Let's clear up the ignorance about homosexuality - I hope to never hear these arguments again

Originally posted by quietlearner
ok this goes for both kaylaluv and annee

1) my main argument here was that because monkeys, primates, any other animals do it does not mean it we should follow in their steps. yes it does occur in nature but what does that mean? does it show that being gay is not a choice but a hardwired response?

[
Yes, it means that being gay sometimes just happens. The tendency for it happens naturally in some people, just as the tendency for heterosexuality happens naturally in other people.



2) I would think that having a homosexual relationship would be very hard on any ones mental health for various reasons
for example:
- the constant worrying that your partner might one day go straight and just lose interest in you (this I think would be hell if your partner is bi)
- the constant feeling of inadequacy due to being different to other couples
- the inability to procreate and pass on your genes, this to me is a very important point (another poster said that this issue is irrelevant) I believe that the human brain and any other animals brain for that matter is hardwired to procreate and once that ability is taken away, it might create mental stress



It's Extremely rare for a gay person to just "go straight". That would be like having a heterosexual person constantly worrying that their partner will one day go gay. The only reason gays may feel inadequate is because anti-gays work hard to make them feel inadequate. Change that, and the inadequate feeling goes away. You change that by educating people and helping the mainstream population be more accepting of people's differences.

Ok, I really don't get this "pass on the genes' argument. First of all, there are many people, gay and straight, who aren't interested in having children. Second of all, gays CAN pass on their genes by surrogate pregnancies, etc. - happens all the time.


and there is this other problem with anal sex having many health risks, I wont go into details on this one but if you are interested a quick google search will be more than enough


Yes, and a search on Wikipedia will tell you that not all gays practice anal sex, and they aren't the only ones who do practice it. So on that logic, should we not allow heterosexual marriages because some heterosexuals
have anal sex? Safe sex is the key here to preventing STDs, and careful sex should avoid other problems. Just a matter of education.

en.wikipedia.org...

3) there are similarities and there are differences, my point here was that when pro gay arguments bring in the oppression to blacks and women (both widely accepted to be wrong and with no basis of logic) their main reason is to try to paint the same beliefs people have about the oppression to blacks and women into the anti gays movement. In other words, when you bring oppression of blacks and women into the argument what you are doing is calling the anti gays equal to racist and misogynists. I don't think we should group all of them together


I'm sure people thought there was a lot of logic in having slaves - it made their lives so much easier. Many people really believed that blacks just weren't really human, so what's wrong with using animals to do your work for you? It was widely accepted to be right (even by the Bible), until blacks and their sympathizers fought back. Only now is it widely considered wrong - after a civil war, and many, many protests in the 1960's.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of women as property of their husbands, with no rights of their own. This was widely accepted as the proper way of things, until women started fighting it.

The only reason you have "movements" is to change previous widely held views. I'm not calling anti-gays racists or misogynists -- I'm calling them anti-gays. If you don't want to group them together, fine, I don't really care. Let's just let gays become equal members of society with the ability to be married and have families, if that's what they choose.

Originally posted by quietlearner
"fueled by religion" is an action, you can think of it as a verb
"sin" is a description, you can think of it as an adjective
why are you so stubborn
sometimes I dont understand you train of thought

You can separate them - - I don't.

They all come from the same ideology.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Some posters may bring up gay animals, because for a long time gay people were told: "You are unnatural".
So we show them nature, and how animals are indulging in gay behavior.
But are they happy?

No.

Then they turn the argument around and say, "Why you show us animals; humans are not animals!"
So gay people are designed to lose both ways.

Being gay means being sexually or romantically attracted to the same sex.
You do not need to have anal sex to be gay.
There are many kinds of sex, and you can be celibate and gay.
Gay culture has a history in every country, because it is a natural variation of being human.
In some cultures it was important for a man to penetrate, but since the age of AIDS there are other forms of sexuality and eroticism.

I suppose everybody worries about their partners.
Perhaps that comes with being in a relationship.

I do not think that having a child is the only reason to be alive for all people.
Michelangelo and Da Vinci contributed much to society, for example.
Not all people should have children.
However, in many cultures men produce children, and then they do what they like.
Not all cultures follow the radical Western form of being gay or straight.

I also think you are right that not only religion has destroyed gay people.
Stalin turned on the gays too.
In a certain sense some forms of religion offer gay people some protection.

It's just that when people link pedophilia and laughter as a part of the "gay agenda", then I cannot keep silent.
People will kill pedophiles here, and I don't want them confused with being gay, because that's a lie.

Not sure on blacks and women, but we have many gay black people and women in SA.
Some say they are double-oppressed: both by race and gender.

edit on 13-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

I don't think pedophilia and laughter is part of the "gay agenda"
also I don't think gays should be made fun of
but I have to say some of them, the cross-dressing flamboyant ones, kind of bring it onto themselves
I don't understand why they can't act in a manner where it does not make everyone else around uncomfortable
everyone else has to control how they act and speak

before people attack me let me make it clear that I'm not talking about all gays but those that stand out if you know what I mean

Originally posted by quietlearner

I don't think pedophilia and laughter is part of the "gay agenda"
also I don't think gays should be made fun of
but I have to say some of them, the cross-dressing flamboyant ones, kind of bring it onto themselves
I don't understand why they can't act in a manner where it does not make everyone else around uncomfortable
everyone else has to control how they act and speak

before people attack me let me make it clear that I'm not talking about all gays but those that stand out if you know what I mean

No, people don't have to control how they act and speak if it's part of their personality. I feel the same way about perky people. I HATE being around perky people - you know - the goofy cheerleader types, like Rachael Ray ("YUMM-O!"). I may laugh at them in private, but not in their face -- that would be rude. Perky people have a right to be here -- and I don't have a right to expect them to change their personality just because they bug me and make me uncomfortable. So, I choose not to hang around much with perky people - that's my perogative. And if I have to be exposed to a perky person in public - oh well, I just grit my teeth and smile -- and move on as quickly as possible.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Perky people have a right to be here -- and I don't have a right to expect them to change their personality just because they bug me and make me uncomfortable. So, I choose not to hang around much with perky people - that's my prerogative. And if I have to be exposed to a perky person in public - oh well, I just grit my teeth and smile -- and move on as quickly as possible.

Yes - - it is about Equal Rights. It is not about whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Y'all demanded evidence, sources, stats . . .

you're getting them.

Whininig because THE TRUTH is uncomfortable is not attractive.

The big bulk of your sources and stats are LIES.

Family Research Council -- DEBUNKED as Conservative Religious group using discredited research and junk science to further their anti-gay agenda

www.splcenter.org...

Paul Cameron -- DEBUNKED as Conservative Religious type misusing statistical data to further an anti-gay agenda

www.hypersync.net...

Originally posted by kaylaluv

No, people don't have to control how they act and speak if it's part of their personality. I feel the same way about perky people. I HATE being around perky people - you know - the goofy cheerleader types, like Rachael Ray ("YUMM-O!"). I may laugh at them in private, but not in their face -- that would be rude. Perky people have a right to be here -- and I don't have a right to expect them to change their personality just because they bug me and make me uncomfortable. So, I choose not to hang around much with perky people - that's my perogative. And if I have to be exposed to a perky person in public - oh well, I just grit my teeth and smile -- and move on as quickly as possible.

edit on 14-1-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

does it mean people who enjoy being naked in public should start walking butt naked on the streets and go to their jobs naked? obviously not
you can act however you want, wear whatever you want but do it where you wont bother the rest
why do they expect to be part of society and be treated like a normal member of society when they outright don't care about the rest? they want the rights, the entitlements and the respect yet they don't want to play by the rules

if I know that something I do is offensive then I will restrain myself of doing it, its called me being respectful to the rest, there is no law that says I have to mind what others on the street think of me but its common courtesy and an integral part of a healthy society

only talking about the flamboyant, tight jeans wearing, cross dressing gays.
this does not include all gays who mostly have the maturity level to know that disrupting and offending people is wrong

PS: being perky is just annoying, it is a whole different level with what we are talking here

reply to post by quietlearner


I think you're really reaching here, QuietLearner. Going on the streets butt naked is against the law - so I doubt that you've seen too many gays doing that. If so, you can turn them in because it's called Public Indecency.

Tight jeans? Have you not seen any college girls (heck, even high school girls) lately? I've seen plenty of people (gay and straight) dressed in ways I don't approve of. You may be too young, but I remember punk rockers of the 1980's and 90's. Safety pins in their noses, their hose torn all the way up their leg, hair sticking straight up, mohawk hairdos, almost clown-like makeup (boys and girls). I saw boy and girl punkers making out in public a lot, so I know at least some of them were heteros, not gay. The punkers don't have to worry, I guess, because if they're hetero, they already have all the rights that gays want. They can get married, and they can raise a litter of little punk rocker babies.

There are plenty of exhibitionists out there of all kinds. If you think gays are the only ones, you are seriously mistaken. Is it the best way to act? -well, it's not the way I would act. Do I have the right to tell them not to do that if they're not breaking the law? -nope, and neither do you or anyone else. Just because you are offended at how some people look or act, it doesn't mean they have to stop being that way. It doesn't mean they don't have the right to be part of society, with the same rights as you.

I'm not sure exactly where you are going with this - maybe you're saying that these gays don't deserve equal rights because you don't think they're being "courteous". Or maybe you're just saying that because of the way they look and act, they deserve to be hated/taunted/bullied/beaten. Either way, I would have to strongly disagree with you, based on constitutional principle. Those gays aren't trying to piss you off - they are expressing themselves - playing "dress up" - just like the punk rockers. A integral part of a healthy society is tolerating differences, because no decent-sized society is going to be homogeneous. Not everyone is going to be prim and proper - better get used to that in society.

What about my last post to you regarding your 3 points. Did I address your points adequately?

P.S. I beg to differ. To me, eternally happy perky valley girl types are EXTREMELY offensive. I mean, I really hate it, way more than seeing a transvestite. Probably way more than you hate seeing gays in short shorts and makeup. I long to tell them to stop acting like that, and in my dream world, they are all eliminated. But alas, I am stuck with them, as you are stuck with the flamboyant gays.

reply to post by kaylaluv


and I bet those punk rockers were not respected or taken seriously
I'm just saying if you want people to respect you and take you seriously then present yourself in such manner
im not talking about federal or governmental laws
I'm not saying its right that people discriminate, hate, act violently against them
but its a given that it will happen, at the very least they will get disapproving looks
its just bound to happen
just like I would't go wearing an opposite teams shirt to a soccer match and sit on the other teams site
I have the legal law to do it, but it would be foolish of me to do it

so this is my point: you want people to respect you and take you seriously then act in part
just like those perky girls with short shorts you talk about, people wont take them seriously and they will probably attract the wrong kind of guys and then they will cry why they can't find descent guys
they have all the rights to be perky but realize that it has its effects

gays are rightfully protected from violent acts, stalking, etc but respect is not law and respect is something you earn
I respect people who show maturity, compassion, a strong will and decency and to me, flamboyant, cross dressing gays don't show that so I avoid them and get bothered by them.
just like you avoid and get bothered by perky girls I do the same.
But guess what if you do it to perky girls its just personal preference but if you do it to gays then you are a discriminating homophobic

and again let me make it clear that I'm not talking about all gays but the one that "stand out". I met a "normal" looking gay ones and I was not bothered, instead I thought he was interesting and I appreciated that he wasn't shoving his sexual preference to my face

about your previous post of the 3 points I read it but just didn't want to carry on with them since it seemed like I would start going off topic and discuss minor semantics but thank you for your reply

delete

reply to post by quietlearner


I was offended by the punk rockers and I didn't respect them personally, but I respect their right to be here, and I respect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and am willing to fight for it.

I am offended by perky, dim-witted girls, and I don't respect them personally AT ALL, but I respect their right to be here, and I respect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and am willing to fight for it.

Some flamboyant gays offend me, and I may not respect them personally, but I respect their right to be here, and I respect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and am willing to fight for it.

Gays aren't asking to be your best friend, and they aren't expecting you to erect a monument to them. It doesn't have to be a love-fest between you and flamboyant gays. Gays are just asking people to respect their right to be here, and they want the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of how they dress or act. So, you are free to be offended, no one is saying you don't have the right to be personally offended. Just don't try to keep them from having basic inalienable rights.

Homophobes want to remove rights from gays. They want gays to stop being gay. They want gays to not be allowed to get married or raise children. Some homophobes want to kill gays. If you don't want to take away the basic rights of gays, then you are not a homophobe.

reply to post by kaylaluv


That was nicely stated. I agree completely. If a person isn't breaking the law they are free to express themselves however they wish. That is what freedom is. It's messed up that some people think it's ok to oppress other people's oppression of themselves..

reply to post by kaylaluv


I think gays already have the right to be here, right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
its not like people regard gays as subhumans and they do have all the rights as the rest of us
is there any right that says "not including gays"? they have the right to marriage someone from the opposite sex just the same as I do. what they want is special rights to accommodate them

also a very important issue is that its not just about laws, why is it that gays wont settle for civil unions with all the rights and benefits of a regular marriage? its because they are not after the rights per se, they are after changing public opinion and integration. this takes us back to the previous discussion about how demeanor and image affect how people view you. they want to change public opinion and integrate yet *some* of them they are very happy disrupting the public with the excuse of self expression. They can get the rights to "marriage" and its called civil union, but that's not what they want, they want to use the law to force religion and public opinion to bend for them.
by *some* I mean cross dressing flamboyant type

right to be here? no one says gays should or should not be anywhere
right to life? no one says they should not live
liberty? they are free as far as I can see
pursuit of happiness? no one is forcing them to be depressed, although this last one is very vague
what exactly means the right to pursuit happiness? does it include the right to marry a same sex partner? some people do, some people don't. I personally don't know for sure but I also don't think that prohibition of gay marriage equates to taking away their rights to pursue happiness. maybe if "happiness" meant right to marry whoever you want then it would make sense. To me this is open to discussion and probably does not have one clear answer

you say I have the right to be offended and not respect them, but what happens if say I own a business and I don't hire an applicant because he is a flamboyant gay (not normal looking gay)? I would probably get a lawsuit and much hate, if my business is susceptible to public opinion then I would probably go bankrupt.
if I were to reject a job applicant because she is perky then no one would say anything at all.
so when does my right to get offended and not respect others get overwritten by the right of other to self express? this is a very serious topic and I don't have the answer but I think its a major issue specially with extreme political correctness issues.

thank you kaylaluv for replying in a mature manner, social topics interest me so I'm interested in the gay rights topic. before you, I would be met with anger and personal attacks every time I present my views. I have not really discussed this with persons in real life though, only in forums so that might be why

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I think gays already have the right to be here, right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
its not like people regard gays as subhumans and they do have all the rights as the rest of us
is there any right that says "not including gays"? they have the right to marriage someone from the opposite sex just the same as I do. what they want is special rights to accommodate them

If gay marriage was legal that wouldn't be a "special" right, you would be able to marry the same sex too. Everyone would get that right...

And there are straight people that want gay people to be able to marry too.

Originally posted by quietlearner
I think gays already have the right to be here, right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
its not like people regard gays as subhumans and they do have all the rights as the rest of us
is there any right that says "not including gays"? they have the right to marriage someone from the opposite sex just the same as I do. what they want is special rights to accommodate them

Oh Please - - - not the "they have the right to marry the opposite gender" - - - blah blah blah - - totally asinine.

also a very important issue is that its not just about laws, why is it that gays wont settle for civil unions with all the rights and benefits of a regular marriage?[

NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Has the same rights as Legal Government Marriage - - which is a legal government contract to protect rights and property of those involved in joining together as one household - - plus the benefits it affords.

"Separate but Equal" - - - NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They can get the rights to "marriage" and its called civil union, but that's not what they want, they want to use the law to force religion and public opinion to bend for them

What are you afraid of. I'm sorry - - but that is a very ignorant statement.

by *some* I mean cross dressing flamboyant type

Most cross dressers are hetero.

I have no patience for the rest of your post.

I will try for a little bit of patience.

52% of Christian marriages end in divorce (check the statistics)

The history of marriage - - women were property. Bought - sold - bargained - bartered - used for political alliances.

Marriage contracts were first initiated by family and agreed upon by both families.

The Catholic church saw a money making opportunity in issuing Marriage Licenses.

NOTHING above has anything to do with "Sanctity of Marriage".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today in America - - we have a license to marry. In no way does this official government document mention anything about god. US marriage licenses are completely secular.

Why marriage is a state right - - I have no idea. There is no logical reason for it. Marriage should be on a National Level.

reply to post by quietlearner


Gays DO NOT have the right to marry who they love (in most states), as you or I do . If you were told that you were not allowed to marry the one you love, would that make you unhappy? Your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness has just been revoked. Gays are NOT asking for special rights - they are asking for the EXACT same right you have - the freedom to marry who you choose. They don't want anyone to tell them who they can and can't marry. In case you were going to respond with "what's to stop them from marrying children or animals", please let's keep the conversation to consenting adults - same rules applying as to hetero marriages.

I can't speak for all gays, but the gays that I know personally, and gays I have read interviews on have said that they aren't demanding religious institutions perform the religious ceremony for them (although it would be nice if they would), but what they do feel they deserve is the same legal marriage rights as everyone else. In other words, if heteros can get a "marriage license" from the state, then gays feel they should be able to get a "marriage license" also. They don't want to be singled out as "special" by the state. If you change it to "civil union", then it must be called a "civil union" for heteros as well. This is something that many gays have suggested, as the state should be separated from the religious connotation of marriage anyway. There is great resistance from certain camps on this - primarily religious extremists, who don't want separation of church and state. So, if it's still called a "marriage license", then gays feel they should be able to have a "marriage license" too. I personally feel that what the state hands out for straights AND gays should be "civil union licenses". Then, in conversation, everyone can just say they're "married", as that is the term everyone recognizes. Then if a church recognizes the union, they can perform the religious ceremony.

There are many people who want gays to go away, or at least to change their sexuality to hetero. It is true that there is no current law stating gays have to leave the country or get sexual orientation therapy, but gays are constantly being made to feel that they should at least hide the fact that they are gay. This means they can't feel comfortable talking about their significant other ( as heteros do all the time), bringing their dates to public functions (as heteros do), showing any signs of affection to their loved one (as heteros do). Not to mention the whole serving in the military issue. Heteros aren't made to feel miserable or guilty for doing these things, gays shouldn't either. You may say that you don't do this, but many, many do, and this is one thing gays would like to change. This is not a legal issue per se, but it is a basic right to be who one is without being pressured to hide it.

The right to life is more than just the act of a heart beating (although there have been many instances of "hate crimes" against gays leading to their death). The right to life also means the right to have a job so you can pay for food/shelter to live. Which leads to your question of do you have the right not to hire a flamboyant gay. I would say that if you want your business to succeed, you should hire the person who is the most qualified for the position. There are discrimination laws that prohibit you from refusing to hire someone on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. Sexual orientation would fall under this. So, you're right, you're pretty much screwed if you didn't hire a qualified person just based on their flamboyancy, if that person could prove sexual orientation is why you didn't hire them. So, if you could rationalize that this person didn't have the qualifications for the job, and you could show this, you're in the clear. People break these laws all the time and get away with it, so why not you. By the way, I have been in management many years, and I have occasionally hired perky types when they were the best qualified for the job. Drove me nuts, but I'd like to think I was professional enough to suck it up for the good of the business. True, if I had not hired them, they couldn't sue me ... unless they could prove it was for another reason, such as they were a woman, Jewish, too old, black, etc., etc. So, when I decided not to hire someone, I heavily documented all the valid reasons why, just to avoid this issue.

This is a very heated subject, with strong feelings on both sides. I don't usually attack people unless I feel they have attacked me first, or if their way of addressing me is condescending, rude, flippant, etc.

I'm worried that I'm not making sense anymore because I'm tired. Must sleep now. I hope you respond to this post. Thanks-

Originally posted by Annee

I have no patience for the rest of your post.

Annee, don't take this the wrong way -- because you and I are on the same side... but you have anger issues

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Annee

I have no patience for the rest of your post.

Annee, don't take this the wrong way -- because you and I are on the same side... but you have anger issues

Not really - but have been discussing this subject for 20 years - - - and have lost patience.

Also my 60 year search to find the truth in god - - resulted in Atheism. I have no patience with religion interfering with Equal Rights.

My mom was a polio victim in the '51 epidemic. The Disability Act wasn't until 1990. I grew up with people staring because someone was different. And being denied entrance to businesses because it might disturb other customers.

A strong subject? Definitely. Not really angry.

Oh - and I am not gay. Just celebrated my 22nd wedding anniversary.

reply to post by Annee


I understand - I was only teasing you. You are abrupt, but truthful. I'll take abrupt/truthful any day over smooth-talking liars.

Other than being a woman, I've never really had to personally face any discrimination in my life. I've had all the advantages - white, upper-middle class, college educated, heterosexual, etc. And I look and sound like what society considers "normal". But having seen friends go through it, I can imagine somewhat how it feels. It stinks and it needs to stop.

Never give up trying to raise awareness - you do it your way and I'll do it mine.

P.S. Congrats on your wedding anniversary. I just finished out 12 years this past Thanksgiving.