Why Homosexuality Should be Banned

[WaderiAAA]

I didn't find it funny, but it sums up quite nicely what is wrong with the arguments against homosexual's rights.

 

[conflictofinterests]

At first I thought it was a troll, then I watched the video and smiled.

Spoiler

Like this?

 

[Broken Boy]

Maybe im sheltered or its an American thing but i wasn't aware there was such a large anti gay movement, i generally thought people where acceptant or at least tolerant of it i mean its the 21st century.

Well living in the southern parts of the U.S.A is kinda hard for gay's & such. Gay bashing & I mean that in the physical parts of bashing still happen. At least here in Tx it's kinda scary thinking that someone might beat or kill you just for the way you act or who you are with.

 

[Megacherv]

I think the title of this thread should be changed.
It's a bit misleading. Most people will just click it expecting a nasty thread.

Which is why he'll probably get the hot topic badge on the day he joined.

That'd be impressive

 

[thewaever]

I might be highjacking the thread here, but I'm going to dive in at the end & skip the beginning, hehe.


Anyway, I wanted to comment on the "Is homosexuality a choice?" video someone posted earlier.


Here's the thing: you can NOT rely solely on the "homosexuality is natural" argument to solve our situation for a couple of reasons.

Herein begins the tl:dr



1. Just because something is natural, doesn't make it "good."

2. Just because something is natural, doesn't we shouldn't try to "fix it."

For example, Downs Syndrome is entirely natural, yet we spent billions of dollars each year trying to cure this condition. Some homophobes are proposing the same be done to homosexuality.

3. Human emotions are complicated and it's been a while since I researched this, but from what I recall human emotions relating to sexuality are seated in the hippocampus organ within the brain. Irrational emotions like hate and fear are also governed by that same organ. I didn't actually see any studies related to this, but it seems to me that if you validate "homosexuality is natural, therefore it's good," you must also validate "homoPHOBIA is natural, therefore it's good."

4. (And this is the big one) You are HUMAN. You have REASON. You have SELF CONTROL. Your sexuality is NOT a disease and you are NOT diseased. To surrender to the idea that your sexuality is a force of "natural" that dominates you, reduces you to nothing but an animal in heat. This is what the homophobes believe: you are a rabid dog who must be put down for the good of the civilization. By chorusing the homosexuality-is-natural line, you're AGREEING with them.


All this being said, it is good that the homosexuality-as-physiological-entity is being made, because there are obvious connections to physiology. More importantly, the history of race relations in the U.S. has set an excellent precedent for our modern day LGBTQ legal and political situation (look up Jim Crow laws... particularly miscegenation).



It is also important to consider the idea of homosexuality-as-a-choice. Yes, a choice. Specifically, a lifestyle choice.

If you want to defeat the homophobes, you have to hit them head on. Let's go.


The typical anti-gay argument you hear is, "homosexuality is a choice, therefore it's wrong." But, there's an obvious logical misstep here. Christianity, by definition, MUST BE A CHOICE. But, Christianity isn't "wrong" despite being a choice, so why is homosexuality?

This is where you get people trying to expand & say that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice, & therefore it's wrong, but we hit the same logical wall. Christianity is nothing if not a lifestyle, therefore being Christian is also a lifestyle choice & must therefore be "wrong."

Christians obviously do NOT think lifestyle choices are "wrong," otherwise they wouldn't've chosen to make a lifestyle choice and pursue a Christian lifestyle. So what is the real kernel of the homosexuality-as-choice argument?

If you really look at it, really, REALLY examine the homosexuality-as-choice idea, the argument must actually SUPPORT homosexuality.

Because Christianity is a lifestyle which you can only enter by choosing to do so (read up on baptism ;P), then organized religion is a lifestyle choice. This actually sets a wonderful legal precedent for homosexuality, as any "lifestyle choice" must also benefit from the same protections Christians receive.

On a purely personal level, you get that "Who would choose to be gay?" thing. I HATE THIS. Because the argument begs the question "Who would choose to be gay (because being gay is a terrible thing)?" Aside from being a horrible, horrible idea filled with self-loathing & homophobia of the highest order, it's logically terrible. From start to finish, there's nothing redeeming about this argument.

Who would choose to be gay? I would. I did. BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY.

I'm not saying it was easy. And I'm not saying that everyone can do it. But for a person who has the opportunity, there's no reason not to choose to be gay. Just like there's no reason not to choose to be straight.

I've been studying the homosexual lifestyle for fourteen years now. I have never found anything negative or harmful about homosexuality, ever. The only harmful or negative experiences I have discovered studying the homosexual lifestyle come from heterosexual attacks.

The source of harm in the homosexual lifestyle is the heterosexual lifestyle.


Yes, my choice to be gay took alot of work. Yes, it was YEARS before I started seeing real results. But that just makes me all the more PROUD of what I have accomplished as a homosexual person.

So, when someone says, "Homosexuality is a choice!" I say, "Thanks for noticing!"

 

[ChillinMargrave]

This is an open attack on homosexual nature, and I firmly believe that you are simply trying to troll, sir. I disrespect your attempt, and will not be swayed by the words in that most hurtful video.

. . . Nope, couldn't keep a straight face writing it. Freedom to jump on beds for the win! I'll go do that now.

On another note, I'm amazed the dude in the video could keep a straight face.

 

[Schadrach]

I use Ancient Greece as an example when I'm discussing homosexuality, but I always dread that they'll bring up the fact that the Greeks also had slavery.

Actually one of the books of Christianity (Sorry, don't know which one.) condones having a slave, and even details how to properly beat them and it not be seen as wrong in the eyes of the lord. I think it says something along the lines of if they can walk in three days after it, then it's fine and nothing is wrong.

Sweet, I'm sorted then. Thank you very much for that insight. Might have to look up the exact book and passage. Can never have too many details, and having details often leaves them shocked and confused.

It's in Leviticus, like most of the Law of Moses and Aaron. Also included are rules on how long one can keep slaves (which depends on their being a Jew or not), how much they can be sold for, and an amazing array of dietary rules (which were probably smart to follow in an Iron-age society with no refrigeration and poor food preparation).

In fact, the same word is used to describe what "lying with mankind as with womankind" is as is used to describe "eating creatures that swim in the water but hath not fins nor scales". It's translated in KJV as "abomination" (and every place that word is used in Leviticus the same Hebrew word is used) more precisely the word is a much stronger form "unclean".

Speaking of, it always seemed to me that Leviticus doesn't really claim anything wrong with homosexuality, but rather with bisexuality -- a gay man or lesbian certainly doesn't lie with mankind as they lie with womankind (instead they lie with mankind as a straight person of their gender lies with womankind and vice versa). It always seemed to me to be in exactly the same logic as one of those verses about not mixing things -- do not sow a field with two different kinds of seed, do not wear cloth made from two types of thread, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Haha. I liked this a lot. I'm catholic however, just so long as you call it civil union, and don't scream in my face while I'm enjoying my nice bowl of instant oatmeal ( he's right, so delicious it SHOULD be banned) I'm perfecly okay with them doing what they want.
to quote Mr. Thomas Jefferson on the issue of religeon
" If a man proclaims there to be 20 Gods, or no God at all, why should I care? It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" Yes yes, I know I got a part of it wrong, I just wanted to convey the message

Why should we have to call it civil union? Now, the Catholic church certainly shouldn't have to be forced to marry homosexuals, but if they are married in a church that accepts it, it's marriage.

Personally, I think the only real answer to the gay marriage question in the long term will be to simply completely detach the legal and religious concepts of marriage, and the only way to do that is going to be to separate the verbage.

So give gays civil unions, and do so as part of a process of calling "legal marriage" civil unions, and making it clear that legal marriage is a separate "thing" from religious marriage. If your church then wants to claim that any given couple isn't *really* married because they are gay, interracial, belong to a different faith, or whatever -- more power to them; it has no effect on how they are treated by the law. Likewise, it's fundamentally protected by the free practice clause to deny any persons any religious rituals in any religious organization for any reason. For if you evangelical protestant church doesn't want to marry gays, that is very much their right.

The thing is, marriage isn't a religious fair in any way. It simple gets seen that way by many people. So the term marriage is fine here and I don't think people should bow to others and their hate just to make them shut up, lol.

That it most certainly is sadly. I tried to curb my urges sorta or at least appear what I thought of as "normal" at the time over masculine only dated girl's & even got married for 14 yrs & had children. My wife found out she would snoop through my emails and found that I was flirting with boy's and such. So my bisexuality was exposed early to her at least, later she found out I was trans & well was supportive that time, after the blow out we had when she found out I was Bi. I thought well this is going to really get bad but no she said she had suspected for a long time. Now I am out and proud sorta ( the sorta is because i would be prouder if i was the right gender) but I like boy's & girl's pretty much equally & yes I find trans people attractive to. or as I tell people " I like boy's & girl's & anything in between".

Ok I will stop with my life story now my bad. ; P

That's one aspect of transgender that's completely alien to me - being the 'wrong gender'. Wanting to be a gender you're not seen as makes sense. But seeing yourself as the wrong gender is odd to me, as I've never seen myself as a gender. Not to say either of us is weird or wrong, mind.

Maybe im sheltered or its an American thing but i wasn't aware there was such a large anti gay movement, i generally thought people where acceptant or at least tolerant of it i mean its the 21st century.

Not at all. People are beaten and murdered every day and many more driven to suicide in the Western world. In a lot of parts of the world being gay is a great way to get yourself thrown in prison and executed.

 

[Baradiel]

I use Ancient Greece as an example when I'm discussing homosexuality, but I always dread that they'll bring up the fact that the Greeks also had slavery.

Actually one of the books of Christianity (Sorry, don't know which one.) condones having a slave, and even details how to properly beat them and it not be seen as wrong in the eyes of the lord. I think it says something along the lines of if they can walk in three days after it, then it's fine and nothing is wrong.

Sweet, I'm sorted then. Thank you very much for that insight. Might have to look up the exact book and passage. Can never have too many details, and having details often leaves them shocked and confused.

It's in Leviticus, like most of the Law of Moses and Aaron. Also included are rules on how long one can keep slaves (which depends on their being a Jew or not), how much they can be sold for, and an amazing array of dietary rules (which were probably smart to follow in an Iron-age society with no refrigeration and poor food preparation).

In fact, the same word is used to describe what "lying with mankind as with womankind" is as is used to describe "eating creatures that swim in the water but hath not fins nor scales". It's translated in KJV as "abomination" (and every place that word is used in Leviticus the same Hebrew word is used) more precisely the word is a much stronger form "unclean".

Speaking of, it always seemed to me that Leviticus doesn't really claim anything wrong with homosexuality, but rather with bisexuality -- a gay man or lesbian certainly doesn't lie with mankind as they lie with womankind (instead they lie with mankind as a straight person of their gender lies with womankind and vice versa). It always seemed to me to be in exactly the same logic as one of those verses about not mixing things -- do not sow a field with two different kinds of seed, do not wear cloth made from two types of thread, etc, etc, etc.

See, I wish I could remember all the examples of how ancient religious texts are often outdated. It would make arguing with people about it so much easier.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Daveman]

YES, finally somebody else said it. We should totally ban it. I mean it is unnatural. When I walk down the street and I see it, it repulses me.

Polyester... it's like getting fucked in the ass. It has no rightful place in this world.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

This is an open attack on homosexual nature, and I firmly believe that you are simply trying to troll, sir. I disrespect your attempt, and will not be swayed by the words in that most hurtful video.

. . . Nope, couldn't keep a straight face writing it. Freedom to jump on beds for the win! I'll go do that now.

On another note, I'm amazed the dude in the video could keep a straight face.

I was being totally serious with that vid! Instant oatmeal is just wrong!

 

[somonels]

Why does this keep happening. *sigh*

So, all heterosexual people are flaunting their sexuality too?

Sexuality does not make anyone 'flaunt.' There are inconsiderate and intrusive individuals in every sexual orientation.

I've never met a straight gal or guy who is in the closet and if being open about your sexuality makes you a flaunter, they are too :O

'In the closet' would mean that they hide or deny being straight. While homosexuality isn't considered a mental problem nowadays, being ashamed of heterosexuality might be. 'Being open' just means that they don't hide or deny it. Neither of these has anything to do with flaunting.


The Free Dictionary's definition [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flaunting]
flaunt (flônt)
v. flaunt·ed, flaunt·ing, flaunts
v.tr.
1. To exhibit ostentatiously or shamelessly: flaunts his knowledge. See Synonyms at show.
2. Usage Problem To show contempt for; scorn.
v.intr.
1. To parade oneself ostentatiously; show oneself off.
2. To wave grandly: pennants flaunting in the wind.

 

[Charmi the ninja]

Wow, that title is super misleading.
I came here ready to flame you with the burning fury of a thousand suns!
That video saved me a lot of typing
That was great. Definately gonna spread the vid to some narrow minded people.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Wow, that title is super misleading.
I came here ready to flame you with the burning fury of a thousand suns!
That video saved me a lot of typing
That was great. Definately gonna spread the vid to some narrow minded people.

I'm glad! Spread it like... warm butter! Knowledge is the best defense against hate.

 

[conflictofinterests]

SNIP
And whats the difference between a gay man hitting on you, or a woman hitting on you (if you're a heterosexual man). Its preference. A gay man might be offended and upset when hit on by a woman, just as much as a straight man when he's hit on by a gay man.

I learned from my Anthropology class, and this is probably much less applicable today, that there's a lot more going on to that situation than just what you say. Because of gender roles, women are pretty much expected to say "no" to the initial proposition, and men are expected to continue to pursue after, with varying degrees of stigma attached to the act of saying "yes" to the first advance on the part of the woman. Being hit on puts a man, (in the case of one who gets uncomfortable or upset by being hit on by gays) in the place of the woman, where the only option is to say "no," but declining the proposition, at least in this man's experience, is no way to prevent further propositions. Apparently when women's rights were still being fought for, women would gather in groups and catcall men to demonstrate how uncomfortable it was for women when men did that, and men apparently got quite upset as well.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that one's gender roles play a significant part in how much being hit on bothers you, and those are kind of hard to blame on someone.

 

[Goofguy]

Actually, this video is fundamentally an attack against instant oatmeal for which I will not stand for.

 

[rutger5000]

The video I found quite humourous. Although I can't see posting it as anything else other than trollbait as it is rather... obnoxious at the same time. Some people will be too dumb to take it how its supposed to be taken and will see it as an attack against homosexuality.

Plus there is the fact its your very first post.

I dunno. My avatar is a rainbow, my name has rainbow in it and the video is supremely sarcastic. You really think it'll go over anyone's head? You think too little of your Escapst brothers and sisters!

Yeah I do think it'll go over some peoples heads x)

Notice my post count to my join date, I don't post very often on here [compared to some users, I.E Dexiro who has been for a year and a half and has almost ten times the amount of posts I do] due to the fact that people get far too uppity and think they are taking the high ground, by arguing with you then dropping a report on one of your posts, leaving you with a dirty warning stain on an otherwise sterling profile. So yeah I skulk in the background, occasionally posting where I feel it might be safe

So yeah, a lot of people on the Escapist are dumb, and think everything has to be reported. I'm sure as shit you'll get some sort of rebuttal from this

Honestly it's going over my head. Sure I can see it's sarcastic and such, but I have no idea what it has to do with rainbows. Maybe a rainbow is a gay sign or something?

 

[conflictofinterests]

Why does this keep happening. *sigh*

So, all heterosexual people are flaunting their sexuality too?

Sexuality does not make anyone 'flaunt.' There are inconsiderate and intrusive individuals in every sexual orientation.

I've never met a straight gal or guy who is in the closet and if being open about your sexuality makes you a flaunter, they are too :O

'In the closet' would mean that they hide or deny being straight. While homosexuality isn't considered a mental problem nowadays, being ashamed of heterosexuality might be. 'Being open' just means that they don't hide or deny it. Neither of these has anything to do with flaunting.


The Free Dictionary's definition [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flaunting]
flaunt (flônt)
v. flaunt·ed, flaunt·ing, flaunts
v.tr.
1. To exhibit ostentatiously or shamelessly: flaunts his knowledge. See Synonyms at show.
2. Usage Problem To show contempt for; scorn.
v.intr.
1. To parade oneself ostentatiously; show oneself off.
2. To wave grandly: pennants flaunting in the wind.

I think the point they were trying to get across is that people who accuse homosexuals of "flaunting" their homosexuality are actually accusing them of being open and honest about their sexuality, and that term does not apply in either homosexual or heterosexual cases.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

SNIP
And whats the difference between a gay man hitting on you, or a woman hitting on you (if you're a heterosexual man). Its preference. A gay man might be offended and upset when hit on by a woman, just as much as a straight man when he's hit on by a gay man.

I learned from my Anthropology class, and this is probably much less applicable today, that there's a lot more going on to that situation than just what you say. Because of gender roles, women are pretty much expected to say "no" to the initial proposition, and men are expected to continue to pursue after, with varying degrees of stigma attached to the act of saying "yes" to the first advance on the part of the woman. Being hit on puts a man, (in the case of one who gets uncomfortable or upset by being hit on by gays) in the place of the woman, where the only option is to say "no," but declining the proposition, at least in this man's experience, is no way to prevent further propositions. Apparently when women's rights were still being fought for, women would gather in groups and catcall men to demonstrate how uncomfortable it was for women when men did that, and men apparently got quite upset as well.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that one's gender roles play a significant part in how much being hit on bothers you, and those are kind of hard to blame on someone.

I've never liked gender roles. They helped us (humans) evolve and fight our way to the top of the food-chain, but in today's modern society they are completely outdated and need to be exiled from public consciousness.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Actually, this video is fundamentally an attack against instant oatmeal for which I will not stand for.

You like instant oatmeal? Freak!

Okay, that was unfair. You can... *shiver* eat your instant oatmeal if you chose to be that way. Just do it behind closed doors!

[sup]I'm glad they don't let people like you adopt.[/sup]