Homosexuality

[teisjm]

Well, obviously i'm so awesoe that everything, even males are attraced to me.

I like gay people the same way i like vegetarians, what they do don't affect or offend me, and since they say no to the nice meat, theres more for me.

jokes aside, any sexual orientation that doesn't include child molestation, rape or other evil behavior are okay in my book, and i don't see why on earth i should care whether some dude likes dudes instead of girls.

IMO people who act strongly against homosexuallity are nothing but lame biggots, and i really can't take them seriously, they're no better than jack thompson, and he's very bad in my book.

 

[Hangaround]

I have no problem with homosexuals; and i see no natural reason for any living human being to have it either. It's proven to be natural amongst at least 1500 other species.

 

[DonMartin]

Ive nothing against homosexuals. In fact, if I were attracted to men and wanted to engage in sexual intercourse with men, I too would be gay.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Homos have something wrong with them. Physicaly Wrong.

Every animal on the planet lusts after a animal of the same species, but of the opposite sex.

Humans are no different... Usialy.

These people either have some weird Hormone imbalance or They have fooled themselfs into thinking they like the same sex, because it simply isnt natural.

When you have to resort to comparing humans to other animals, you've kind of already lost. Humans are a little more advanced than other animals. We have free will. We do a TON of things that are against our "nature", because we've LONG since passed the point at which we follow what "nature" supposedly dictates.

"Our nature" is completely and utterly irrelevant now, and has been for a very long time, because it just doesn't apply anymore. Wanna go back to nature? Go back to being a hunter-gatherer with limited communication skills, living in a cave. Enjoy.

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

Just a question to all of you who say that you don't like homosexuals "shoving it in your face"...

How many of you think you could live with a person who was an open homosexual, was in a committed romantic and sexual relationship with another man, and lived in the same house as you, as your house-mate.

Would him bringing his boyfriend over a few nights a week be "shoving it in your face"?

No. Due to my limited english vocabulary, I am going to post my "in your face"-scale as short as possible:

I'm going to tackle your points one-by-one.

- overly femimine behavior

Some gay men are genuinely that feminine. You wouldn't fault a woman for being feminine, nor would you fault her for being masculine either. No hypocrisy or double-standards. Besides, I never said that the man in the scenario was feminine.

- faking their voices

I'm sorry, what? Faking their voices? You mean, their tone of voice and intonation, which makes them sound stereotypically gay? Most of that is not their fault, it's just the way they talk. However, some do play it up to be annoying.

- offensively erotic clothing

Once again, I relate back to women wearing overly erotic clothing. Also, plenty of straight men wear those ridiculous wife-beaters to show off their chest and arm muscles. That could be considered erotic clothing by some... who are really into muscles. *shudder*

- talking all the time about it

Talking about being gay? You know... I have seldom heard anyone I know who is gay or bisexual talk about being gay or bisexual, in and of itself. The topic of dating comes up, as does sex, as does politics. We talk about the same stuff straight folks do.

- doing things beyond regular kissing or hugging in front of my eyes

Straight folks do this to. Honestly, I agree. No one should start getting all gropey in public, at least not seriously.

- always feeling as a victim

You'll have to forgive us for feeling like we're victims... We kind of ARE.
You'll notice, that we are still being actively discriminated against. Large portions of the world hate us for being what we are, for merely doing what feels good and natural to us. Many nations in the world won't let us marry the ones we love, and they don't have a non-religious leg to stand on. Tell me... If there was something that prevented you from getting married to the person you loved... wouldn't you feel victimized?

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Gays can bleed just as much as other people. Don't see how they're any different than other humans. But if homophobic old white folks want to keep the fear of gays alive, shun them, and take away their rights, by all means, go ahead. Those fear-mongers only live another few years anyway, then put nail in the coffin and move on to a better future with liberty and equality for all.

Anyway, just for clarification's sake, when I say Gays bleed just as much as other people, I mean you can take a stereotypical white republican homophobic racist, and put him side-by-side with a stereotypical gay person dressed in a casual blazer with nice hair, tell them both to hold out a vein, and cut 'em. If the gay person doesn't start bleeding a poisonous, radioactive liquid that kills all life it touches, and if the homophobic person bleeds at all (tragically staining his gleaming white horse), I think we can be fairly certain that they're equal in regards to their humanity.

Oh dear, I forgot about black people and their being sub-human. Silly me, I completely forgot that if you have 1/16th black blood running in your veins, you're technically black! How goofy of me. In that case, Gays are subhuman, Blacks are a servant race, Mexicans are lazy, and white people rule supreme, blessed by the hand of God almighty. Moving on to the next topic now.

 

[Jonabob87]

You'll have to forgive us for feeling like we're victims... We kind of ARE.
You'll notice, that we are still being actively discriminated against. Large portions of the world hate us for being what we are, for merely doing what feels good and natural to us. Many nations in the world won't let us marry the ones we love, and they don't have a non-religious leg to stand on. Tell me... If there was something that prevented you from getting married to the person you loved... wouldn't you feel victimized?

Surely when we're talking about a religious ceremony such as marriage, a religious leg is more than enough to stand on? How can you talk about your right to freedom of expression but the church can't express theirs?

 

[zerofan]

I don't understand how someone can be homosexual but I'm not against it.

Lots of friends who are gay and even a few who've hit on me over the years. Still, I don't get "how" you can be gay (I'm very logical in the sense "you have sex to make babies and they can't do that" sort of thing). But I'm not closed minded, I just can't understand it :lol: but then, neither can most homosexuals.

I understand the love side of homosexuallity (wanting to marry and be with them) but the sex thing boggles me (and I think that is more to the lines of I'm not into recreational sex really myself, and no I'm not a virgin, I have two kids ).

I just wanted to put another line of thought down

 

[Jedoro]

"A gentleman has no vices, but allows others their own."

I'm fine with homosexuals, but don't hit on me.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

You'll have to forgive us for feeling like we're victims... We kind of ARE.
You'll notice, that we are still being actively discriminated against. Large portions of the world hate us for being what we are, for merely doing what feels good and natural to us. Many nations in the world won't let us marry the ones we love, and they don't have a non-religious leg to stand on. Tell me... If there was something that prevented you from getting married to the person you loved... wouldn't you feel victimized?

Surely when we're talking about a religious ceremony such as marriage, a religious leg is more than enough to stand on? How can you talk about your right to freedom of expression but the church can't express theirs?

Marriage isn't (or at least, it shouldn't be) a purely religious ceremony. Marriage predates religion. The church, simply put, is wrong.

Now if a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, then by all means that's their right. But making gay marriage illegal based on a purely religious standpoint is ridiculous.

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

Surely when we're talking about a religious ceremony such as marriage, a religious leg is more than enough to stand on? How can you talk about your right to freedom of expression but the church can't express theirs?

I'm not talking about Marriage as a religious institution. I'm talking about civil, government sanctioned marriage. What reason can you cite for not allowing us to be legally binded by the government? A supposedly non-religious entity.

Name one good reason that does not relate back to religion or morality.

 

[caselj01]

I am a homophobe. By which I mean that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals. I try to be all "Everyone has the right to be who they are" etc but to be honest the thought of 2 guys actually doing it freaks me out.

 

[firemark]

If your are against it ("homophobic") why?
If not, are you disgusted with some people's behaviour towards gay men and women?

Let's set the record straight first. Homophobic: Homo means "same" Phobos means "fear" so if you are homophobic you are afraid of things staying the same. I'm all for the argument that words have meanings and they are deemed meaningful by society, but there is no way being "homophobic" can mean the same thing as scared of homosexuals. Secondly, if you are opposed to homosexuality you are not homophobic (using the common speech definition "afraid of homosexuals). Do not confuse the two.

I am personally opposed to the act, due to religious beliefs. However, if society, which it has, deems it normal to be in a homosexual relationship than it should be "legal" to allow them to enter same-sex unions and given all the same tax breaks etc. that a married couple (man and woman) would receive.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't care, to be honest...

 

[Gigano]

Whatever consenting adults do in private is absolutely none of my or anyone else's business.

There's no logical or sound ethical basis for condemning homosexuality as far as I'm concerned, and given the discriminatory harm such condemnation is doing, anyone holding it should themselves be relentlessly ridiculed and condemned as backwards, bigoted, and utterly unethical. They of course deserve no more respect and no better treatment than they're willing to extend to any non-harmful group.

 

[Jonabob87]

You'll have to forgive us for feeling like we're victims... We kind of ARE.
You'll notice, that we are still being actively discriminated against. Large portions of the world hate us for being what we are, for merely doing what feels good and natural to us. Many nations in the world won't let us marry the ones we love, and they don't have a non-religious leg to stand on. Tell me... If there was something that prevented you from getting married to the person you loved... wouldn't you feel victimized?

Surely when we're talking about a religious ceremony such as marriage, a religious leg is more than enough to stand on? How can you talk about your right to freedom of expression but the church can't express theirs?

Marriage isn't (or at least, it shouldn't be) a purely religious ceremony. Marriage predates religion. The church, simply put, is wrong.

Now if a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, then by all means that's their right. But making gay marriage illegal based on a purely religious standpoint is ridiculous.

Sorry but marriage pre-dates reliable history, so it's not possible to say whether it predates religion or not (and I SERIOUSLY doubt that it does).

Regardless, from an Abrahamic stand point the first two humans on earth were the first married couple, so to them marriage is the oldest of all earthly institutions. Who are you to tell them different?

On the basis of legalistic marriage, I couldn't care less. As long as people stop bitching about the church not wanting to do it, I'm more than happy.

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

I am a homophobe. By which I mean that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals. I try to be all "Everyone has the right to be who they are" etc but to be honest the thought of 2 guys actually doing it freaks me out.

At least you openly admit to this. Not like these folks who claim tolerance, but their actions belie their words.

Also, in your case, it is an actual phobia, as in an irrational fear instead of hatred.
Just... just try not to think about dudes getting freaky, and don't gay-bash. You'll be fine.

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

Opinions of homosexuality? How is this still a topic of discussion? It doesnt matter if you do it in the butt or not there are more important things that we as a species should focus on.

 

[firemark]

I'm fine with it, of course. But, like with any minority group anywhere, stop acting like attention-whore children. We need Gay Pride Parades as much as we need Black History Month, i.e. not at all. It just teaches us to segregate each other. Why not have a "Celebration Month" or "History Day" or something where everyone can enjoy it? Why are you so special that you get to have your parade? I'm sure if someone started a "Straight Pride Parade" they would be called bible-thumping hate-mongering un-Canadian terrorists.

Honestly, those flashy parades make the normal ones look bad. I swear there would be less homophobia if they didn't exist. Take your typical, average, working-class hero 20-something club-bopping straight guy. He's a macho dood. He walks down the street and is assaulted by a tsunami of colour, feathers, and guys in tights. It reminds the guy of musicals and chick flicks and he fucking hates that shit. It makes him want to punch a kitten. He sees the words "Gay pride". Now he associates the word "Gay" with something he hates.

But yeah, otherwise, go ahead. Adopt kids, marry, do whatever you want. Just realize you're not special. Different, yes, but not special anymore.

I was just going to quote the top part of your comment, but I can't. The whole thing makes me want to scream: "YES!". You are absolutely right! By separating themselves from society, homosexuals and African Americans (Blacks, or whatever is PC these days) are themselves causing the segregation! Thank you for saying this, although I might have toned it down a bit. However I agree with all of it.

 

[Falseprophet]

As far as I can tell, I'm as straight as they come, but have never really had a problem with homosexuality. Even growing up among Catholics, going to Catholic school, surrounded by first and second-generation Southern and Eastern European immigrants (including my family), there didn't seem to be a rational reason for homophobia.

As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, I would argue my society (Canada) already resolved all the issues concerning it years ago:

-On the argument that "children should have a mother and a father": We don't automatically take children away from single parents.

-Marriage is for procreation: We don't strip the status of marriage from infertile couples, nor is procreation a legal requirement for marriage. Not every religion sees marriage as primarily for procreation either. The United Church of Canada, the second-largest sect in the country, teaches marriage is about companionship, with children being a "blessing from God". In any event, non-fertile heteros can adopt or use fertilization technologies, it's unjust to deny it to LGBTQ parents.

-Homosexuality is deviant behaviour: Science is long past that definition. There is plenty of evidence that here are some hypotheses on why that might be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals]). So the "unnatural" argument doesn't hold water. There is also no data indicating homosexuals or their children are more likely to be criminal or antisocial than heteros or their children.

The only arguments that remain are religious or otherwise irrational (the "ick" factor), which I reject, because i) religious arguments that cannot be backed up on a rational or empirical basis have no place in public policy, ii) no one interest group gets to dictate "appropriate" behaviour to the rest of us without reasonable grounds, and iii) some churches are happy to marry same-sex couples and to prevent that would be to interfere with their religious freedom.

On that note, I agree no clergyperson should be forced to marry anyone against their will because liberal democracy means accepting even people you don't like have their rights too, but anyone marrying couples as a secular official of the state should marry any legal couple who comes before them.