Poll: Homosexuality

[Vanguard_Ex]

Discussion of this topic is largely irrelevant. Sooner or later, unless we WANT to be a species of close-minded bigots, we are going to have to accept homosexuality, along with ethnic, political and most importantly of all, religious differences.
Anyone who seriously thinks homosexuality is wrong and punishable does not belong in the modern world.

AHHHH. THIS. You are so right! Haha, I'm always thinking this when I hear people vehemently oppose things that feel foolish to me.

Why thank you Fuzzy, it's good to know there aren't people who seriously think anything can be discussed like this.

As the proud son of two lesbians, I feel I am fairly bias towards this subject.

Two mothers...wow. I actually envy you man.

 

[powell86]

The homophobic people. I'm just waiting for them to die and expecting them to shut up until they do. They will die, and eventually I hope some generation of their children grows up in recognition of their stupidity. Even if I could, it's not my responsibility or that of any LGBT person to grant epiphany to entrenched homophobes, but I know their children will grow up in a very different world and that's enough for me.

I would assume most LGBT won't get to have children...

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

The homophobic people. I'm just waiting for them to die and expecting them to shut up until they do. They will die, and eventually I hope some generation of their children grows up in recognition of their stupidity. Even if I could, it's not my responsibility or that of any LGBT person to grant epiphany to entrenched homophobes, but I know their children will grow up in a very different world and that's enough for me.

I would assume most LGBT won't get to have children...

Sorry this should be obvious... we can still adopt... and lesbian couples can have children quite easily, either from sperm banks, or one can still have sex with a man to get pregnant (before I get called on this I know people who have done this).

Sorry if you meant that most wont 'want' to have children, but even this may be false, I personally don't, at least not yet, but many gay couples would like to have children.

Edit: And I'm fairly sure they meant the homophobes children.

 

[powell86]

Sorry this should be obvious... we can still adopt... and lesbian couples can have children quite easily, either from sperm banks, or one can still have sex with a man to get pregnant (before I get called on this I know people who have done this).

Sorry if you meant that most wont 'want' to have children, but even this may be false, I personally don't, at least not yet, but many gay couples would like to have children.

Edit: And I'm fairly sure they meant the homophobes children.

I assumed that he meant LGBT children, as homophobes' children could grow up to be homophobes especially with early childhood indoctrination.

And I said most LGBT are not able to have children. I understand you can adopt, sperm bank, have sex with men etc. But Gays can't haf sperm bank and sex with men, and neither will the Trans group able to have children naturally. Hence adoption seems to be the most viable option for LGBT as a whole group.

Which leads me to adoption laws across many countries. Most of them DO NOT allow for LGBTs to adopt. So there you go.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

Sorry this should be obvious... we can still adopt... and lesbian couples can have children quite easily, either from sperm banks, or one can still have sex with a man to get pregnant (before I get called on this I know people who have done this).

Sorry if you meant that most wont 'want' to have children, but even this may be false, I personally don't, at least not yet, but many gay couples would like to have children.

Edit: And I'm fairly sure they meant the homophobes children.

I assumed that he meant LGBT children, as homophobes' children could grow up to be homophobes especially with early childhood indoctrination.

And I said most LGBT are not able to have children. I understand you can adopt, sperm bank, have sex with men etc. But Gays can't haf sperm bank and sex with men, and neither will the Trans group able to have children naturally. Hence adoption seems to be the most viable option for LGBT as a whole group.

Which leads me to adoption laws across many countries. Most of them DO NOT allow for LGBTs to adopt. So there you go.

Sorry I only have the laws of my own country to go by. But I am aware that other countries will be different.

As for homophobic families having children the same as them, I grew up in a very strong believing Catholic family, and told my entire life that gay people are sinners, wrong, will go to hell, ect... , and I still get told that on occasion, yet I'm gay myself, so I'd like to think that children will not necessary grow up like their parents.
Though saying that, for a long time after I found I was gay, I was distraught, being pulled between my faith and my self, to the point that I saw a counciler over it, so I understand what you mean about parents affecting how their children will feel.
I guess we can only hope that future generations will be more open to things.

 

[Break]

And I said most LGBT are not able to have children. I understand you can adopt, sperm bank, have sex with men etc. But Gays can't haf sperm bank and sex with men, and neither will the Trans group able to have children naturally. Hence adoption seems to be the most viable option for LGBT as a whole group.

You're forgetting about surrogate mothers. Same deal as sperm donation, except it generally involves a closer relationship with the third party. Not saying that you're wrong about the adoption thing being more reliable, but there you go.

 

[MajWound]

Being commonly jilted by women, I wish I was gay.

So you assume you wouldn't be jilted by gay men for the same reasons, whatever they might be?

I guess "jilted" is the wrong word entirely, since I'm usually the one that does the dumping. Maybe it's more accurate to say that I hate women. Generally speaking, they're more boring, illogical, unstable, idiotic, and unlikable than any of my guy friends. Unfortunately I'm not sexually attracted to men, so I guess I'll keep banging ladies. I just don't want to be around them any longer than it takes to do that.

EDIT: Weirdly enough, I'm still a fan of women's rights. But that's probably the libertarian in me. You see, people? It IS possible to support something you hate!

Wow. Honesty! Okay then.

That makes a certain amount of sense, but it's difficult to get more out of a relationship than you put into it. I'm not about to preach about love over here, though.

It would appear that you're not alone in this thread in your misogyny. I would argue it's not a problem inherent in women so much as it is a problem with a society that expects women to be vapid and superficial, especially at the bar scene. I hypothesize that for many women it's just a bullshit facade they put on because, again, it's what they think is expected of them, and once you get to know the real woman behind the ugly mask, there's a good chance she's more interesting than she originally appeared. Of course, that's rather a long time to wait for a meaningful relationship, and for some people, regardless of gender, the facades are all they have.

I'd argue that this is a major contributing reason to your support of women's rights, actually. You realize that they don't all have to be painfully uninteresting, or whatever other grievances you have, even if many of them are. And the more women realize this, the more awesome women we'll have around. In theory, anyway.

And let's not forget that there are plenty of insufferably shallow men at bars, and in the world in general, as well. They're probably just easier to relate to, as a man. Still doesn't make them interesting.

I would guess that one potential reason you find your dude friends to be more likable than most women you've met is because you have a larger sample size to draw from, over a more diverse population. But that's just conjecture, and I'm late for work.

I'll concede that I don't have much of a sample size. And I blame a lot of my gender for being so tolerant of women's outward retardation. But mostly, I blame the women who put on these masks out of some insecurity or perceived notion that this is the "norm". I'm sure they're all lovely deep down, but beauty is way more than skin-deep. You have to penetrate this retarded chitinous layer of the abovementioned bullshit just to get to it. It all comes back to "being yourself" and "people will accept you no matter who you are", but if you advertise your core as a vacant, oblivious, selfish, emotional hooker...I don't have the resolve to deal with it.

 

[powell86]

And I said most LGBT are not able to have children. I understand you can adopt, sperm bank, have sex with men etc. But Gays can't haf sperm bank and sex with men, and neither will the Trans group able to have children naturally. Hence adoption seems to be the most viable option for LGBT as a whole group.

You're forgetting about surrogate mothers. Same deal as sperm donation, except it generally involves a closer relationship with the third party. Not saying that you're wrong about the adoption thing being more reliable, but there you go.

and to the best of my knowledge, surrogate mothers is mostly illegal around the world as well.

 

[Laxman9292]

I'm indifferent to homosexualtiy, it's none of my business what you do with your dick/vagina. Matter of fact, the less I know about it the better, regardless of sexuality, no one should rub their sexuality in peoples faces.

That being said, I do not believe they should be allowed to marry. In the religious sense, they deserve all legal benefits of married people of course. But in my eyes, if the religion is against homosexuality then you have no right to demand they accommodate you. It's akin to a woman kicking down the door to a club that's for men only and demanding to be allowed in. It's just against the clubs rules to do that, they're allowed to have they're own rules about it and if that's the way they operate then you have no legal right to demand to be included.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

And I said most LGBT are not able to have children. I understand you can adopt, sperm bank, have sex with men etc. But Gays can't haf sperm bank and sex with men, and neither will the Trans group able to have children naturally. Hence adoption seems to be the most viable option for LGBT as a whole group.

You're forgetting about surrogate mothers. Same deal as sperm donation, except it generally involves a closer relationship with the third party. Not saying that you're wrong about the adoption thing being more reliable, but there you go.

and to the best of my knowledge, surrogate mothers is mostly illegal around the world as well.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but as far as I know all western countries are perfectly fine with surrogate mothers.

 

[cybran]

I am sooo tired of these threads =|

I support it because.. come on... this isnt the renaissance. (dunno if I spelled that right)

 

[Johanthemonster666]

I find it interesting that you are, and I quote, "an immoral bigot" if you DONT support homosexuality. Yet, its perfectly ok to slam christians, and slam people if they personally do not agree with it. People slamming my religion and calling me an immoral bigot offends me, and its wrong. If I WAS one, that would be something different, but I am most certainly not.

Well then maybe you should understanding why thinking lesbians and gay are beneath you is a bad idea... after all it always comes back to you in some form. THEN, you see why people get upset when ignorant statements are made about their sexual orientation and why they need to go hide it away from people who find it intolerable. If you're so offended (in a society that is largely Protestant Christian)then perhaps you should heed your own creeds words "Don't judge people, lest you be judged" and "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you".

So, let me get this straight... if I don't support it, that automatically means I think they are BENEATH me?? I guess that means that if I support the 360, but don't support the PS3, I think all PS3 users are beneath me. I guess that means that if I don't care for asparagus, then everyone that eats it is beneath me. How asinine can you be? I don't look down on anyone for their choices, I simply do not care for it myself. I have enough intelligence and maturity to be able to have my own decisions but realize that other peoples choices and decisions are their own, and by no means does that make me better than them for it.

Please, by all means, tell me when I judged someone else in my statements. I simply gave my personal opinion, as to which I am completely entitled to. The problems start when people begin to act as if their PERSONAL opinion is FACT, and then assume anyone without that opinion is beneath them. I never did that.

You, on the other hand.....

Right there... you just said it. "It's a choice", this has been disproved by numerous experts across the neurological, biological, and genetic fields. And no I'm not expecting you to "care" for your own sex based on being born (mostly likely) wired for the female gender. This idea that people chose what gender they prefer needs to stop, it's so damned outdated.

Heterosexism simply means "a belief system that holds heterosexual relations as "more natural", and therefore superior to other sexualities and people who fall outside the heteronormative standards" Once you realize that people like myself are no different than you (even as far as our relationships go) you'll realize why I supporting lesbians, straights, bisexuals, pansexuals all the same, because they're just like me in every facet.

If I told you "I don't support Christians.... but I tolerate their existence" you'd think I was an ass wouldn't you? It's condescending and is purposely separating you from me: I would basically be saying "religious people are okay, but I just don't care for their choice to be born into a Christian family and all the nonsense that goes with it" Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? Sounds like I have a superiority complex based on only my own experience.

Note: You can try that "I don't think I'm better than you... but I just don't care for the fact that you 'chose' an lifestyle that society has said is undesirable and faith says is sinful". Why do I know that? Because I've already had the mindset about other people in the past (before reality gave a wakeup call) and it just bothers me when people say they're unbiased and turn around and use that kind of language or viewpoint to describe other people.

2nd Note: The examples people use on here trying to associate consumerism with biology (ones' condition from conception vs. not liking the taste of asparagus ).... poor comparison. Again, you assume I CHOSE to be gay (as if it were a flavor of ice cream -_-)

Last Note: When I say "I'm no different than you" I mean that if you were born in my shoes, you'd act and think the same way. We're not born "clean slates" and therefore you can't evaluate my state of being based on the idea that I was born into this world pure, and then "corrupted" by outside forces based on moral choices alone (especially over something as innate as sexuality, brain chemistry and so on).

I guess you're confusing "choice" with "the way we're wired" and "support" with "being that which you support". For example: I support people's right to believe whatever they want so long as treat everyone else according to the ethical and *secular* moral values most westerner's agree on. I may not be Christian or agree with your views... but I hold no idiotic delusions that your "moral choices" alone formed who you are and that our disagreements somehow demonstrate that you're sick in head, dysfunctional, or stupid. I SUPPORT your freedom to believe those things and your voice in expressing yourself. See? Support= Understanding and treating people how you'd like to be treated and of course [biological nature]= something you're innately born with and can't change and is not determined by choices.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I would assume most LGBT won't get to have children...

I meant the children of homophobes, but give that one time.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Fine. You can be gay. Just no where near me.
That is my take.

People are gay near you every day. You should learn to get over it. People are gay when they walk out of their house, at the store, walking down the street, gay surrounds you. You either accept and move on or live in a constant state of insecurity and denial.

Yeah, but they aren't all "I'M GAY! I LIKE PENISES! I LIKE IT ANAL! YAY!" now are they?
They aren't sucking some other guy's face off in front of me, now are they?
THAT is what I don't want around me, from straight people AND from homosexuals. Yeah. Great. You're into sexuality. Now can you keep in the in bedroom? Seriously. Its bloody indecent.

 

[Seneschal]

Sorry this should be obvious... we can still adopt... and lesbian couples can have children quite easily, either from sperm banks, or one can still have sex with a man to get pregnant (before I get called on this I know people who have done this).

Sorry if you meant that most wont 'want' to have children, but even this may be false, I personally don't, at least not yet, but many gay couples would like to have children.

Edit: And I'm fairly sure they meant the homophobes children.

I assumed that he meant LGBT children, as homophobes' children could grow up to be homophobes especially with early childhood indoctrination.

And I said most LGBT are not able to have children. I understand you can adopt, sperm bank, have sex with men etc. But Gays can't haf sperm bank and sex with men, and neither will the Trans group able to have children naturally. Hence adoption seems to be the most viable option for LGBT as a whole group.

Which leads me to adoption laws across many countries. Most of them DO NOT allow for LGBTs to adopt. So there you go.

Hey hey, wait 20 years and you'll see! I'll splice my own genes and have a kid with myself. My own little ME2 Miranda! Uh... not that I want to. Or anything.

Anyway, I selected the pro option. I'm just waiting for the whole European open-minded gay rights stance to trickle down towards us backwater savages in the rest of the world. Come on, hurry up and spread, we haven't got all day.

 

[DannibalG36]

You do realize that those of us who disapprove of homosexuality out of simple hatred can't say that we do without being bandhammer'd?

Do you?

And I can't imagine the mods would ban someone for expressing their opinion, if it was reasonably argued with decent points. If it was just "I hate gays!!!" I could understand them being smacked with the hammer.

You can't rationalize hatred. That doesn't mean hatred is incorrect. Example: I hate Crocs (footware). Why? I simply hate them, but my hatred isn't necessarily "right" or "wrong." You might apply the same reasoning to a person's thoughts on homosexuality. And yet, a person who hates homosexuals and says so will be banhammer'd.

 

[DannibalG36]

You do realize that those of us who disapprove of homosexuality out of simple hatred can't say that we do without being bandhammer'd?

So, the only people who can explain their vote are those who are indifferent or supportive. This poll shoots itself in the foot.

This is incorrect.

You can express a negative opinion so long as you do so without insulting or disrespecting people.

For example [footnote] These are just examples for the sake of clarification. I don't personally share these opinions are all[/footnote]:

Good way to express a negative opinion:

Spoiler: While I personally don't agree with it, this would be acceptable

I think homosexuality is wrong because my religion says [whatever] / because I don't think it's right [whatever reason here]

Wrong ways to express a negative opinion on this topic:

Spoiler: Doing this will get you punished

Homosexuals are wrong because they're not real people! / because they have no rights!

Or

Spoiler: This will get you banned very fast

FUCKING FAGS ARE FREAKS!

In essence, if you're explaining why you express a negative opinion and not being derogatory or insulting, you're fine, even if people don't agree with your opinion.

Hatred cannot be qualified as "positive" or "negative"; its impact relies on what it is directed at. On these forums, hatred directed toward homosexuals is not tolerated. Escapists who bear this kind of hatred towards gay people can't actually say that they do.

 

[powell86]

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but as far as I know all western countries are perfectly fine with surrogate mothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Legality
Nope. Definitely not. And even those that are ok with surrogacy, most of these refer to altruistic kind e.g. must be friend/family and they need to have tons of paperwork and need to be approved by the authority.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but as far as I know all western countries are perfectly fine with surrogate mothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Legality
Nope. Definitely not. And even those that are ok with surrogacy, most of these refer to altruistic kind e.g. must be friend/family and they need to have tons of paperwork and need to be approved by the authority.

I'm sorry, it seems I was wrong, I don't want any children yet, so I've not looked into it.
But I thought that in modern times governments would be more open to these things.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Whilst I have no subjective or empirical data to back up my claim, from a casual standpoint human societies generally expect men to be physically strong and mentally hardy- when something is that ubiquitous a relatively safe assumption would be in there being a genetic component, either directly or indirectly.

No, that's wrong.

History is replete with examples of societies where the opposite has been true. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that taken worldwide emotional sensibility has played a larger role in distinguishing elite men from non-elite men than physical strength ever did, and if the point of masculinity is not to determine a male ideal then what is it?

Sorry to barge in here, but Elite != Ideal. In fact the traits that lend an individual a higher chance of achieving elite status (excessive ambition, ego, greed, ruthlessness) are far from idealized, at least in our society. Furthermore, Togs did not use either of those words (elite/ideal) but instead used the word "expected" which is quite different. You've taken his post and twisted it into something else entirely.