so, i saw several such posts here, haven't read them all but thought I'd post my own thoughts.
i think of gay people the same way i think of drug addicts, they are doing something wrong, but its not my responsibility to change, restrict, condemn, or otherwise demean them. they are human beings and and deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
what wrong are they committing? its hard to put it into words. if someone smokes a cigarette, they harm their body. but considering it a voluntary act, and smoking is legal, does that make smoking "right"? if a man has sex with another man, particularly anal, it risks the development and spread of sexually transmittable diseases. again, if proper precautions are taken the risk is minimal, so what harm is there?
i would ask the question, just because something doesn't necessarily harm you does that make it good?
if i was a judge in a court, i don't think i could marry you. i would recognize any contract you agree to between each other, up to and including living arrangements, and sexual practices, but in good conscience couldn't be the one that says "i now pronounce you husband and husband." i think part of the problem is how i was raised to believe. it's hard to change beliefs over night, and i hope i can come to a better understanding.
If you can't pin point why something is wrong then that's a good indication that it is not. Part of leaving religion is very closely examining past beliefs and making sure they are still something that should be held onto.
Cultural understanding of right and wrong are completely based on whether good or harm comes from actions. I would imagine that homosexuality is considered wrong by christianity because it messes with that be fruitful and multiply command; a 'harm' in the view of anyone that wants to make as many christians as possible.
I don't mind authority making rules that benefit society as a whole. Stopping at a red light when there's no traffic is annoying but I accept necessary rules will sometimes inconvenience me, it's all for the greater good and all. Smoking is bad, I'm glad smokers are sent outside, sorry guys. Gays have suffered much worse than being sent outside, they've been tortured and killed. Why? Because of someone's distaste or desire to control or faith? It's such a pitifully weak reason. Pitiful is the wrong word, it is despicable, I despise people who sit and judge another's love.
They've been doing a book reading of 1984 on the radio lately (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookreading/), it's a long time since I read it, they've just had the scene where the lovers are found out. I'm directing today's two minutes of hate at the oppressors, here's a little Dylan for yas.
QuoteAnd I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.
You could say that it is wrong for a person to go skydiving, they might kill themselves.
Actually, riding in a car on the roads is more dangerous than skydiving, maybe these things should be labelled as wrong and made illegal.
Could you willingly sell your old car to someone knowing that driving in cars is dangerous and just wrong?
Is it your duty to stop people doing the wrong thing? Is it the government's duty? Do we need a moral branch of the police force?
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 06:52:45 AMDo we need a moral branch of the police force?
I can see this now. And then a hop, skip, and not really even a jump to our very own Secret Police.
@ the OP
I don't like botty sex, homosexual or heterosexual. I don't do it. But is botty sex what defines homosexuality? Well if it is it shouldn't be. I would contend that homosexuality is a mental/emotional orientation whether that orientation becomes a physical act is down to the individuals concerned.
Another issue to consider is this. The psychological well-being of a homosexual person forced to hide their true orientation from fear of retribution/ostracisation. People should be able to state their sexual orientation, whatever it is, without fear of attack for simply being honest about that orientation.
Marriage is traditionally between a man and woman, slavery was also traditional, legalised pedophilia, in some Islamic countries, is also traditional. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right, as I'm sure you appreciate. And sometimes it does take time and effort to change one's own attitudes and those of people around one.
I think that the criteria for marriage would be 'A public ceremony between people to affirm their relationship.' It's a very simple definition free of any external presupposition of who is allowed to marry whom.
It has been wisely said, "Does it really matter what these people do — so long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses?"
I don't fancy gay sex myself, but if they do, let 'em get on with it. Anyway, the idea that it's wrong is not and has not been universal in all times and societies.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 04:45:29 AM
so, i saw several such posts here, haven't read them all but thought I'd post my own thoughts.
i think of gay people the same way i think of drug addicts, they are doing something wrong, but its not my responsibility to change, restrict, condemn, or otherwise demean them. they are human beings and and deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
what wrong are they committing? its hard to put it into words. if someone smokes a cigarette, they harm their body. but considering it a voluntary act, and smoking is legal, does that make smoking "right"? if a man has sex with another man, particularly anal, it risks the development and spread of sexually transmittable diseases. again, if proper precautions are taken the risk is minimal, so what harm is there?
i would ask the question, just because something doesn't necessarily harm you does that make it good?
if i was a judge in a court, i don't think i could marry you. i would recognize any contract you agree to between each other, up to and including living arrangements, and sexual practices, but in good conscience couldn't be the one that says "i now pronounce you husband and husband." i think part of the problem is how i was raised to believe. it's hard to change beliefs over night, and i hope i can come to a better understanding.
What does 'wrong' mean?
Your moral judgement?
God's moral judgement?
Combined social moral judgement?
Or is it more tangible, like 'injuring' (to use the legal term) other people?
If we are to support free-will then 'wrong' must surely only constitute the latter. Thankfully, the law (in the US and UK at least) tends to take a 'Combined social moral judgement' view, which
generally follows the 'injury' pemise. (Sodomy laws were invalidated in the US in 2003 by the supreme court).
Some countries are so religiously devout that the 'Combined social moral judgement' follows 'Gods moral judgement'. And as we are agreed that this is irrelevant we can ignore. I'm sure it would take time to readjust your own moral framework having dicarded God's.
'Your' moral judgement I can also ignore under the premise of free-will. You offer no justification for your conjecture that homosexuality is wrong - other than your free-will sapping assertion that you just don't like it.
So, this leaves us only with the 'injury' premise - and homosexuality is less of a social problem than hetero sex if we are forced to compare.
And drug-
addiction isn't wrong. Drug-taking per se isn't wrong. Theft, extra social care, extra public healthcare, public nuisance and public endangerment are wrong because they are injurious.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 22, 2011, 10:13:55 AM
extra public healthcare... are wrong because they are injurious.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is extra public healthcare?
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 04:45:29 AM
i think of gay people the same way i think of drug addicts, they are doing something wrong, but its not my responsibility to change, restrict, condemn, or otherwise demean them.
i think part of the problem is how i was raised to believe. it's hard to change beliefs over night, and i hope i can come to a better understanding.
I think this probably is a problem of the indoctrination you received as a child, either that or you're inherently a bit homophobic! I'm 100% straight and like nothing more than looking at pretty lasses, but I was brought up in a secular environment, and can see nothing 'wrong' with homosexuality at all. It's just some people are attracted to members of their own sex, viva la difference!
I have seen men who claim to be totally against homosexuality for religious reason, and because of reproductive reasons, enjoy lesbian porn. I wonder if homosexuality would be held in such disdain if the only homosexuals out there were supermodel lesbians? I think in many cases the couple of Bible verses that seem to paint homosexuality as a sin give license to people -- who already can't stomach the idea of two dudes having sword fights -- to discriminate against them, often in a very ugly way. I admit I'm a bit put off by the image, which is why I don't invoke the image into my conscious mind when talking to a homosexual. I invoke images of holding hands walking the beach or flowers or movies or a sweet kiss under the mistletoe. It's romance, it's love, and it's actually beautiful if thought of that way. It's very hard for two people to find lasting love these days, and I'm a love supporter no matter what kind of human-to-human love there is. I know, now I'm discriminating against people who like to make love to plants and furniture, and I really shouldn't.
See, I think a lot of this comes down to constructs of sexual morality. Gayle Rubin did a handy chart:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkentridgecommon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fthemasterplan_tma_v1.3.1%25202%25202%2Ftma%2Fimages%2Flatest%2Fsexualhierarchy.jpg&hash=400d479faab7e4f676bf9d9674a26495a14fcaf5)
The west has constructed (and I do mean constructed) that there are "good and natural" sexual acts and "bad and unnatural" sexual acts. People who engage in the "Good" sex are largely rewarded and re-inforced, the people who engage in the "Bad" sexual are labelled as perverted.
But really, when you think about it, why do we construct sexuality this way? Well, because traditionally, we needed people in heterosexual relationships to have babies and track the lineage of those babies. If we kept women straight, married and monogamous, we knew where their babies were coming from and that was important at that time for society. Men needed to be bound to the same constructs to support their female counterpoints.
But things change. We have birth control and the world is over-populated. Most of us don't live just to procreate any more, but we've hung on to the idea that certain kinds of sex are inherently moral or immoral. I really think these constructs come at the cost of individual happiness, we shouldn't have sweeping generalizations about what kind of sex is good and why, it should be examined on a case-by-case basis by those consenting individuals.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 04:45:29 AM
i would ask the question, just because something doesn't necessarily harm you does that make it good?
It doesn't necessarily make it bad or good. There are far more options than "either/or".
Quoteif i was a judge in a court, i don't think i could marry you.
What, exactly, is the difference between a legally married same-sex couple and a legally married opposite-sex couple? Please consider first what is
legally required of an opposite-sex couple in marriage, and explain how a same-sex couple cannot fulfill that. And if the only requirement is being opposite-sexed, please explain why that should be a legal necessity.
Quote from: Whitney on September 22, 2011, 04:54:47 AM
If you can't pin point why something is wrong then that's a good indication that it is not.
Couldn't agree more with this.
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 10:24:22 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 22, 2011, 10:13:55 AM
extra public healthcare... are wrong because they are injurious.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is extra public healthcare?
Free access to hospitals as we have in the UK. A service which is understaffed and overstretched (and staffed by the most wonderful doctors and nurses, and sadly undervalued by government). We do not need self inflicted injuries/illness straining the system further.
Quote from: Whitney on September 22, 2011, 04:54:47 AM
If you can't pin point why something is wrong then that's a good indication that it is not.
Excellent point. Also, when people ask why we do what we do and somebody says, "We've always done it that way", I reply that is a good reason to no longer do it that way. If it's your only response, then something is wrong. Things change. Always.
Quote from: Chronos on September 24, 2011, 01:43:54 AM
...Stuff Chronos said...
Love the name. Chronos. Awesome. Eat babies!
I guess the problem I have with society and it's disdain for homosexuality is that the benefit of gay marraige is lost with this misconception of homosexuality being an abomination, and the subsequent laws passed to appease the righteous tards. It seems to me that children brought up in environments with access to an accepted same-sex couple would tend to view the concept less critically. Just as children of (or raised around) interracial couples tend to be less racist, children brought up in the company of homosexuals would tend to be less homophobic and more accepting of the culture. Nothing cures intolerance like multiculturalism, i guess is the statement I'm making?
Quote from: fyv0h on September 28, 2011, 05:50:50 PM
Nothing cures intolerance like multiculturalism, i guess is the statement I'm making?
True enough, from what I've heard there've been enough kids raised in same-sex parent households over a long enough period of time to do studies of how they turned out and they found that altho there's only a slightly higher likelihood of the kids being homosexual themselves than kids raised by opposite-sex parents, there a much greater likelihood of the kids being tolerant and accepting of lifestyle differences.
Unfortunately, that itself is the problem with homophobes. They don't want greater tolerance of homosexuality, and they want anything that could cause it stepped on and eliminated fast.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on September 29, 2011, 02:03:49 AM
They don't want greater tolerance...
Tolerance should not be tolerated.
I have heard a theist state that they thought government were forcing tolerance of gay marriage onto their state and that they shouldn't be forced to tolerate it.
This of course makes no sense, but the way people twist things is amazing to me. They think I should consider their stance to be honest and that they are a victim because they are not allowed to outlaw something that they will never be the victim of.
Quote from: Stevil on September 29, 2011, 05:52:33 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on September 29, 2011, 02:03:49 AM
They don't want greater tolerance...
Tolerance should not be tolerated.
I have heard a theist state that they thought government were forcing tolerance of gay marriage onto their state and that they shouldn't be forced to tolerate it.
This of course makes no sense, but the way people twist things is amazing to me. They think I should consider their stance to be honest and that they are a victim because they are not allowed to outlaw something that they will never be the victim of.
Some people's brains hurt when they are made to realize that you can't outlaw something just because you don't like it. They don't like homosexuality, so they do all kinds of rationalizations and mental gymnastics to come up with "reasons" to outlaw it. The reasons make no sense and they probably know it. They don't care. They want to outlaw gay marriage because they, on a very personal level, just don't like it.
Of course, most of us realize that not liking something is not a good enough reason to outlaw it, but some people aren't used to being told "no".
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 29, 2011, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on September 29, 2011, 05:52:33 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on September 29, 2011, 02:03:49 AM
They don't want greater tolerance...
Tolerance should not be tolerated.
I have heard a theist state that they thought government were forcing tolerance of gay marriage onto their state and that they shouldn't be forced to tolerate it.
This of course makes no sense, but the way people twist things is amazing to me. They think I should consider their stance to be honest and that they are a victim because they are not allowed to outlaw something that they will never be the victim of.
Some people's brains hurt when they are made to realize that you can't outlaw something just because you don't like it. They don't like homosexuality, so they do all kinds of rationalizations and mental gymnastics to come up with "reasons" to outlaw it. The reasons make no sense and they probably know it. They don't care. They want to outlaw gay marriage because they, on a very personal level, just don't like it.
Of course, most of us realize that not liking something is not a good enough reason to outlaw it, but some people aren't used to being told "no".
Glee?
Quote from: Tank on September 29, 2011, 04:14:25 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 29, 2011, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on September 29, 2011, 05:52:33 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on September 29, 2011, 02:03:49 AM
They don't want greater tolerance...
Tolerance should not be tolerated.
I have heard a theist state that they thought government were forcing tolerance of gay marriage onto their state and that they shouldn't be forced to tolerate it.
This of course makes no sense, but the way people twist things is amazing to me. They think I should consider their stance to be honest and that they are a victim because they are not allowed to outlaw something that they will never be the victim of.
Some people's brains hurt when they are made to realize that you can't outlaw something just because you don't like it. They don't like homosexuality, so they do all kinds of rationalizations and mental gymnastics to come up with "reasons" to outlaw it. The reasons make no sense and they probably know it. They don't care. They want to outlaw gay marriage because they, on a very personal level, just don't like it.
Of course, most of us realize that not liking something is not a good enough reason to outlaw it, but some people aren't used to being told "no".
Glee?
Nooooo, actually. Was that from the most recent season? I watched the first season, but I haven't seen anything since :P
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 29, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 29, 2011, 04:14:25 PM
Glee?
Nooooo, actually. Was that from the most recent season? I watched the first season, but I haven't seen anything since :P
Jezzz the title was enough for me to avoid it like tooth ache!
Quote from: Tank on September 29, 2011, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 29, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 29, 2011, 04:14:25 PM
Glee?
Nooooo, actually. Was that from the most recent season? I watched the first season, but I haven't seen anything since :P
Jezzz the title was enough for me to avoid it like tooth ache!
Hahaha :D :D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 29, 2011, 04:05:26 PM
Some people's brains hurt when they are made to realize that you can't outlaw something just because you don't like it. They don't like homosexuality, so they do all kinds of rationalizations and mental gymnastics to come up with "reasons" to outlaw it. The reasons make no sense and they probably know it. They don't care. They want to outlaw gay marriage because they, on a very personal level, just don't like it.
Of course, most of us realize that not liking something is not a good enough reason to outlaw it, but some people aren't used to being told "no".
Valid observation. The idea of two men having sex may disgust me and cause a visceral reaction, but that in and of itself is no reason for me to demand that it be outlawed. Some of the things people eat disgust me to, and some of the clothes I see people wear in Wal-Mart disgust me even more. Working in a hospital, I see some repugnantly fat people come in complaining of health problems, and there is an immediate and negative visceral reaction in the core of my being. However, I don't demand that they be "outlawed." Generally, I'm for individual liberty, and I think that government should stay out of people's lives unless they are harming someone else. So, if two men want to marry, that's their business, whether I understand it or not.
Here in Texas, a comedian/musician/author/bullshit artist named Kinky Friedman ran for governor in 2006. I decided to vote for him when he was asked "do you support gay marriage." His response was "yes, I support gay marriage. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?"
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 03:42:52 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 29, 2011, 04:05:26 PM
Some people's brains hurt when they are made to realize that you can't outlaw something just because you don't like it. They don't like homosexuality, so they do all kinds of rationalizations and mental gymnastics to come up with "reasons" to outlaw it. The reasons make no sense and they probably know it. They don't care. They want to outlaw gay marriage because they, on a very personal level, just don't like it.
Of course, most of us realize that not liking something is not a good enough reason to outlaw it, but some people aren't used to being told "no".
Valid observation. The idea of two men having sex may disgust me and cause a visceral reaction, but that in and of itself is no reason for me to demand that it be outlawed. Some of the things people eat disgust me to, and some of the clothes I see people wear in Wal-Mart disgust me even more. Working in a hospital, I see some repugnantly fat people come in complaining of health problems, and there is an immediate and negative visceral reaction in the core of my being. However, I don't demand that they be "outlawed." Generally, I'm for individual liberty, and I think that government should stay out of people's lives unless they are harming someone else. So, if two men want to marry, that's their business, whether I understand it or not.
Here in Texas, a comedian/musician/author/bullshit artist named Kinky Friedman ran for governor in 2006. I decided to vote for him when he was asked "do you support gay marriage." His response was "yes, I support gay marriage. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?"
Why can't all theists think this way?
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 08, 2011, 03:50:26 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 03:42:52 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 29, 2011, 04:05:26 PM
Some people's brains hurt when they are made to realize that you can't outlaw something just because you don't like it. They don't like homosexuality, so they do all kinds of rationalizations and mental gymnastics to come up with "reasons" to outlaw it. The reasons make no sense and they probably know it. They don't care. They want to outlaw gay marriage because they, on a very personal level, just don't like it.
Of course, most of us realize that not liking something is not a good enough reason to outlaw it, but some people aren't used to being told "no".
Valid observation. The idea of two men having sex may disgust me and cause a visceral reaction, but that in and of itself is no reason for me to demand that it be outlawed. Some of the things people eat disgust me to, and some of the clothes I see people wear in Wal-Mart disgust me even more. Working in a hospital, I see some repugnantly fat people come in complaining of health problems, and there is an immediate and negative visceral reaction in the core of my being. However, I don't demand that they be "outlawed." Generally, I'm for individual liberty, and I think that government should stay out of people's lives unless they are harming someone else. So, if two men want to marry, that's their business, whether I understand it or not.
Here in Texas, a comedian/musician/author/bullshit artist named Kinky Friedman ran for governor in 2006. I decided to vote for him when he was asked "do you support gay marriage." His response was "yes, I support gay marriage. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?"
Why can't all theists think this way?
Because only a limited number of people are capable of critical thought and an even smaller number actually bother to make the effort.
I just watched a documentary (you can stream it on Netflix) called For the Bible Tells Me So. It focuses on how the Bible is misused to persecute homosexuals. It was an interesting movie, though I give you fair warning that most of the people (even the open-minded, tolerant ones) are religious. It was ultimately a hopeful message that the attitude toward homosexuals within the religious community is and will continue to change and become more accepting.
I'm just left with one major question, though. So many people in the movie have an epiphany about homosexuality. They realize that God wouldn't make homosexuals only to curse them to hell. Or they realize that Jesus' message of love is more important than obscure Old Testament references to sexual behavior. So many people have an "a-ha" moment about this, but so few of them go the next step to question the existence of god altogether. In fact, many of them thank him for bringing about their change of heart. How is it that there isn't more of a snowball effect here?
I watched that documentary a few weeks ago. It's sad about some of those people and what they went through, and how their families treated them.
It was sad. But at least most of the parents grew to accept and even embrace their children's homosexuality. Unfortunately, in Christian homes, I think this is the exception rather than the rule.
I was particularly infuriated by the clips of Dr. Dobson and Jimmy Swaggart. It amazes me that such hatred can parade around as Christian Ministry. I find the whole idea of "reforming" sexuality complete asininity.
Hmm, homosexuality, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
It used to though.
As a lifelong atheist, it wasn't anything in the bible that made me against it, neither was I brought up to fear or hate gays.
I just decided in my youth that because gays are a minority that they weren't "normal". Before anybody jumps down my throat with "what is normal?", "yes they are normal!" - no, no they aren't. "The norm" is what the majority do ie man sleeps with woman, so homosexuals aren't normal by definition.
My attitude changed, when I came to the conclusion "what is actually wrong with not being normal?" - I couldn't really justify my anti-gay opinion any longer. So now I don't mind at all.
I have to say though, if I see two men kissing on TV, I can't actually stomach it, it makes me cringe. No problem with two women kissing though, work that one out. (i know that statement goes against my initial sentence, to clarify - watching the homosexual act bothers me as heterosexual stuff turns me on, but I'm no longer bothered by anyone being gay, if that makes any sense)
QuoteHmm, homosexuality, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
It used to though.
I understand that sentiment. I was actually brought up to hate them. No joke, I have heard religious leaders of a church use the term "serves them right" when referring to a homosexual who was beaten to death for no good reason. The religious leaders are the ones really pushing the hate and bigotry. When we lived in Alabama, my wife worked for a large day care facility, where I saw one child in particular who was very flamboyant. This child was 5 years old and it was evident that his feminine side was dominant. so as a theist, I automatically assumed he either had 2 fathers, or he was influenced by a homosexual male in his house or maybe his mother coddled him too much. I found out from the boy's father that none of those thoughts were true. As a matter of fact, the father was trying for the last year and a half to "man him up". So the first thought in my head was how can this be? can it be that people are born homosexual? Then after actually finding out that 2 friends I have had since childhood came out of the closet, I had figured out that the things I was taught since childhood were very wrong.
I truly feel remorse for the way I treated people, for the way I thought, and for the awful things I said. It makes me happy to know I have come around to see things for how they really are.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 24, 2011, 11:13:21 PM
I have to say though, if I see two men kissing on TV, I can't actually stomach it, it makes me cringe. No problem with two women kissing though, work that one out. (i know that statement goes against my initial sentence, to clarify - watching the homosexual act bothers me as heterosexual stuff turns me on, but I'm no longer bothered by anyone being gay, if that makes any sense)
It makes sense. That's pretty much my feeling. What I'm no longer bothered by is what someone else does in the privacy of their own bedroom, or who they marry, or how they live their life (as long as it doesn't actually affect me, which most lives don't). It's just not my business, and I'm all for people - and governments - staying out of other peoples' business.
Quote from: Good and Godless on October 24, 2011, 05:28:58 AM
In fact, many of them thank him for bringing about their change of heart. How is it that there isn't more of a snowball effect here?
I seriously think that newer generations of Christians won't have the same issues with homosexuality that their fathers had. The more you are around something, the less it bothers you. Homosexuality used to be in the closet - now it's out, so there is a desensitization process that takes place. If it's part of the environment you grow up in, it won't be that big of a deal. That's my prediction, anyway.
When I grew up, blacks and whites had very little interaction on a daily basis. Now we intermingle all the time. It's less of an issue now, whereas it was a very violent issue 50 years ago. That's not to say there isn't still racism, but on the average, people get along. I think that's what it will eventually be like for homosexuality.
I think that can't be denied somebody's rights because we don't like them. I don't like homosexuality(same as they don't like heterosexuality), but I don't have the right to insult them or whatever. If nobody has any minimum scientific proof that homosexuality is wrong, then we better shut the f*** up.
Quote from: Troll god on October 28, 2011, 11:33:40 PM
I don't like homosexuality(same as they don't like heterosexuality)
Just out of curiousity, why do you think homosexuals don't like heterosexuality?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtcQuote from: Troll god on Today at 03:33:40 PM
I don't like homosexuality(same as they don't like heterosexuality)
Just out of curiousity, why do you think homosexuals don't like heterosexuality?
Maybe by "like" Troll god actually means "partake in"...?
Quote from: Good and Godless on October 29, 2011, 03:28:26 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtcQuote from: Troll god on Today at 03:33:40 PM
I don't like homosexuality(same as they don't like heterosexuality)
Just out of curiousity, why do you think homosexuals don't like heterosexuality?
Maybe by "like" Troll god actually means "partake in"...?
OK, that makes sense altho the division between the two is a great deal fuzzier than that.
What I mean guys, is that as a hetero, I don't like to do homo things. Same for them, they're homos, and they don't like to do hetero things. I don't like to see two men having sex with each others. That is the point of all, I told you before that I'm not good with English.
Quote from: Troll god on October 29, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
What I mean guys, is that as a hetero, I don't like to do homo things. Same for them, they're homos, and they don't like to do hetero things. I don't like to see two men having sex with each others. That is the point of all, I told you before that I'm not good with English.
No problem, TG. Your sexual practices are stricly hetero. Ok. But in every other domain such as adoption, teaching, etc. , if I understand you correctly, someone's sexual orientation (same, opposite, both, neither, rabbits) has no importance to you. Is that correct?
Quote from: Troll god on October 29, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
What I mean guys, is that as a hetero, I don't like to do homo things. Same for them, they're homos, and they don't like to do hetero things. I don't like to see two men having sex with each others. That is the point of all, I told you before that I'm not good with English.
That's okay. We just may, from time to time, ask you clarify exactly what you mean. The internet is tricky enough for interpreting other people's perspectives at the best of times. :)
Why would I have a problem with a homosexual teacher, parent etc.? Is not the sexuality who matters but the individual intellect. ;)
Like you, Tg, I don't fancy being gay myself. But I have found that homosexuals can be very kind and understanding, tolerant people. Also many are unusually talented.
Quote from: Troll god on October 29, 2011, 10:31:35 PM
Why would I have a problem with a homosexual teacher, parent etc.? Is not the sexuality who matters but the individual intellect. ;)
I wouldn't expect you to, TG. I was just clarifying what you send earlier along the lines that BooksCatsEtc was suggesting.
Quote from: Troll god on October 29, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
What I mean guys, is that as a hetero, I don't like to do homo things. Same for them, they're homos, and they don't like to do hetero things. I don't like to see two men having sex with each others. That is the point of all, I told you before that I'm not good with English.
I don't mind watching a porno of two women.
I have never tried to watch a porno of two men, which probably shows I am a little homophobic. I am sure if I watched a few then I would become desensitized to it.
Quote from: Stevil on October 30, 2011, 06:03:03 PM
Quote from: Troll god on October 29, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
What I mean guys, is that as a hetero, I don't like to do homo things. Same for them, they're homos, and they don't like to do hetero things. I don't like to see two men having sex with each others. That is the point of all, I told you before that I'm not good with English.
I don't mind watching a porno of two women.
I have never tried to watch a porno of two men, which probably shows I am a little homophobic. I am sure if I watched a few then I would become desensitized to it.
I dunno. I've never (intentionally) watched a film of wallabies screwing (the animals not members of a rugby team) but I'm have no problems with them. And although I've never actually met one, I'm sure they're perfectly nice animals.
Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 06:11:06 PM
I dunno. I've never (intentionally) watched a film of wallabies screwing (the animals not members of a rugby team) but I'm have no problems with them. And although I've never actually met one, I'm sure they're perfectly nice animals.
Wallophobe!
But I take the bit in brackets to mean you
have watched the Aussie rugby team in action?
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 06:13:20 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 06:11:06 PM
I dunno. I've never (intentionally) watched a film of wallabies screwing (the animals not members of a rugby team) but I'm have no problems with them. And although I've never actually met one, I'm sure they're perfectly nice animals.
Wallophobe!
But I take the bit in brackets to mean you have watched the Aussie rugby team in action?
Sure, I have Isn't that what they always do while the Kiwis are doing the haka?
:D
But seriously - I'm quoting Stevil's post here because it's the most recent, but it seems to be a pretty general view (from the men at least):
Quote from: Stevil on October 30, 2011, 06:03:03 PM
I don't mind watching a porno of two women.
I have never tried to watch a porno of two men, which probably shows I am a little homophobic. I am sure if I watched a few then I would become desensitized to it.
I don't think that's homophobic. I suspect it has more to do with you not being interested in sex with men, or looking at them naked, so why would you watch man-on-man porn? It would kind of defeat the object of watching porn!
I used to be quite squeamish about seeing women kiss, but it doesn't bother me any more. I do wonder if that was a result of meeting some really attractive gay women and thinking ... hmm ... never say never!
Quote from: BruceI seriously think that newer generations of Christians won't have the same issues with homosexuality that their fathers had. The more you are around something, the less it bothers you. Homosexuality used to be in the closet - now it's out, so there is a desensitization process that takes place. If it's part of the environment you grow up in, it won't be that big of a deal. That's my prediction, anyway.
That's an encouraging post, Bruce.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 06:32:53 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 30, 2011, 06:03:03 PM
I don't mind watching a porno of two women.
I have never tried to watch a porno of two men, which probably shows I am a little homophobic. I am sure if I watched a few then I would become desensitized to it.
I don't think that's homophobic. I suspect it has more to do with you not being interested in sex with men, or looking at them naked, so why would you watch man-on-man porn? It would kind of defeat the object of watching porn!
I wouldn't consider that homophobic either. We like what we like, and since there's only so much time in the day there's no point in wasting any on things we don't like. Not unless we have to anyway, because I know someone is now thinking "hey, what about going to jobs we hate?"
Now, if Stevil where walking up and down the street with a sign protesting a theater showing a movie with two men kissing, and demanding that movie be banned, that would be homophobic.
Quote from: AttilaI dunno. I've never (intentionally) watched a film of wallabies screwing (the animals not members of a rugby team) but I'm have no problems with them. And although I've never actually met one, I'm sure they're perfectly nice animals.
Two British officers in India, talking in the mess:
"I say, I was just out in the jungle and I saw Carruthers shagging a gorilla!"
"Good God! Not a male gorilla?"
"No, a female. Nothing queer about Carruthers!"
Quote from: OldGit on October 30, 2011, 07:43:41 PMTwo British officers in India, talking in the mess:
"I say, I was just out in the jungle and I saw Carruthers shagging a gorilla!"
"Good God! Not a male gorilla?"
"No, a female. Nothing queer about Carruthers!"
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Goodness, I like some much the jokes.