my english serves me well ,means that such risky behaviour is very common...i would say such people are a minority....
I don't think anyone has ever argued that homosexuals are the only people who practice 'kinky' sex or engage in risky or promiscuous sexual behavior. What has been argued, and pretty convincingly, I might add is that promiscuity, risky sex and 'kinky' sex are much more prevalent among homosexuals (at least in Western societies) than among the general population, and certainly that attitudes toward these behaviors are much less negative within the gay community. This is particularly true of male homosexuals, which is ironic, given that the risks for them are higher than for any other demographic.

that may very well be true...but let's not generalize and use the gay subculture of manhattan or berlin as an indicative for the behavior of every gay man in the world...my opinion is that the more developed the society is the more people indulge in debauchery of all sorts...true for both hetero and gay people.....singling out gay people as the sole representatives of this kind of behavior is very unfair...


Obviously, there are a lot of factors that feed this. Social isolation and persecution creates an incentive for transgressive behavior, or at least removes the disincentive against it. This is reinforced by the dymanics of group identity formation, which place a premium on developing new norms of behavior to define and delineate the subculture. Throw in the fatalism, mental illness and substance abuse that often accompany the sort of emotional trauma that an isolated and ostracized person faces, and you've pretty much got a recipe for precisely the sort of rootless, risky sexual adventurism that is extremely common in the gay community.

this is what pisses me off....unless you posses a degree in psychology and have done extensive research on the subject matter you have no business making such rash, presumptuous statements as if you know anything on the subject....if i was to guess i would say that you have had very little contact with the "gay subculture" and get your information through tv and other highly unrepresentative sources...your conclusion may be true for SOME gay people, but i would say it's a very low percentage of gays who's "risky" behavior was caused by isolation, mental illness and whatnot....and that can be said of all people with such behavior....which is NOT common in the "gay community"...no more than it is in the hetero community....


Both groups live in a phony world of abstract symbols and simple solutions, while the rest of us have to muddle around in the real world, where we all have to find some way to functionally co-exist (which means, among other things, that dominant society has to make basic accomodations that allow people to live fear free lives with access to the same basic rights and privileges, and that some ethnic groups and subcultures need to do a better job policing their own behavior).

Policing their own behavior? Until such "behavior" ( even though, once again you're generalizing severely ) causes harm to society as a whole, i don't see how it would be of your concern how these people behave....

Functionally, there are elements of gay culture as it exists in the West that have serious negative consequences, most particularly for members of the communities themselves.

and functionally , there are a lot of elements of the hetero culture that have serious negative consequences,most particularly for members of the communities themselves. what's your point? there is no drug abuse amongst heterosexuals? no promiscuity? risky sexual behavior? stop it please....

Of course they do. Unprotected anal sex is risky regardless of the orientation of the practitioners, it's just far more prevalent among men who have sex with men than among the population at large.



really now.... gay men are less willing to use a condom than straight men? you did some research ?

Statistically, gay men have on average 4-10 times as many sexual partners in their lifetimes (despite lower life expectancy) than straight men. Now granted, a lot of this is caused by extreme outliers in a statistically small community (about 2-3% of the male population), as well as to the removal of the obstacle that the considerably lower rates of promiscuity among women presents to heterosexual male promiscuity, but there's absolutely no doubt that promiscuous and risky sexual behavior is more common among gay men than the general population, nor that it is socially accepted within the gay community to a degree that it is not in general society.



yes, gay men probably DO have more sex than hetero men on average, i would say that you're right in pointing out that it's because of the lack of the "female" obstacle....i would also say that all men are by their very nature essentially whores ( sorry guys, but it's true isn't it? )and have a much bigger libido than women....it is more acceptable in the gay community because whether or not we have one partner or 50, it doesn't matter much to those who don't much like homosexuals...so if you don't care what this group of high and mighty people say about you, and you are dealing with people who want to have as much sex as you do....





-Being gassed for being Jewish is worse than the other examples of gay-persecution presented previously. here's how that discussion went down:


Life doesn't always break down into simple memes like 'hatred' or 'tolerance.' You're talking about reactions that, even on the negative side, run the gamut from general uneasiness about the particulars of the gay lifestyle, to a distaste for the politicization of sexual choice, to anger at a community that has tried to equate the prohibition on same sex marriage with the Holocaust and Jim Crow, to 'God Hates F@gs!' You can't reduce that to simple 'hatred' without losing the whole range of meaning, intent, and causation that variety implies.



i don't know in what sense the equation of homosexuals to the holocaust was made, but lets not forget, homosexuals were also included in the holocaust and were hated just as much as jews....the comparison with the position of jews during the nazi rule in germany does stand to a certain extent...at least where i live...because we are generally hated and forced to hide our sexual preferences to avoid problems...





There you go with the absurdly reductive memes again. There's simply no way that you can write off a whole array of entirely rational objections to gay culture and gay politics as they currently exist with short hand references like 'homophobia.'



I've seen this claim advanced before, but there's precious little historical evidence for it. The SS and the SA were both notorious among regular German formations for their lax discipline, and the tolerance of homosexuality in those units (at a time when it was still a crime against good order and discipline in every military force on earth) was a big reason for that reputation. The Holocaust is such a foundational element of the moral myth making of our world that many groups, including gays, have tried to glom a little of its pity party magic from the real victims (Jews and Gypsies), but it doesn't make such claims historically accurate.



I need to point this out more clearly, who ever equated the prohibition of gay marriages to the holocaust is an absolute moron, i did however want to point out that the position of gay people during the nazi rule was far from desirable, which this man seems to ignore and keeps making unsubstantiated rebuttals that we're supposed to simply accept as fact....noone here ever equated the holocaust of the jews with the persecution of homosexuals, and there certainly WAS wide persecution of homosexuals during these regimes.....



-There does seem to be more inherent risk involved in homosexual promiscuity.

...there are stupid , self destructive, careless people on both sides Tom....

[SamsoniteDelilah]

And now, to be controversial... I'd have to say...

I don't see that Purandara's logic has let him down so far.

-Being gassed for being Jewish is worse than the other examples of gay-persecution presented previously.
-There does seem to be more inherent risk involved in homosexual promiscuity.
-Homosexuality seems to have both 'nature' and 'nurture' components (shockingly ;))

If he goes on to say that all homosexuals should be rounded up and pelted with Take That albums, then i'd say he's gone awry. But until then, most of the guy's arguments here are fine by me.


He has said, to break it down for you, that if A, then B, where B does not always overlap A. That's bad logic. I learned that in 9th grade geometry.

Then he uses that faulty logic to justify his contempt for homosexuals (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=328848). You're ok with that? Because I don't think that's very cool.

[Purandara88]

prevalent, if my english serves me well ,means that such risky behaviour is very common...i would say such people are a minority....[/quote

Prevalent simply means common. Crime is prevalent in the United States, particularly in inner cities, does that make a majority of Americans criminals, even in high crime areas? Of course it doesn't.

[quote]this is what pisses me off....unless you posses a degree in psychology and have done extensive research on the subject matter you have no business making such rash, presumptuous statements as if you know anything on the subject....if i was to guess i would say that you have had very little contact with the "gay subculture" and get your information through tv and other highly unrepresentative sources...your conclusion may be true for SOME gay people, but i would say it's a very low percentage of gays who's "risky" behavior was caused by isolation, mental illness and whatnot....and that can be said of all people with such behavior....which is NOT common in the "gay community"...no more than it is in the hetero community....

In point of fact, mental illness IS statisically much more common among homosexuals than among the general population, which, given the status and situation of the GLBT community with regards to the broader society, shouldn't be surprising AT ALL. It's precisely what one would expect to find.

[John McClane]

In point of fact, mental illness IS statisically much more common among homosexuals than among the general population, which, given the status and situation of the GLBT community with regards to the broader society, shouldn't be surprising AT ALL. It's precisely what one would expect to find.Hey, you ever thought that might be because there might be less gays to straights? There is such thing as an uneven balance. I wouldn't know the exact population to population but, I don't think it's as close as you'd like to think it is.

[Zeiken]

Then he uses that faulty logic to justify his contempt for homosexuals (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=328848). You're ok with that? Because I don't think that's very cool.


Regardless of what was said in that thread, (and i cannot claim to know because his first post was deleted) I do not see any contempt fueling Purandara's arguments in this thread.

And this thread is where the argument should be kept, for the time being.

I could probably find an old post of his where he admitted to smoking pot as a youth- but it would not find much pertinence here, would it? ;)

[Purandara88]

Hey, you ever thought that might be because there might be less gays to straights? There is such thing as an uneven balance. I wouldn't know the exact population to population but, I don't think it's as close as you'd like to think it is.

Unless the population is very small indeed (where just a few outliers can badly skew the data), it shouldn't make much of a statistical difference.

[Revenant]

I'm too tired to add much just now to the dbate but I will add this.

Statitics are just numbers and you cannot equate a sector of society just on stats alone, humanity is far more complex then that. There are underlying factors.
Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Heterosexuals, there is always going to be variables no matter sexual inclinations. You cannot lump an entire ethos on every single person in their sexual preference group.

Like I said I'm frazzled so I hope what I've writ makes sense.

[Golgot]

i disagree....

here's why:

I disagree...

here's why:

He hasn't said people should be rounded up for being homosexual.

Simple as that. If he does, i'll 'turn' ;)

But, to deal with the points of contention...

prevalent, if my english serves me well ,means that such risky behaviour is very common...i would say such people are a minority....

Prevelant is a loaded word, but he's gone out of his way to say that multiple-daters are still a minority amongst the homosexual community.

It'd help if he gave statistical back-up to his claim that there are still more highly-promiscuous homosexuals than heterosexuals, percentage-wise - but i've got no trouble believing it. I meet a lot more 'hetros' than 'homos', even in London (;)), but those that 'go wild' amongst the gay community seem to 'go wilder' when they go - and seem to be slightly higher in number, 'statistically'.

Policing their own behavior? Until such "behavior" ( even though, once again you're generalizing severely ) causes harm to society as a whole, i don't see how it would be of your concern how these people behave....

Yeah, this is seems to be a big issue with him. Maybe it shows he cares ;)

I need to point this out more clearly, who ever equated the prohibition of gay marriages to the holocaust is an absolute moron.

He didn't equate them Adi. He listed them as issues on the table - and suggested they shouldn't be amalgamated into a defence shield by the gay community. (This is my drunken re-reading of that post).

and there certainly WAS wide persecution of homosexuals during these regimes.....

The way i read it, he hasn't denied this either.

...there are stupid , self destructive, careless people on both sides Tom....

Ay. Of course. On all sides. And i ain't even saying you're one of them ;)

[adidasss]

[quote]prevalent, if my english serves me well ,means that such risky behaviour is very common...i would say such people are a minority....[/quote

Prevalent simply means common. Crime is prevalent in the United States, particularly in inner cities, does that make a majority of Americans criminals, even in high crime areas? Of course it doesn't.



In point of fact, mental illness IS statisically much more common among homosexuals than among the general population, which, given the status and situation of the GLBT community with regards to the broader society, shouldn't be surprising AT ALL. It's precisely what one would expect to find.
is there? i'm not aware of such data....i thought serious mental illness was genetically determined....

[Purandara88]

There certainly seem to be a lot of genetic elements to many cases of mental illness, but to point to a cause is dangerously oversimplistic.

[Golgot]

He has said, to break it down for you, that if A, then B, where B does not always overlap A. That's bad logic. I learned that in 9th grade geometry.

Then he uses that faulty logic to justify his contempt for homosexuals (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=328848). You're ok with that? Because I don't think that's very cool.

I didn't realise we were assembling Ikea shelves of reality ;)

The link doesn't lead to a post, but i'm assuming it refers to the 'insipid weaklings' comment. Believe me, i'm waiting to challenge...

...but...

That doesn't mean we can pre-judge everything he's written as illogical. From what i've seen, he's made several only-partially-contentious claims.

He needs to justify that sentence, but until he claims all gays should be hanged i don't see that he's done wrong. Everything else he's said had been reflected in literature i've read or exposure i've had.

That's why i'm going along for the ride. He's not calling for 'gays to renounce themselves'. He's just questioning what's going on with their reality. A worthy aim, in many ways.

[Zeiken]

I didn't realise we were assembling Ikea shelves of reality...


Versatile solutions for modern-day debating...

:rotfl:

[adidasss]

I disagree...

here's why:

He hasn't said people should be rounded up for being homosexual.

Simple as that. If he does, i'll 'turn' ;)
and everything else he's said and i've stated in my post you agree with?? have you picked up' perhapse the underlying homophobic tone of his posts...by any chance? because most of us have....

But, to deal with the points of contention...



Prevelant is a loaded word, but he's gone out of his way to say that multiple-daters are still a minority amongst the homosexual community.
has he? where? i didn't notice that....

It'd help if he gave statistical back-up to his claim that there are still more highly-promiscuous homosexuals than heterosexuals, percentage-wise - but i've got no trouble believing it. I meet a lot more 'hetros' than 'homos', even in London (;)), but those that 'go wild' amongst the gay community seem to 'go wilder' when they go - and seem to be slightly higher in number, 'statistically'..
so what? i've already given my opinion on why that is...if women had a stronger libido and were more willing to have sex without the tedious process of "getting to know each other" you think those hetero's wouldn't go just as wild as the homos? it's a simple matter of oportunity....some people have actually told me that they consider gays more sexualiy charged than heterosexual men...i think that's bs ....for reasons stated above....


He didn't equate them Adi. He listed them as issues on the table - and suggested they shouldn't be amalgamated into a defence shield by the gay community. (This is my drunken re-reading of that post)...
i never said HE said that, i merely disregarded that statement ( which he has brought ) as the ramblings of a crazy person who shouldn't be taken seriously...is that even a serious claim certain homosexuas are making or what??


The way i read it, he hasn't denied this either.
the way i read it, he most certainly has.


I've seen this claim advanced before, but there's precious little historical evidence for it. The SS and the SA were both notorious among regular German formations for their lax discipline, and the tolerance of homosexuality in those units (at a time when it was still a crime against good order and discipline in every military force on earth) was a big reason for that reputation. The Holocaust is such a foundational element of the moral myth making of our world that many groups, including gays, have tried to glom a little of its pity party magic from the real victims (Jews and Gypsies), but it doesn't make such claims historically accurate.

[Strummer521]

Adidasss, I like your comment about "the tedious process of getting to know one another." Very funny.

[adidasss]

Adidasss, I like your comment about "the tedious process of getting to know one another." Very funny.
oh please....i think men who say that looks aren't the most importaint thing on a girl are full of it....sexual attraction is skin deep for most men.... the only reason hetero men go through that process ( of getting to know the girl better ) is to get laid.....
i'm not saying all gay men are like that ( searching for skin deep sexual attraction )...most probably aren't.....but then again i have questionable moral values and have no problems with casual sex....

[Purandara88]

so what? i've already given my opinion on why that is...if women had a stronger libido and were more willing to have sex without the tedious process of "getting to know each other" you think those hetero's would go just as wild as the homos? it's a simple matter of oportunity....some people have actually told me that they consider gays more sexualiy charged than heterosexual men...i think that's bs ....for reasons stated above....

Irrelevant, the what is the significant feature here, not the why. The end result is the same.

[Purandara88]

oh please....i think men who say that looks aren't the most importaint thing on a girl are full of it....sexual attraction is skin deep for most men.... the only reason hetero men go through that process ( of getting to know the girl better ) is to get laid.....

And who is talking out his ass now?

[adidasss]

Irrelevant, the what is the significant feature here, not the why. The end result is the same.
[/font][/font]
yes well, promiscuity is moraly questionable, and you said so yourself, morals are bs.....so where's the problem?

[Strummer521]

oh please....i think men who say that looks aren't the most importaint thing on a girl are full of it....sexual attraction is skin deep for most men.... the only reason hetero men go through that process ( of getting to know the girl better ) is to get laid.....
i'm not saying all gay men are like that ( searching for skin deep sexual attraction )...most probably aren't.....but then again i have questionable moral values and have no problems with casual sex....

That may be true...but it doesn't diminish the humor that I find in the unselfconscious frankness of your statement.

[adidasss]

And who is talking out his ass now?
i'm speaking from personal experience....if the people you hang out with are "sensitive" men who really care about what kind of a person the girl is on the inside and don't really care that much about getting laid.....bravo for you....

[Purandara88]

It's not a question of morality. Promiscuity and risky behavior have high social costs (as well as personal costs).

[Purandara88]

i'm speaking from personal experience....if the people you hang out with are "sensitive" men who really care about what kind of a person the girl is on the inside and don't really care that much about getting laid.....bravo for you....

Hmmm, let's go to the tape:

oh please....i think men who say that looks aren't the most importaint thing on a girl are full of it....sexual attraction is skin deep for most men.... the only reason hetero men go through that process ( of getting to know the girl better ) is to get laid.....

That sounds like something that goes a little beyond, 'my personal experience.'

[7thson]

This whole ""I know it all" debate has made me ill. Really it has.

[nebbit]

In point of fact, mental illness IS statisically much more common among homosexuals than among the general population, which, given the status and situation of the GLBT community with regards to the broader society, shouldn't be surprising AT ALL. It's precisely what one would expect to find.

What a load of rubbish :rolleyes: I have worked in Psychiatry for over 30 yrs, I have never read one study to back your statemant, my experience has been it is no greater than the general population :furious: (http://misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=8#) :furious:

[Purandara88]

What a load of rubbish :rolleyes: I have worked in Psychiatry for over 30 yrs, I have never read one study to back your statemant, my experience has been it is no greater than the general population :furious: (http://misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=8#) :furious:

I take it you haven't been paying attention:


Suicidality in homosexuals, particularly among adolescents and young adults have been consistently reported to be higher over the past 25 years. In a recent overview, it has been concluded that gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people which may comprise up to 30% of completed youth suicides annually.

http://ams.cu.edu.tr/January2001Vol10No1/suicide.htm

Two out of three members of England's gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) community are likely to suffer from depression and other mental health problems, according to a new study. The high figure is compared to just one third of heterosexuals, said the University College London report, and stems from the intolerant attitudes GLB people face.

http://www.gay.com/health/hiv/news/?2003/09/08/4

A study by a group of New Zealand medical students has found that gay and lesbian youth throughout the country are at greater risk of mental illness than their straight peers, a finding LGBT community and welfare advocates say is “unsurprising” and likely paralleled throughout the world.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-21.html

Do you want me to go on?

[nebbit]

I take it you haven't been paying attention:

That doesn't mean that they have more mental illness because of their sexuality, it seems to me that people like you and others who make them feel bad about themselves may lead them to depression and suicide, I am sure if we just accepted that homosexuality is normal for some then there would be less problems. :yup:

[Purandara88]

Did I say that homosexuality causes mental illness?

I didn't think so. What I said was:

In point of fact, mental illness IS statisically much more common among homosexuals than among the general population, which, given the status and situation of the GLBT community with regards to the broader society, shouldn't be surprising AT ALL. It's precisely what one would expect to find.

So what are you bitching about, again?

[John McClane]

Did I say that homosexuality causes mental illness?

I didn't think so. What I said was:
In point of fact, mental illness IS statisically much more common among homosexuals than among the general population, which, given the status and situation of the GLBT community with regards to the broader society, shouldn't be surprising AT ALL. It's precisely what one would expect to find.



So what are you bitching about, again?She was "bitching" about just that. Or do those little letters get so jumbled up that you can't make them out? :rolleyes: I do believe they form to create words which disagree with your comment about mental illness being more common in homosexuals. Of course, I could be completely wrong. But I've got my money on Red 15 that I'm right. So why don't you just mind your lip when talking to lady, hm? :furious:

So nebbit, was I correct? If so, I totally concur.

[Purandara88]

Cliff Notes to this Tangent:

Me: Mental illness is much more common among homosexuals than the general population, and, given how homosexuals are treated, that shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

Nebbit: I've never heard that, and I claim to be in psychiatry!

Me: Here are several links to studies which show that mental illness is more prevalent among homosexuals.

Nebbit: Well, sexuality doesn't cause it.

Me: I didn't say it did. So why are you bitching?

John McClane: I am clearly challenged in the reading comprehension department, but Nebbit, you go girl!

[nebbit]

Did I say that homosexuality causes mental illness?
No but that is what you implied by not making your ravings clear :rolleyes:

So what are you bitching about, again?
I am as you put it "bitching" about your attitude, your coldness and lack of empathy :yup:

Nebbit: I've never heard that, and I claim to be in psychiatry!
I don't claim I do work in the area of psychiatry I do, I was wrong thanks for pointing that out, but I have also worked in research, you can usually prove any hypothesis if you ask the right questions :yup:

[Purandara88]

No but that is what you implied by not making your ravings clear :rolleyes:

It doesn't get much clearer than:

In point of fact, mental illness IS statisically much more common among homosexuals than among the general population, which, given the status and situation of the GLBT community with regards to the broader society, shouldn't be surprising AT ALL. It's precisely what one would expect to find.

How you got, "Homosexuality causes mental illness" from that, I can't even begin to guess.


I am as you put it "bitching" about your attitude, your coldness and lack of empathy :yup:

So which part is cold and unempathetic? Pointing out that homosexuals have a higher incidence of mental illness, which is a simple statement of fact, or pointing out that this shouldn't be surprising given the marginalization of the GLBT community by the dominant society?

[John McClane]

Nebbit: Well, sexuality doesn't cause it.Nebbit: That doesn't mean that they have more mental illness because of their sexuality.

Hmm....I say we put some As, Bs, and Cs together. Shall we? Alright then.

She said that they didn't have more mental illness because of their sexuality. She did not say that they had mental illness because of their sexuality. You are most certainly reading it the way you wish and I commend you on being a high class illiterate. Bravo! :rolleyes:

[nebbit]

So which part is cold and unempathetic? Pointing out that homosexuals have a higher incidence of mental illness, which is a simple statement of fact, or pointing out that this shouldn't be surprising given the marginalization of the GLBT community by the dominant society?
Wow your attitude has changed all of a sudden, mister empathic :laugh:zzz

[adidasss]

It's not a question of morality. Promiscuity and risky behavior have high social costs (as well as personal costs).
well let's get something straight, promiscuity doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with "risky" behaviour....i don't see what social costs promiscuity whilst practicing safe sex causes...do try to enlighten me....i'll keep saying, but only from personal experience ( maybe the gay community that you're familiar with is different ), that if anything, gay people arround these parts are even MORE careful than your average hetero-joe because we have been bombared with warnings about std's...there is obviously something wrong with those who choose not to practice safe sex, but again...i think the percentage of gays who are involved in "risky" behaviour is no different than with heterosexuals....

Hmmm, let's go to the tape:



That sounds like something that goes a little beyond, 'my personal experience.'
are you saying i'm generalizing? i think i've been arround enough men to know how most of them think...granted i live in the balcans....:-/

[Strummer521]

Nebbit: That doesn't mean that they have more mental illness because of their sexuality.

Hmm....I say we put some As, Bs, and Cs together. Shall we? Alright then.

She said that they didn't have more mental illness because of their sexuality. She did not say that they had mental illness because of their sexuality. You are most certainly reading it the way you wish and I commend you are being a high class illiterate. Bravo! :rolleyes:

I don't wanna take the wind out of your sails here, but you're misusing the word commend in the same sentence in which you're calling someone illiterate. Be careful with diction, because a misplaced word can undermine the credibility of your argument.

[John McClane]

I don't wanna take the wind out of your sails here, but you're misusing the word commend in the same sentence in which you're calling someone illiterate. Be careful with diction, because a misplaced word can undermine the credibility of your argument.
Woops, I meant to say "I commend you on being a high class illiterate." Is that better?