All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Bear with me here. I don't want to start an uncivilized argument and I don't want to criticize anyone for their beliefs, but I was certainly surprised to see such open condemnation of homosexuality on the boards here. In my little city of Vancouver, I don't hear much of that.
I was wondering if any of you who feel that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, or immoral, would like to explain to me why you feel that way. Again, I'd rather not see this turn into a fight, but as writers I think that we should seek out and try to form an understanding of those viewpoints which are radically different from our own.
For my own part I've never given the morality of homosexuality a second thought. I was raised to believe that it is completely natural and I do not have any religious beliefs which are relevant to the issue of homosexuality. I have only one gay friend that I know of but can find no discernible difference between them and their relationships and me and mine.
I'd be really interested to see where this discussion goes.
To start things off on a rather light note (because we should remain as chill about this as possible), I think Mr. Louis CK (one of my favorite comedians) does a good job of highlighting my confusion with this argument.
I believe in God, but I do not follow any specific religion, nor do I fully believe in any bible. You could say I'm an agnostic theist of sorts. I just want to make my religious standing clear before I get into this.
Now, let's make another thing clear: there is nothing wrong with gay people. They have no reason to be feared or hated like they are in many places all over the globe. However, I must say that I do not condone the choice [of being gay] in the least.
Let's strip everything down to basic principles, ignoring religion, morals, and absolutely everything else that doesn't have to do with basic survival for any sentient being: what's a human being's purpose in life? Simple --
You are born, you eat, you fuck , YOU REPRODUCE, and you die. Period. Reproduction is the most important here as it is essential to the survival of a species. Gay people, for obvious reasons, can't do this. They're born, they eat, fuck, die, and what? What did they achieve? What did they do for us, for humanity? Essentially, nothing.
This is where it gets complicated: achievements of personal importance (work, goals, business, etc.) are based on your own perception. I'm not saying gay people don't matter, because I have absolutely no right to say that. Do not misunderstand me -- I'm speaking about basic, natural instincts only, one of which is the instinct to reproduce.
How is homosexuality any more than an anomaly if it overrides your basic instincts? You could argue about overpopulation and think of gay people as a "nature's birth control" of sorts or come up with countless other theories for their existence, but none of them truly justify it.
If the gay person has a hormonal disorder [which would be out of their control since it is a disease], then it's understandable. Otherwise, I think they are just people who are confused and/or looking for attention. There is no other rational explanation for their behavior.
I've gotta say I too was surprised at some of the comments in that other thread. I just didn't expect it from a bunch of writers - yep, I know that's a generalisation ...
My personal opinion: I don't give a hoot if you're gay, straight, fat, short, black, white, whatever - I care what kind of person you are. I judge a person by who they are not what sexual orientation they prefer.
Yep, sorry just had to add a bit - Julio you said: "You are born, you eat, you fuck , YOU REPRODUCE, and you die. Period."
Whew! I think life's more than that; much more. Those are just our basic innate needs. If we have nothing more to offer than that, nothing distinguishes us from animals. Also, further to what Matt said - does that rationalisation mean that all those unfortunate women who cannot give birth by natural or artificial means "failed in their purpose" to live a purposeful life. IMO, it all get's back to not what sexual preferences you lean towards but how you lead your life - cause you only get one go at it.
Being gay myself, I'm a pretty big proponent of homosexuality.
Julio,
There are many ways through which gay people can become parents. IVF and surrogacy come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Perhaps we can't have children as naturally as a man and a woman can, but being gay doesn't "override" our natural paternal instincts. There are many, many gay parents in the world.
And in a general sense (just to expand on what you said) what is the purpose of the human race in the long run? You were right when you said that we are born, eat, fuck, reproduce and then die. But that's all any generation accomplishes. What's the point in continuing with this species if our greatest achievement is simply longevity? Doesn't it seem a bit senseless anyway?
There are many people who choose not to have children, gay or straight, I don't think that's an argument. The human race, as a species, has more to offer the world than merely reproducing itself.
I have no particular religous beliefs, infact, I don't even think I can spell it but I do believe in treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. Any prejudice goes against that belief so I don't have anything against gay people.
I think the comments on the previous thread are exactly what Sacha Baron Cohen tries to create. Ignorance and fear are dangerous things.
I don't think the comments in the Bruno thread were particular anti-gay (well, maybe one of the posters there get a little weird), they were more directed at the presentation of gay people - not only by Hollywood, but by gay people themselves (at least the ones I got to read before it was cleaned up.
Where I come from, I think gays are treated pretty much like everybody else with a few exceptions (no church weddings, no adoptions). I understand both of the exceptions but only agree with one of them. Even though I'm not religious in any way, I don't think the church should be forced to bless something that they perceive to be a sin (whether one agrees with that notion or not). I understand the argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children but being a straight couple is no guarantee that you're great parents.
I'm not gay so obviously I can't speak about how gays are treated in general but I've never understood the reason for the gay pride parades. Maybe there's someone out there who can explain to me exactly what the point of those parades are. I know a lot of the gays in those parades represent the "extreme" (for a lack of a better word) with the way they dress and act etc. and not the gay comunity as a whole. Is it simply for awareness or is there some other motive for these parades? To me, it comes across as floundering, like "look at how gay we are". What's the point of that? It's just seems weird to me.
I know the world is not perfect yet (cos if it were, there wouldn't be any of you fags around ) but we're getting there I think.
Eating meat is instinct - not eating meat is a decision. Can the same be said about homosexuality? Some would probably say yes but I don't think so. We can't really change how we feel or what we are. We just...are - for better or for worse.
I don't think being gay is wrong (actually I couldn't care less about anyone's sexual orientation), as long as you are a good person then what does it matter? I do have a problem with people who (and this is not specific to the gay comunity) brand anyone who dares to critizise a specific group of people as either homophobes, anti-semitic, racists etc.
All that being said, deep down, I don't think being gay is "normal" though. Yeah, call me old fashion, but I believe the penis and the vagina goes hand in hand everytime. And what the fuck is "normal" anyway? It's a good question and personally I think Malcolm McDowell's character in Star Trek Generations said it best: "Normal is what everybody else is and you're not".
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I, personality, think this thread should be deleted if not locked. There's absolutely no reason to discuss it here unless people want to alienate themselves.
In regards to homosexuals being unable to reproduce, this is a lie. Being gay means preferring your own sex. I have a friend who is the father of a ten year old boy; he actually had to go to court to get custody from the mother. The boy is doing better now than when he was with Mom.
I do not think that homosexuality is a choice. As a gay riend (who married the above-mentioned guy) says, "Why would I choose to be something that would alienate myself from my family and friends?"
Again, I think this thread should be locked. It's pretty bigotted. If you don't believe me, then go back to the original post and substitute the word 'homosexual' with the word 'Jew.' Or 'black.' Or 'Hispanic.' Or whatever group you belong to.
I don't mean to quote you out of context here, michael, but I just saw that you answered a question of mine in another thread.
Quoted from mcornetto (from the Bruno thread)
The gay pride parades have nothing to do with validation. They are merely there to slap the straight community into recognizing that gay people exist.
Hasn't the cat been out of the bag about gay people for quite a while now? I mean, being gay is not, like, a new phenomenon sweeping the globe. Are those parades really the best way to go about that? I would love to hear The Chismeister's view on those parades.
Quoted from dogglebe
I, personality, think this thread should be deleted if not locked. There's absolutely no reason to discuss it here unless people want to alienate themselves.
Nothing wrong with a good discussion but if anyone gets alienated, doesn't that just prove that, deep down, we're all bigots one way or the other?
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Believing in GOD and believing in the entire BIBLE I can only say one thing. GOD loves everyone. Gay or straight. We all come up short. Love the sinner, not the sin.
I would love to hear The Chismeister's view on those parades.
I think they were important once upon a time. Like Cornetto said, they were a slap in the face to the straight community. We're here, we're queer, get used to it and all that.
Times are different now and I personally don't see the point of them. Sexual orientation either way is nothing to be either proud or ashamed of. It's not like by being gay I've somehow accomplished something that straight people haven't. That has never made sense to me. I don't really know what "gay pride" means.
The parades are fine, the floats and the bright costumes and what not. Sure they attract a certain element of negativity, but being a minority that's unavoidable no matter what we do. As long as people are having a laugh, it's all good. But you're not gonna find me in one of those things.
I would rather be stranded on a deserted island with a bunch of gays and lesbians that were nice people than a bunch of straight assholes. Being a nice person is number one for me.
What I don't like however is when someone gets in my face and insist that I "have to" accept them. That goes for homosexuals that do so, but other groups as well, Christians, Muslims or whatever. In other words, don't try to tell me how I should think.
In regards to us humans reproducing, did anyone read the study that said in 100 000 years there will be no males. Why? they just want be needed anymore...
In regards to us humans reproducing, did anyone read the study that said in 100 000 years there will be no males. Why? they just want be needed anymore...
Then the gals will have to start reading instruction manuals to figure out how electrical appliances work. Jeez, I'm bummed I'm gonna miss that - should be a blast
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I don't think the comments in the Bruno thread were particular anti-gay (well, maybe one of the posters there get a little weird), they were more directed at the presentation of gay people - not only by Hollywood, but by gay people themselves (at least the ones I got to read before it was cleaned up.
Where I come from, I think gays are treated pretty much like everybody else with a few exceptions (no church weddings, no adoptions). I understand both of the exceptions but only agree with one of them. Even though I'm not religious in any way, I don't think the church should be forced to bless something that they perceive to be a sin (whether one agrees with that notion or not). I understand the argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children but being a straight couple is no guarantee that you're great parents.
I'm not gay so obviously I can't speak about how gays are treated in general but I've never understood the reason for the gay pride parades. Maybe there's someone out there who can explain to me exactly what the point of those parades are. I know a lot of the gays in those parades represent the "extreme" (for a lack of a better word) with the way they dress and act etc. and not the gay comunity as a whole. Is it simply for awareness or is there some other motive for these parades? To me, it comes across as floundering, like "look at how gay we are". What's the point of that? It's just seems weird to me.
I know the world is not perfect yet (cos if it were, there wouldn't be any of you fags around ) but we're getting there I think.
Eating meat is instinct - not eating meat is a decision. Can the same be said about homosexuality? Some would probably say yes but I don't think so. We can't really change how we feel or what we are. We just...are - for better or for worse.
I don't think being gay is wrong (actually I couldn't care less about anyone's sexual orientation), as long as you are a good person then what does it matter? I do have a problem with people who (and this is not specific to the gay comunity) brand anyone who dares to critizise a specific group of people as either homophobes, anti-semitic, racists etc.
All that being said, deep down, I don't think being gay is "normal" though. Yeah, call me old fashion, but I believe the penis and the vagina goes hand in hand everytime. And what the fuck is "normal" anyway? It's a good question and personally I think Malcolm McDowell's character in Star Trek Generations said it best: "Normal is what everybody else is and you're not".
I had to quote the whole of the above because it really says exactly the way I feel.
Michael Cornetto has also posted a little bit of the history of gay pride parades in the Bruno thread that I didn't know about.
I can't help but thinking about two words, "Public Display". You know how when you're young and in love and you might hold hands in public and feel like you're walking on a cloud, but then you get older and you might still do that once in awhile, but you just grow up and none of that is necessary. (Except for die hards I guess). If you've ever seen elderly couples together, you really see it. Sometimes they are completely silent, sitting next to one another, but the love is unmistakable.
Anyways, the point is that I think gay people need to respect straight people's opinions as much as their own, and try to be a little more subtle. It's very easy for anyone of us to get on an "I'm so oppressed train." (Indeed, it may be said about many. I'm thinking about how Native Indians were treated here in Canada, not too long ago by many. Not nice stuff.) But...
We need to get along as one world society, respecting others views even opposite our own and like Rob says above, I agree, "As long as you're a good person, what does your sexual orientation have to do with anything?"
I think that a good point has been made about extremists. Media likes to latch onto anything where there's controversy. And some people just feel the need to go out and wave their banners around, whatever banner it may be.
I have more of a question that a comment cuz i dun realy care if people r gay or not as long as they aint a douche.
I have noticed a huge, and i mean HUGE trend in bi sexuality the past couple years, mostly in teenagers, so the highschool kids here or the recently graduated one may know this more than the older people, but at the mall, at the movies, where i work i see lots of 15-18 year old guys walking hand in hand, and they all look the same, the same black hair that hangs over there eyes, snake bite piercings, skinny and baggy clothes. So my question is, could this be a part of evolution or is it because it is more socially exceptable now? I know its supposed to be like 10% of the population is gay, but this is more like 25%. I asked this guy i work with about this and he said it was big at his school, in fact his GF is Bi, but that was always around even when i was a kid, I see it a lot more in guys now. So is this evolution or just a trend?
The increasing prevalence of 'bisexuality' owes a debt to the pornography industry, I think. Sure, it's not the only factor, but it's a significant factor.
Does that reflect a manipulation or an opportunity for people to unload their own repressed desire - now there's a question.
We're in the 21st and we have bigger problems to contend with than how someone elects to express themselves sexually.
Anyways, the point is that I think gay people need to respect straight people's opinions as much as their own, and try to be a little more subtle. It's very easy for anyone of us to get on an "I'm so oppressed train." (Indeed, it may be said about many. I'm thinking about how Native Indians were treated here in Canada, not too long ago by many. Not nice stuff.) But...
But in the some of the States, gay people don't have the same legal rights when it comes to marriage and adoption. Isn't that fairly clear-cut oppression?
Are gay pride parades necessary? I have no idea. I've only seen one and all I can say is that it was fun because everyone was having a good time. I don't understand the problem. There are public demonstrations on all sorts of themes which some people may disagree with...luckily they're on the street, not in your house.
Public displays...there was a reasonable amount of overt sexuality at the gay pride parade I was at. To be honest though, if I were to average out the public displays of affection I've observed over a year, I'm guessing that about one percent of them would be homosexual. If I walk ten blocks to buy groceries it's a fairly sure bet that I'm going to see a straight couple kiss and if I go out on a Friday night, heck, there'll probably be enough displays of straight affection to rival a parade right there. I don't think a gay pride day or week a year is unreasonable, considering.
I can't help but thinking about two words, "Public Display". You know how when you're young and in love and you might hold hands in public and feel like you're walking on a cloud, but then you get older and you might still do that once in awhile, but you just grow up and none of that is necessary. (Except for die hards I guess). If you've ever seen elderly couples together, you really see it. Sometimes they are completely silent, sitting next to one another, but the love is unmistakable.
Excellent point. This, for me, is more of an issue than someone's sexual preference.
I think it's disgusting for any couple to be so openly affectionate with each other in public. There's a time and a place for that, and I personally don't care to see some gross battle of the tongues while I'm waiting in line at a Cold Stone. Whether you're gay or straight, just be respectful to those around you and wait.
Excellent point. This, for me, is more of an issue than someone's sexual preference.
I think it's disgusting for any couple to be so openly affectionate with each other in public. There's a time and a place for that, and I personally don't care to see some gross battle of the tongues while I'm waiting in line at a Cold Stone. Whether you're gay or straight, just be respectful to those around you and wait.
There's a difference between a peck on the cheek (or dear God, even the lips) and full-on making out. And I think I can safely say that both (massive displays vs. small displays) draw stares/looks of disgust/comments from people if you're a homosexual. Which is just flat out wrong.
I agree, massive PDA (from anyone) is annoying, but it should be the same "rules" for everyone.
When it comes to this issue, I'd have to say I have no problem with gay or bisexual people. I'm straight, I'm 17, and there are quite a few gay/bisexual people at my school. The only thing I have against them, like some of you are talking about, is that they're way too open about it.
It's disgusting to see a straight couple making out. It's also disgusting if it's a gay/bisexual couple making out. But when I see that I feel a bit uncomfortable, it just doesn't seem natural in my eyes. They can't help it, but I just feel so weird when I'm standing in line at school and two guys kiss in front of me.
Some people may think that makes me intolerant, or a bigot.
I'm friends with a gay guy, and he's a great guy to chill with. We all have talked about it quite a bit, but never gone into detail about his sexual habits...
Anyways, enough straying from my point... I think when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the hell you are. But you don't have to seek attention from it, which is what I think a lot of kids around my age do.
I don't know if my opinion really matters, being 17 at all, but what I wrote above is how I feel about gays/bisexuals.
Believing in GOD and believing in the entire BIBLE I can only say one thing. GOD loves everyone. Gay or straight. We all come up short. Love the sinner, not the sin.
LED....
You're saying the whole "God hates fags" isn't the word of God?
That is how the Westboro Baptist Church reads it anyway.
I don't think you could alienate yourself one way or the other. It's like taking a review as anything more than an opinion.
Let people do what makes them happy.
I watched the Canadian ART film Shortbus and made it to the very end when I was like this is gay porn... Why did they call this an art film.
When it comes to this issue, I'd have to say I have no problem with gay or bisexual people. I'm straight, I'm 17, and there are quite a few gay/bisexual people at my school. The only thing I have against them, like some of you are talking about, is that they're way too open about it.
It's disgusting to see a straight couple making out. It's also disgusting if it's a gay/bisexual couple making out. But when I see that I feel a bit uncomfortable, it just doesn't seem natural in my eyes. They can't help it, but I just feel so weird when I'm standing in line at school and two guys kiss in front of me.
Some people may think that makes me intolerant, or a bigot.
I'm friends with a gay guy, and he's a great guy to chill with. We all have talked about it quite a bit, but never gone into detail about his sexual habits...
Anyways, enough straying from my point... I think when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the hell you are. But you don't have to seek attention from it, which is what I think a lot of kids around my age do.
I don't know if my opinion really matters, being 17 at all, but what I wrote above is how I feel about gays/bisexuals.
-A. Litch
Hi Andrew,
I just want to say that your maturity and common sense shines through in your words. Are you one of those kids, like I was, like my husband was, like our kids are, who hang out a lot with people ten or more years older than yourself? By the intelligent post you've just made, it proves: Age doesn't mean what we think it does.
(I'm adding this because I just realized that some people might get the wrong idea from Andrew's choice of the word "disgusting". I don't think he means it literally. I think what he means is that it's inappropriate for civilized people and that we need to subdue our instincts in public, not because it's disgusting, but for the same reason we do other silly human things, like set neat and fancy tables and line up nicely for tickets to movies.) Wow! What a long parenthetical eh?
Thank you and don't ever think that what you say doesn't matter. It most certainly does.
Bear with me here. I don't want to start an uncivilized argument and I don't want to criticize anyone for their beliefs, but I was certainly surprised to see such open condemnation of homosexuality on the boards here. In my little city of Vancouver, I don't hear much of that.
I was wondering if any of you who feel that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, or immoral, would like to explain to me why you feel that way. Again, I'd rather not see this turn into a fight, but as writers I think that we should seek out and try to form an understanding of those viewpoints which are radically different from our own.
For my own part I've never given the morality of homosexuality a second thought. I was raised to believe that it is completely natural and I do not have any religious beliefs which are relevant to the issue of homosexuality. I have only one gay friend that I know of but can find no discernible difference between them and their relationships and me and mine.
So please, if you feel like it, do tell.
Man, am I ever quoting a whole lot of "whole" quotes today.
Like you, I was born and raised in Vancouver. I too, don't really hold any religious beliefs that condemn people with regards to their sexuality. I can't justify, in my own mind, telling other people how they should live when I, myself, can't do what I truly would do being that it would be a perfect world. I'm not speaking about sexuality, but just in general. I wish I could be a better person.
Your post just made me remember that when I was a girl, seriously, no sexual things going on, we girl friends used to HOLD HANDS!!!!!
Yes, as girls, we used to hold hands and we would do each others' hair and help each other pick out clothes to wear etc... Now, if we were kids again, and doing the same things, people might right away assume that we were swayed towards the same gender, but it wasn't that way-- for us, anyways. We just really loved each other as girl friends, but we had the same kind of nurturing aspects that many women share. We could discuss and exchange notes on our experiences with men/boys. We could laugh about "how men were" and still LOVE THEM FOR THE MEN THEY WERE.
Someone mentioned earlier about getting a kick out of seeing women reading tech manuals on what-have-you. This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about here for the moment. It's true. Not all, but many women just are not inclined to do the same kinds of things that men do. (Ok, maybe I should say, "real men or macho men... you know what I mean", but I don't mean it as a negative comment to men who are more geared to the feminine aspects. I, myself, was very much a tomboy growing up and I LOVED to play with boys-- FLOOR HOCKEY!!!!
It must be that the male/female aspects arrive in a human being and for some, they are maybe just a little lopsided. I really don't know. I don't have anything brilliant to say here. This is a very tough argument or question or whatever you want to call it. I understand that people are going to get upset on either side.
The best we can do is try and make compromises. In society, as far as law goes, I really don't know. Truly, there must be some very good and loving gay couples out there that would make perfect parents to an adopted child. And-- that child might grow up to fight against homosexuality. We can't predict this kind of thing.
My belief system is such that all negativity is ultimately for good. Religions are just a helpful stepping stone on which to rise above. (I apologize to the person who posted John Lennon's "Imagine" lyrics. I don't remember who it was, but you are: Right on!"
Jordon, I think it was you who raised the question abou the possibility of gayness being part of evolution. You are not the only one who has asked that question!!!
Seriously! I've often wondered: "Is this some way for mankind to realize and appreciate the separate genders? By SHOWING a kind of confused gender issue?
Anyways, I've actually wondered that myself; so I completely understand your question even if people might think we're weird for even contemplating such a notion.
There's a guy here in Canada who answers cosmos kinds of questions. His name is Bob McDonald. He's the host of Quirks and Quarks. Maybe it might be fun to write to him on this subject.
Here's a relevant passage regarding homosexuality and the Bible taken from a book called Koolaids by Rabih Alameddine.
"The story of sodom and Gomorrah is a simple story. Two angels come to visit Sodom and are invited by Lot, our hero, to stay at his house. All the men of Sodom, young and old, come to Lot's door wanting to get better acquainted with the angels. Those were the days, huh? So Lot, chivalrous host that he is, says, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man: let me bring them out to you and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." God tells us fucking men is a terrible thing, but a father offering his two daughters, vestal virgins no less, to a horde of horny buggers is heroic. Now that's straight.
It gets better. God tells Lot, the pimp, to get away from Sodom, with his wife and vestal virgins, for He is to unleash His wrath. Don't look back the angels tell them. Well, his wife does, failing to follow simple instructions, and is turned into a pillar of salt. The pimp is spared, but is wife does not follow orders and is not. Lot and his daughters end up in a cave. One day the older daughter says to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father." So the pimp gets drunk, his daughter fucks him, and he doesn't remember anything the next day. This is a common pattern among straight men. They always always forget what happened the night before while they were drunk. The next night, the pimp gets drunk again and his younger daughter fucks him. All in the family and so on. Vice is nice but incest is best.
So here we have the story of Sodom and Gomporrah. God destroys the faggots with fire and brimstone. He turns a disobedient wife into salt. But he asks us to idolize drunks who sleep with their daughters or offer them to a horny unruly mob. This is the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuals are bad."
I have no problem with gay pride parades whatsoever. It's an opportunity for the community to celebrate. Us Irish folk have the St. Patrick Day parade and no one complains. And it's not like drunken Irish nitwits vomiting on themselves is some new phenomenon sweeping the planet. And there's also the Colombus Day parade, as if greasy, mouth breathing eye-tals are something worth celebrating!
FWIW, not much is said of Lot after that point. Lot made some bad decisions, and God spared him, we find that he ended up in a cave being humped by his daughters. The sons of his daughters were the Moabites and the Ammonites, two races eventually nearly wiped out by the Israelites. Not sure the message there is to idolize the incestuous drunk. Gotta keep your stories in context.
I thought I'd throw out my little viewpoint, since my particular view hasn't said anything yet, and probably for good reason. You see, the (sort of) view I would belong to is just about as pigdeon-holed into a view as the homosexual group is. There is a presumption as to what I'll say and you'll be wrong.
First, I do believe that the Bible is 100% correct. As I demonstrated with the above response, I'm fairly well-versed in it, and I've read it in its entirety more than once. I cannot pretend to fully understand everything in it, and I would doubt anyone could honestly claim to, though I'm come across some who try.
I'll also throw in some personal perspective that a lot of people just won't admit to because of the stigma that would go along with it.
I'm of the persuasion that homosexuality is a choice. I mean, at its base, we're talking about little more than an act that defines one as being homosexual. They prefer relations with their own sex. Now, along with this choice, an entire lifestyle has arisen, but historically, homosexuality has not lent itself to a lifestyle, just that sexual preference. Trouble is, that we are a people who must quantify and qualify, and as such, we have created a category for this group of people in order to alienate them. Yes, creating an entire category called Sexual Orientation alienates this group and gives them a sort of status. It also categorizes Homosexuality as being something separate, just as all the race categories serve to subdivide and separate the races from each other.
So why is it a choice? Well, society defines the lifestyle as a male who is well-cultured, tending towards theatre over TV, cocktails over beer, and well-fitted and tailored clothing over jeans and a t-shirt. Crap, I just described myself. You know, based upon my own choices and preferences, people have often labeled me as gay. More so when I was single, as I also didn't even have a girlfriend until I was out of high school. No first kiss till 19. I not only enjoy the theatre, but I've written my share of musicals and I was in a few of those as well (I even spell it with an 're'). I can easily say that for my part, my brain did sort of swing both ways being curious about both sides of the coin, however, my personal upbringing brought me into the relationship I have now with a wife and three children. Why? Because the Bible does indicate that male and female relations are natural and same sex ones are not. It's actually pretty blatant about that point. People may say that the Bible is vague on some things, but that's one of those very clear points, and so I sway that way. But as a matter of choice, I could have gone the other. I wasn't "pre-programmed" either way.
Why would someone choose something that would alienate them from their family? There is a lot of cultural influence here. Remember that we have to categorize, and as such, we feel the need to choose at a certain age. Also, people choose things that alienate them from their families all the time. Women choose men their fathers hate, and although he swears he'll disown her if she married him, she does anyway. Why? Because she loves him. So this logic of not consciously choosing something that would alienate one from their family is not limited to homosexuality, and that's just the most common example. There are hundreds more, I'm sure.
There's also the argument that there aren't more gay people now; they're just not afraid to speak out. I have a devil's advocate side to that. I would say the number of people who would be gay is exactly the same now as it always was. The difference is that society has made that choice ok now, so rather than seeing it as a "wrong decision," society has accepted it as a choice, and people are free to choose it as they would a college. Hm, Dartmouth or Harvard? Him or her? The choice is yours.
So how do I personally feel about people who proclaim themselves gay? I don't hate them. I get along with them just like anyone else I know. They're people just like anyone else. Besides, only you can control your life, and you live by the choices you make. However, just as you don't want me to force you to believe in Christianity, which I also believe to be a lifestyle choice, not a religion, I don't want you to force me to accept that what you're doing is 'ok.' If you are the way you are, then I'm not going to try and change you. By the same measure, I am the way I am, and you're not going to change me either. Christianity and homosexuality are at odds with each other, and each side needs to accept that. I can accept that you are living a life that I disagree with, and that's just how the world is. It's just just people disagreeing on how others spend their money, or what car they drive, or what neighborhood they live, or the person they choose to marry. I have what amounts to the rule book I hold most sacred, and like it or not, that's what I make my choices according to. Just as you expect me to accept homosexuality, I expect you to accept that of me.
If you look at the two from a worldly perspective of simple lifestyle, how are the two so different? Each insists they are right, and neither will ever budge. Sort of like North and South Korea... Those are neighbors that live in an uneasy balance, and yet they keep living together. We're going to have to do the same.
I have to disagree w. a lot of what you wrote. I don't see someones sexual orientation as a difference that, like ones choice of car, if you don't like it, has to be tolerated. I think I understand what you're saying, that in the end, it doesn't rly matter much.
But to me it does. It makes me sad. Orientation is such a large part of who we are. This becomes obvious when others, as they have forever, try to tell us we can't be who we are. It shouldn't have to be tolerated, it should just accepted. Becuase, yes, when it is accepted, it doesn't matter.
Also you say Christianty and homosexuality are at odds. I think maybe your interpretation of the Bible is at odds w. homosexuality. Other people have different beliefes. No one person can speak for all of Christianity. There are gay Christians.
I want to say that your beliefs are your beliefs and I'm not trying to take them away from you. I'm just sharing my own.
The Catholic church does not approve of homosexuality, which is why GLAAD cannot march in the Saint Patrick's Day parade (atleast in New York) under its own banner.
FWIW, not much is said of Lot after that point. Lot made some bad decisions, and God spared him, we find that he ended up in a cave being humped by his daughters. The sons of his daughters were the Moabites and the Ammonites, two races eventually nearly wiped out by the Israelites. Not sure the message there is to idolize the incestuous drunk. Gotta keep your stories in context.
I thought I'd throw out my little viewpoint, since my particular view hasn't said anything yet, and probably for good reason. You see, the (sort of) view I would belong to is just about as pigdeon-holed into a view as the homosexual group is. There is a presumption as to what I'll say and you'll be wrong.
First, I do believe that the Bible is 100% correct. As I demonstrated with the above response, I'm fairly well-versed in it, and I've read it in its entirety more than once. I cannot pretend to fully understand everything in it, and I would doubt anyone could honestly claim to, though I'm come across some who try.
I'll also throw in some personal perspective that a lot of people just won't admit to because of the stigma that would go along with it.
I'm of the persuasion that homosexuality is a choice. I mean, at its base, we're talking about little more than an act that defines one as being homosexual. They prefer relations with their own sex. Now, along with this choice, an entire lifestyle has arisen, but historically, homosexuality has not lent itself to a lifestyle, just that sexual preference. Trouble is, that we are a people who must quantify and qualify, and as such, we have created a category for this group of people in order to alienate them. Yes, creating an entire category called Sexual Orientation alienates this group and gives them a sort of status. It also categorizes Homosexuality as being something separate, just as all the race categories serve to subdivide and separate the races from each other.
So why is it a choice? Well, society defines the lifestyle as a male who is well-cultured, tending towards theatre over TV, cocktails over beer, and well-fitted and tailored clothing over jeans and a t-shirt. Crap, I just described myself. You know, based upon my own choices and preferences, people have often labeled me as gay. More so when I was single, as I also didn't even have a girlfriend until I was out of high school. No first kiss till 19. I not only enjoy the theatre, but I've written my share of musicals and I was in a few of those as well (I even spell it with an 're'). I can easily say that for my part, my brain did sort of swing both ways being curious about both sides of the coin, however, my personal upbringing brought me into the relationship I have now with a wife and three children. Why? Because the Bible does indicate that male and female relations are natural and same sex ones are not. It's actually pretty blatant about that point. People may say that the Bible is vague on some things, but that's one of those very clear points, and so I sway that way. But as a matter of choice, I could have gone the other. I wasn't "pre-programmed" either way.
Why would someone choose something that would alienate them from their family? There is a lot of cultural influence here. Remember that we have to categorize, and as such, we feel the need to choose at a certain age. Also, people choose things that alienate them from their families all the time. Women choose men their fathers hate, and although he swears he'll disown her if she married him, she does anyway. Why? Because she loves him. So this logic of not consciously choosing something that would alienate one from their family is not limited to homosexuality, and that's just the most common example. There are hundreds more, I'm sure.
There's also the argument that there aren't more gay people now; they're just not afraid to speak out. I have a devil's advocate side to that. I would say the number of people who would be gay is exactly the same now as it always was. The difference is that society has made that choice ok now, so rather than seeing it as a "wrong decision," society has accepted it as a choice, and people are free to choose it as they would a college. Hm, Dartmouth or Harvard? Him or her? The choice is yours.
So how do I personally feel about people who proclaim themselves gay? I don't hate them. I get along with them just like anyone else I know. They're people just like anyone else. Besides, only you can control your life, and you live by the choices you make. However, just as you don't want me to force you to believe in Christianity, which I also believe to be a lifestyle choice, not a religion, I don't want you to force me to accept that what you're doing is 'ok.' If you are the way you are, then I'm not going to try and change you. By the same measure, I am the way I am, and you're not going to change me either. Christianity and homosexuality are at odds with each other, and each side needs to accept that. I can accept that you are living a life that I disagree with, and that's just how the world is. It's just just people disagreeing on how others spend their money, or what car they drive, or what neighborhood they live, or the person they choose to marry. I have what amounts to the rule book I hold most sacred, and like it or not, that's what I make my choices according to. Just as you expect me to accept homosexuality, I expect you to accept that of me.
If you look at the two from a worldly perspective of simple lifestyle, how are the two so different? Each insists they are right, and neither will ever budge. Sort of like North and South Korea... Those are neighbors that live in an uneasy balance, and yet they keep living together. We're going to have to do the same.
I don't agree with most of this.
Homosexuality is rarely a choice and is something you are born with:
From a personal point of view, it strikes me that Jesus was a most open minded and forgiving person and discrimination based on sexuality is not something which seems to fit the persona which has been handed down to us, even through the many translations and interferences of Medieval writers.
The Bible may or may not be the result of Divine inspiration, but I think it's safe to assume that the contributors were wont to introduce aspects of their own prejudice and cultural learnings of their time into it. Even the most devout scribe is not spiritually perfect.
Similarily, readers of the Bible bring their own prejudices and perceptions to the table when they read it. They are likely to interpret it in a way that agrees with their own philosophy. We can see this in the numerous disputes that exist today and have existed through time immemorial.
Perhaps the most common quote I hear in modern times from the Bible is "An eye for an eye". This is used often by practising Christians when talking about war or punishment regarding crime. It is, of course, in direct contradiction to what their own prophet suggested.
One thing I noted somewhere in the middle is that I, personally, could have gone either way. I possess traits that are held by those that hold the gay lifestyle. And yet, in the end, it came down to a choice. Pure and simple. That's actually one reason I can't see it any other way. Race is something you're born with. A lifestyle is something you're either born into or move into. Using Christianity as a comparison point, I was born into a Christian family, but I did not always choose to follow that faith. I didn't like it for the longest time. But after much personal study and soul-searching, I found my way back to where I began. Now, I find it a lifestyle I wouldn't do without.
I find a lot of importance being placed upon this topic, and if you run down the list of the US's Equal Opportunity qualities, sexual orientation is one of only a couple that is in disagreement as a controllable trait. You can't control age, disability, or race, but you can control religious preference. Is sexual orientation really an uncontrollable trait such as race or is it something more controllable?
I would be quick to point out a famous former lesbian: Anne Heche. She was with Ellen DeGeneres for 3 years before she decided she wasn't a lesbian. She was married for 8 years, and is in a relationship now with another guy she had a child with in March. Would she tell you it's a choice or a facet you're born with.
Quoted from Astrid
Also you say Christianty and homosexuality are at odds. I think maybe your interpretation of the Bible is at odds w. homosexuality. Other people have different beliefes. No one person can speak for all of Christianity. There are gay Christians.
Orientation isn't exactly who we are. Our lifestyle is who we are. We define ourselves by the choices we make, not the traits we're assigned. Obama could have been a hoodlum or oppressed because of his race, but he chose a different path.
And I'm not sure how else the specific Biblical passages could be interpreted to condone homosexuality. These aren't exactly "grey area" passages like some can be. I'm not trying to preach to persuade. In the pure interest of further defining my interpretation, I offer the following:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Roman 1:26, 27
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9,10
This is also why I lean towards choice. God would not create something he would condemn. But that's a religious view again, and I leave it to you to disagree, should you wish to. The last thing I want to be accused of is shoving something down anyone's throat.
Perhaps the most common quote I hear in modern times from the Bible is "An eye for an eye". This is used often by practising Christians when talking about war or punishment regarding crime. It is, of course, in direct contradiction to what their own prophet suggested.
And to be certain, any church will have those who are hypocritical of their own faith. 'Eye for an eye' was indeed condemned by Jesus as a response to wrongs done. He actually overturned several rules of the Jewish faith stating that the rules had lost their meaning.
This is what I was talking about in my first post on this thread. It's going to start turning ugly as people's beliefs are brought. And I don't want to see that. Now, why don't you guys kiss and make up?
I just don't understand how something that doesn't hurt anyone should be a sin. So it doesn't make sense to me. But it seems you're not telling anyone else what to do or not to do. You're just sharing you're beliefes and I appreciate that you're willing to share em.
One thing I noted somewhere in the middle is that I, personally, could have gone either way. I possess traits that are held by those that hold the gay lifestyle. And yet, in the end, it came down to a choice. Pure and simple. That's actually one reason I can't see it any other way. Race is something you're born with. A lifestyle is something you're either born into or move into. Using Christianity as a comparison point, I was born into a Christian family, but I did not always choose to follow that faith. I didn't like it for the longest time. But after much personal study and soul-searching, I found my way back to where I began. Now, I find it a lifestyle I wouldn't do without.
I find a lot of importance being placed upon this topic, and if you run down the list of the US's Equal Opportunity qualities, sexual orientation is one of only a couple that is in disagreement as a controllable trait. You can't control age, disability, or race, but you can control religious preference. Is sexual orientation really an uncontrollable trait such as race or is it something more controllable?
I would be quick to point out a famous former lesbian: Anne Heche. She was with Ellen DeGeneres for 3 years before she decided she wasn't a lesbian. She was married for 8 years, and is in a relationship now with another guy she had a child with in March. Would she tell you it's a choice or a facet you're born with.
Orientation isn't exactly who we are. Our lifestyle is who we are. We define ourselves by the choices we make, not the traits we're assigned. Obama could have been a hoodlum or oppressed because of his race, but he chose a different path.
And I'm not sure how else the specific Biblical passages could be interpreted to condone homosexuality. These aren't exactly "grey area" passages like some can be. I'm not trying to preach to persuade. In the pure interest of further defining my interpretation, I offer the following:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Roman 1:26, 27
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9,10
This is also why I lean towards choice. God would not create something he would condemn. But that's a religious view again, and I leave it to you to disagree, should you wish to. The last thing I want to be accused of is shoving something down anyone's throat.
And to be certain, any church will have those who are hypocritical of their own faith. 'Eye for an eye' was indeed condemned by Jesus as a response to wrongs done. He actually overturned several rules of the Jewish faith stating that the rules had lost their meaning.
Sexual orientation is set largely in the womb. That doesn't mean that it is definitively set so that you are either 100% gay or 100% straight. The common opinion is that the majority of people are somewhere in between.
A little bit more oestrogen here and a bit more testosterone there and your sexual orinetation is different.
So in your example Heche may be 70-30, 60/40 or whatever and make a decision to come down either way. Bisexuality seems to be an extremely common thing amongst women these days. I think it still has more of a taboo surrounding it with men who fear losing face.
As regards the Bible. You can't really have it both ways. It's either the word of absolute truth and you must therefore believe Gays should be stoned to death or you accept that it's just a product of the time it was written.
Any deviation from the printed words and you are assuming a superior attitude towards it, so you may as well dismiss it completely. Problem is even if you do decide to follow it completely, it's open to interpretation. Nothing I can see that Jesus said seems to suggest we should treat homosexuals in any other way than we should treat ourselves or others.
Problem with the Bible is that it wasn't written by the Prophet himself, but by people remembering things or indeed, making things up.
The bolded text I agree with. It's clear from modern science that people are born gay, so clearly those who believe in God should accept it no?
One other thing that I would add is that the Bible, if nothing else, shows us explicitly that homosexuality has been taking place for a very long time.
It's safe to assume it's a very natural state of affairs for our species.
I would be quick to point out a famous former lesbian: Anne Heche. She was with Ellen DeGeneres for 3 years before she decided she wasn't a lesbian. She was married for 8 years, and is in a relationship now with another guy she had a child with in March. Would she tell you it's a choice or a facet you're born with.
Wasn't Anne Heche abducted by aliens at one point? Personally, I wouldn't use her as the poster child for the "choice" angle.
The whole choice vs non-choice discussion is the really interesting part. I seriously don't believe homosexuality to be a choice, neither do I think it's an affliction, but living openly as a homosexual is a choice and sometimes, unfortunately, a very painful one.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I don't think being gay is a choice. Maybe 'tending towards theater over TV' or 'cocktails over beer' is attributed to gay culture but I'm pretty sure not all gay people embrace said culture the same way not all black people listen to rap. True, there's a good chunk of people out there who build a lifestyle around a certain facet of themselves, for whatever reason (maybe that's what they believe being true to themselves means or they just want to be part of a group/family/whatever), but their lifestyle isn't neccesarily the key to defining who they are, even if it can be a big part of it. It's like Sniper said, living openly as a homosexual is the choice.
Well, the ugliness didn't come out (not that it's really turning ugly, but there was potential for it to) only after someone did not have the opinion of either "it's ok" or "I have nothing against it." As is predictable with this topic, no one came out until someone expressed the "I'm against it" view.
Quoted from Astrid
I just don't understand how something that doesn't hurt anyone should be a sin
Well, that's not really anything I would be able to discuss. I didn't make the determination.
I would be quick to note that the study was done very much after the fact and only done in adults. I would think this study would bear much more weight if the brains were tested as individuals were born and then observed to see how they leaned later in life. Sort of making a predictive study as opposed to a reactive one. Brains grow and change as people grow and they've settled by the time they reach adulthood. You may see this as narrow-minded on my part, but a reactive study of 90 adult introverts will reveal that when placed in a room with each other, not 10 words will have been spoken after 30 minutes.
I'm not closed minded to the possibility, but if the study were made of a topic in any less of a public spotlight, I imagine the results would be a bit more questioned.
As regards the Bible. You can't really have it both ways. It's either the word of absolute truth and you must therefore believe Gays should be stoned to death or you accept that it's just a product of the time it was written.
Any deviation from the printed words and you are assuming a superior attitude towards it, so you may as well dismiss it completely. Problem is even if you do decide to follow it completely, it's open to interpretation. Nothing I can see that Jesus said seems to suggest we should treat homosexuals in any other way than we should treat ourselves or others.
Problem with the Bible is that it wasn't written by the Prophet himself, but by people remembering things or indeed, making things up.
The bolded text I agree with. It's clear from modern science that people are born gay, so clearly those who believe in God should accept it no?
One other thing that I would add is that the Bible, if nothing else, shows us explicitly that homosexuality has been taking place for a very long time.
It's safe to assume it's a very natural state of affairs for our species.
Without getting too far into the first part of this latter quote, the Old Testament punishments and such were put away with the coming of Jesus, which is a reason I used post-Jesus quotes up there as well. I am well against adding anything to the word that's there, and if I have, I would hope to be called on it.
The New Testament does not advocate killing anyone over their sins, but as Ledbetter stated earlier, loving the sinner. Love your enemies is actually what it says at one point. And yes, Jesus never said anything about treating homosexuals different than anyone else. What is stated above (granted by the apostle Paul), though, is that the act is considered wrong.
That's about as far as I would go on it without seeming like I'm trying to be overly convincing. My final thought on this one is that it is true that not all men are attracted to women, and vice versa. There's no rule that they need to be. It's actually ok for people to have same sex friendships that span their life without ever "hooking up" with a member of the opposite sex.
Is that homosexuality? I wouldn't think so. After all, the definition of homosexual and heterosexual really depends on the act, doesn't it? Boys typically grow up playing with boys, and yet, none of them are considered homosexual. In fact, children are encouraged to have same sex relationships during their childhood because it gives them peers to grow up with.
In my humble opinion, the line is only crossed when those two friends seek to convert their friendship beyond something platonic into something sexual. The real question I would have is why there is such a desperate need for the friendship to progress.
But yeah, without going too far beyond by own thoughts, that's where I feel it best to back off. I think I've explained myself well enough.
There is limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors; there is some evidence linking sexual orientation to chromosomes 1 and 9, but it is far from compelling and inarguable evidence.
Part of the long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality stems from the fact that the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction, and according to natural selection, homosexuality should have been “selected out”. Why it persists is still a mystery.
There are many who believe it is a genetic trait, and there are those who believe it is a complex combination of genetics (nature) and environment (nurture), unique to each and every individual.
People who are saying that science has “proven” anything here are incorrect. I felt compelled to clarify that point.
Unfortunately, it is all too often that either God or Science can derail a discussion that essentially boils down to simple human rights.
Wasn't Anne Heche abducted by aliens at one point? Personally, I wouldn't use her as the poster child for the "choice" angle.
The whole choice vs non-choice discussion is the really interesting part. I seriously don't believe homosexuality to be a choice, neither do I think it's an affliction, but living openly as a homosexual is a choice and sometimes, unfortunately, a very painful one.
Hmmm, now you and George both have me wondering about the "choice" question. It seems to me that for many individuals it is a choice, but then again, for those who are physically different, there might not be a choice. Here I'm speaking about cases of individuals that aren't "normal", or to put it another way, they are born kind of cross gendered. But those cases are more rare I think, although I have seen maybe two people like this, (from different cities) in my lifetime. I definitely saw that nature couldn't make up its mind with them and truly, I had a hard time discerning whether they were male or female. I felt bad for them because it's hard to imagine having to go through life with people staring at you and giving you strange looks.
But here is where I come to the question that arose in my mind after reading your comment to George's post. In those instances where there is a choice, (and that's based upon the assumption that there are many cases where there indeed, is choice) What might make that choice include telling everyone you can, becoming part of organized movements, showing off as much as any bible thumping style of Christian might, that THIS is the way, the truth, and the life, for me?
What might be the single factor that makes a person NOT want to live a low profile kind of life? Let's say we're not just talking about homosexuality, but any kind of lifestyle choice which includes belief systems as part of that lifestyle.
Like say for myself: I don't eat a lot of meat. I do eat it, but I choose not to eat a lot. I have many reasons for this which I won't go into now. Also, I believe very strongly in recycling. I believe in having a strong work ethic and taking pride in one's work, whatever it might be. I believe in the need for spiritual work, personal and public responsibility and that the two go hand in hand.... OK, that's just a few things.
I know that I'm not alone in these particular ideals. If say, we took several key ideas, like the above, add a few more specifics, and put them together like a "lifestyle package" we might develop a kind of movement, call it Real Earth People or who knows what. Well then, it might suddenly sound like a new thing. You might have parades and pamphlets and people getting all excited about the idea, but the thing is, that all along we've had these people around. It's just that they went about their business quietly. Maybe didn't speak a lot about their choices. While everyone else was fired up to the hilt in fast lifestyles, loading up Visas, consuming with fervor, these people, lived quite differently. But who knew?
So then, back to "choice" regarding homosexuality. Might it be that an individual who chooses to be part of "this movement" be doing so based upon a psychological phenomenon where any individual, wants to feel a part of something greater, something they feel (in their own mind, regardless of whether it's true or not) is important? This would be the same theory behind gangs and groups of any kind. People meeting on some kind of common ground, and feeling a sense of purpose and belonging-- this might be part of the answer to the reasoning behind the gay parades.
Very interesting posts above guys. It's made me think differently about the whole issue in yet another way.
I have more of a question that a comment cuz i dun realy care if people r gay or not as long as they aint a douche.
I have noticed a huge, and i mean HUGE trend in bi sexuality the past couple years, mostly in teenagers, so the highschool kids here or the recently graduated one may know this more than the older people, but at the mall, at the movies, where i work i see lots of 15-18 year old guys walking hand in hand, and they all look the same, the same black hair that hangs over there eyes, snake bite piercings, skinny and baggy clothes. So my question is, could this be a part of evolution or is it because it is more socially exceptable now? I know its supposed to be like 10% of the population is gay, but this is more like 25%. I asked this guy i work with about this and he said it was big at his school, in fact his GF is Bi, but that was always around even when i was a kid, I see it a lot more in guys now. So is this evolution or just a trend?
Homosexuality is being marketed like mad. (Male)Bisexuality would be a natural offshoot. Unfortunately for women, HIV contraction is the consequence of that...
Understanding homosexuality is fraught with the inherent problems that arise when tackling 'love' and its complexities.
No known singular antecedent exists for investigation, so what happens is that people utilise the topic as a means of facilitating bigotry - plain and simple.
There is limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors; there is some evidence linking sexual orientation to chromosomes 1 and 9, but it is far from compelling and inarguable evidence.
So basically what you're saying, Bert, is that increased expression of MMP-9 by inflammatory cells e.g. neutrophils and macrophages is correlated with a variety of processes, thus causing myelin sheath degradation and neuronal damage, ADAM19 protein localization to the seminiferous cords at both embryonic and postnatal ages examined (from 15.5-19.5 dpc to 2 dpp) will regulate the proliferation of perinatal testis cells in the perinatal period?
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
So basically what you're saying, Bert, is that increased expression of MMP-9 by inflammatory cells e.g. neutrophils and macrophages is correlated with a variety of processes, thus causing myelin sheath degradation and neuronal damage, ADAM19 protein localization to the seminiferous cords at both embryonic and postnatal ages examined (from 15.5-19.5 dpc to 2 dpp) will regulate the proliferation of perinatal testis cells in the perinatal period?
There is limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors; there is some evidence linking sexual orientation to chromosomes 1 and 9, but it is far from compelling and inarguable evidence.
Part of the long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality stems from the fact that the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction, and according to natural selection, homosexuality should have been “selected out”. Why it persists is still a mystery.
There are many who believe it is a genetic trait, and there are those who believe it is a complex combination of genetics (nature) and environment (nurture), unique to each and every individual.
People who are saying that science has “proven” anything here are incorrect. I felt compelled to clarify that point.
Unfortunately, it is all too often that either God or Science can derail a discussion that essentially boils down to simple human rights.
Won’t be the first time. Won’t be the last.
Genetics isn't the only factor. It may be a combination of things. It's also to do with the fact that the male and female chromosomes are engaged in a constant battle for supremacy.
The placenta is a male parasite which steals resources away from the female to protect the child. The females body responds to it by creating higher levels of antibodies to fight off the "infection". This may be why children with older brothers are more likely to be gay.
The female body releases higher levels of antibodies with each male pregnancy, which for reasons yet to be discerned seems to make it more likely that the child will have a more female brain, or "gay" brain if you will.
That theory doesn't explain why homosexuality is as prevalent in the West as elsewhere though, because we have fewer babies and just as many homosexuals.
It correlates though.
There are genes that seem to be play a part in making someone gay, but you can have those genes and not be gay.
Like I say, it's a combination of things.
It's yet to be proven definitively what exactly causes it, but I'd say it's fairly well established that some people are born gay.
The brain scans show a structurally difference in a homosexual brain that can't be explained by "learnt" behaviour but must be caused by some physical phenomenon either after, or more likely, before birth.
We're still filling in the pieces, and will be for a while yet, but it's safe to say that it's not as simple as it being a lifestyle choice. It's soemthing that you are seemingly pre-disposed to, whatever the exact mechanism that is taking place.
Homosexuality is being marketed like mad. (Male)Bisexuality would be a natural offshoot. Unfortunately for women, HIV contraction is the consequence of that...
Lesbians have a lower risk of HIV than heterosexuals. Although they are still equally susceptible to other STI's.
I'm kinda sorry that I caught this topic so late because my mood at the moment is off "debate" mode. But I'll throw this out there. Sexuality is fluid. Noone was "born" to have sex with children, farm animals, people of their own gender, objects etc. There will never be a gene that says that. Scientists, yes, "scientists" who say otherwise are all talking out their asses and you should ask yourselves, "why are they trying to convince me of this? What's in it for them?" I know enough about engineering and system analysis to be able to decipher junk science when I see it. Behaviour is formed based on environment. We are all sponges when we're born. Whatever we've become is directly as a result of what influences we soak up. There was a russian study where (as cruel as it was) they left some young children in a building and fed them like animals in a cage but gave them no social/nururing contact. The result: these children were indistinguishable from wild animals, behaviour-wise. The snarled, kicked and scream, made grunts and pooped and peed in the same manner as wild animals locked in cages(because you know that even wild animals form social groups where they teach each other and learn).
Overbearing female influence on a young boy from 0-3 without male influence will no doubt result in an effeminate boy. If he grows into teenager without that male guide, he will lack masculine identity and gradually gravitate toward what he lacks. Society, like George implies, will decide for him that certain factors(how he dresses, acts, career choices) means he's "gay". So he will start questioning his own sexuality and wonder why he needs that male bond(not realizing that it's because of what he lacked as a child). So in essence, society pushes him toward that sexual path.
Lesbians have a lower risk of HIV than heterosexuals. Although they are still equally susceptible to other STI's.
Lesbians and heterosexual men. It is several(some say 2000, some say 12, some say 4 but basically it's more than 200%) times easier for a man to pass HIV on to a woman that for her to pass it to a man. Biologically speaking.
Hmmm, now you and George both have me wondering about the "choice" question. It seems to me that for many individuals it is a choice, but then again, for those who are physically different, there might not be a choice. Here I'm speaking about cases of individuals that aren't "normal", or to put it another way, they are born kind of cross gendered. But those cases are more rare I think, although I have seen maybe two people like this, (from different cities) in my lifetime. I definitely saw that nature couldn't make up its mind with them and truly, I had a hard time discerning whether they were male or female. I felt bad for them because it's hard to imagine having to go through life with people staring at you and giving you strange looks.
But here is where I come to the question that arose in my mind after reading your comment to George's post. In those instances where there is a choice, (and that's based upon the assumption that there are many cases where there indeed, is choice) What might make that choice include telling everyone you can, becoming part of organized movements, showing off as much as any bible thumping style of Christian might, that THIS is the way, the truth, and the life, for me?
What might be the single factor that makes a person NOT want to live a low profile kind of life? Let's say we're not just talking about homosexuality, but any kind of lifestyle choice which includes belief systems as part of that lifestyle.
Like say for myself: I don't eat a lot of meat. I do eat it, but I choose not to eat a lot. I have many reasons for this which I won't go into now. Also, I believe very strongly in recycling. I believe in having a strong work ethic and taking pride in one's work, whatever it might be. I believe in the need for spiritual work, personal and public responsibility and that the two go hand in hand.... OK, that's just a few things.
I know that I'm not alone in these particular ideals. If say, we took several key ideas, like the above, add a few more specifics, and put them together like a "lifestyle package" we might develop a kind of movement, call it Real Earth People or who knows what. Well then, it might suddenly sound like a new thing. You might have parades and pamphlets and people getting all excited about the idea, but the thing is, that all along we've had these people around. It's just that they went about their business quietly. Maybe didn't speak a lot about their choices. While everyone else was fired up to the hilt in fast lifestyles, loading up Visas, consuming with fervor, these people, lived quite differently. But who knew?
So then, back to "choice" regarding homosexuality. Might it be that an individual who chooses to be part of "this movement" be doing so based upon a psychological phenomenon where any individual, wants to feel a part of something greater, something they feel (in their own mind, regardless of whether it's true or not) is important? This would be the same theory behind gangs and groups of any kind. People meeting on some kind of common ground, and feeling a sense of purpose and belonging-- this might be part of the answer to the reasoning behind the gay parades.
Very interesting posts above guys. It's made me think differently about the whole issue in yet another way.
Sandra
Sandra.
You seem to be confusing trans-gendered people (or more correctly people with Gender Identity Disorder) with homosexuals.
These are people essentially born in the wrong body IE they have male parts but think/feel they are really female and vice versa. It's a related, but different topic.
They don't consider themselves gay as such, but straight and just stuck in the wrong body (although there are some confusing exceptions to that general rule).
Lesbians and heterosexual men. It is several(some say 2000, some say 12, some say 4 but basically it's more than 200%) times easier for a man to pass HIV on to a woman that for her to pass it to a man. Biologically speaking.
Heterosexual men are at greater risk of HIV than lesbians. The act of intercourse with a penis makes it more likely to contract HIV for a man with a woman than a woman with a woman (it breaks more blood cells).
You are correct in what you say about heterosexual coupling though. Women are more likely to contract the virus from an infected male than vice versa
I started reading it awhile back and never finished due to lack of time. It's a very complex book. I really should get back to reading it, as it's a very fascinating story that in great detail goes through the rise of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's.
I'm kinda sorry that I caught this topic so late because my mood at the moment is off "debate" mode. But I'll throw this out there. Sexuality is fluid. Noone was "born" to have sex with children, farm animals, people of their own gender, objects etc. There will never be a gene that says that. Scientists, yes, "scientists" who say otherwise are all talking out their asses and you should ask yourselves, "why are they trying to convince me of this? What's in it for them?" I know enough about engineering and system analysis to be able to decipher junk science when I see it. Behaviour is formed based on environment. We are all sponges when we're born. Whatever we've become is directly as a result of what influences we soak up. There was a russian study where (as cruel as it was) they left some young children in a building and fed them like animals in a cage but gave them no social/nururing contact. The result: these children were indistinguishable from wild animals, behaviour-wise. The snarled, kicked and scream, made grunts and pooped and peed in the same manner as wild animals locked in cages(because you know that even wild animals form social groups where they teach each other and learn).
Overbearing female influence on a young boy from 0-3 without male influence will no doubt result in an effeminate boy. If he grows into teenager without that male guide, he will lack masculine identity and gradually gravitate toward what he lacks. Society, like George implies, will decide for him that certain factors(how he dresses, acts, career choices) means he's "gay". So he will start questioning his own sexuality and wonder why he needs that male bond(not realizing that it's because of what he lacked as a child). So in essence, society pushes him toward that sexual path.
This is untrue. The prevalence of females in a family has zero bearing on sexuality for a male. The opposite is true. There is a correlation between the number of older brothers one has and how likely you are to be gay.
One only has to look at Jack Nicholson to realise that being surrounded by women does not result in you being homosexual. He was raised by his mother and had several sisters. No male influence whatsoever.
Overbearing female influence on a young boy from 0-3 without male influence will no doubt result in an effeminate boy. If he grows into teenager without that male guide, he will lack masculine identity and gradually gravitate toward what he lacks. Society, like George implies, will decide for him that certain factors(how he dresses, acts, career choices) means he's "gay". So he will start questioning his own sexuality and wonder why he needs that male bond(not realizing that it's because of what he lacked as a child). So in essence, society pushes him toward that sexual path.
While I agree with some of what you've said - you are contradicting elements yourself.
How can a boy grow up lacking a male identity? What is a male identity? Do males grow up in noticeably similar ways for a reason? If so - which is what you suggest - then there must be some natural, pre-birth coding. Otherwise, why is certain behaviour classified as 'male' or 'female'?
As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in-between. Nature and nurture play a role.
The tests you cite are an example of psychological and anthropological investigations that really only scratch the surface - interesting as they are.
Also, it's a very simplistic notion to suggest that gay men are simply yearning for a male figure, who was missing in their early life. It's plausible, but not likely, IMO. That really undervalues the worth of true love that is evident between homosexuals.
You seem to be confusing trans-gendered people (or more correctly people with Gender Identity Disorder) with homosexuals.
These are people essentially born in the wrong body IE they have male parts but think/feel they are really female and vice versa. It's a related, but different topic.
They don't consider themselves gay as such, but straight and just stuck in the wrong body (although there are some confusing exceptions to that general rule).
The cross gender thing is also up for debate. You can read one of my posts up top that speaks to how environment can feminize a male(or masculinize a female)...
The cross gender thing is also up for debate. You can read one of my posts up top that speaks to how environment can feminize a male(or masculinize a female)...
Do you have proof that it's all just environment? You seem pretty certain. I read a book about a boy who, after an accident to his privates, was raised a girl. It didn't work for him, he was born a genetic male and acted like it no matter what he was told and the Dr. kept lying saying he was happy being a girl.
here's a wiki about it
"During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially for allegedly demonstrating that gender was learned rather than innate. Many years later, however, it was revealed that his most famous case was the result of fraudulent reporting on the part of Money. The subject of Money's fraud was his involvement in the sex reassignment of David Reimer, in what later became known as the "John/Joan" case. Money reported that he successfully reassigned Reimer as female after a botched 1966 infant circumcision. In 1997, Milton Diamond reported that the reassignment had failed, that Reimer had never identified as female or behaved typically feminine. At age 14, Reimer, who had fought against being forced to see Dr. Money since age 7, refused to see Money again, threatening suicide if he were made to go. Reimer's parents then decided to tell Reimer the truth about his past, and biological sex. Reimer immediately ended the hormone treatments he had been forced to undergo to stimulate female sex traits, and began hormones to bring about the male puberty prevented by the removal of his testes by Dr. Money. He ceased using the name, Brenda, that his parents had chosen for him after he began treatment with Dr. Money, and chose a new name, David, for himself. At 15, with a different medical team, he sought a mastectomy, testosterone therapy and a phalloplasty. Later he married a woman who had children from a previous marriage and lived as a man until his suicide at age 38.[3]
Money continued to publish that his work with Reimer was a "success" even 30 years later in various publications. In 2000, David and his twin brother alleged that Dr. Money had taken numerous naked photos of the twins during their treatment, and forced them to engage in "sexual play" at age 7. In 2003, his brother was found dead from a drug overdose. This deeply disturbed David, who visited his brother's grave 4-5 days per week. In 2004, upon being told by his wife of her intention to separate, Reimer committed suicide. Reimer’s parents have stated that they believe Dr. Money's treatment bears responsibility for the deaths of both their sons. [4]"
The cross gender thing is also up for debate. You can read one of my posts up top that speaks to how environment can feminize a male(or masculinize a female)...
Both I and Andrew have already countered that claim.
Doctors accidentally cut off a boys penis during childbirth. Under the influence of a Doctor who believed that the behaviour of the sexes was just a learnt process and a matter of hormones, they turned him into and raised him as a girl.
He was finally told by his parents what had happened after spending his life wondering why he felt abnormal. He never recovered though and evetually killed himself. A terrible story.
Even by physcially making a male into a girl and raising them as one and injecting female hormones into them after birth, they'll still be a male if that's how they were born. However you are created in the womb is how you'll come out. Whether that's 100% straight or a little bit of everything. Of course you can choose what to do or not do, that's your human privilege, but your feelings and orientation may be beyond your control.
Now, within the structure of how you are born there are possibilities and avenues of choice, but the limits are kind of set in your brain.
Something else to consider is that what we consider right or wrong is largely arbitary. It's just rules we've placed on ourselves. People marry 8 year old girls and have sex with them in some countries. Dogs frequently try and have sex with humans, being blissfully unaware of the laws we have against such things.
Many of the issues that we worry about are just pure fabrications and are just the side effect of us creating laws to dictate our behaviour.
I started reading it awhile back and never finished due to lack of time. It's a very complex book. I really should get back to reading it, as it's a very fascinating story that in great detail goes through the rise of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's.
THat's funny. I was looking for that last time I was in the book store, but they didn't have it. Hopefully I'll remeber it after I finish what I'm reading now.
While I agree with some of what you've said - you are contradicting elements yourself.
How can a boy grow up lacking a male identity? What is a male identity? Do males grow up in noticeably similar ways for a reason? If so - which is what you suggest - then there must be some natural, pre-birth coding. Otherwise, why is certain behaviour classified as 'male' or 'female'?
As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in-between. Nature and nurture play a role.
The tests you cite are an example of psychological and anthropological investigations that really only scratch the surface - interesting as they are.
Also, it's a very simplistic notion to suggest that gay men are simply yearning for a male figure, who was missing in their early life. It's plausible, but not likely, IMO. That really undervalues the worth of true love that is evident between homosexuals.
Andrew
Andrew, there is no gray area between what is male and what is female biologically speaking. xx chromosome is female, xy is male. Testosterone does a lot of things that sharpens the physical distinction. Males are generally bigger, stronger, faster runners, higher jumpers, with deeper voices, muscular, more hair, more aggressive, than females. Those things are physical. Sex is physical but sexuality is a social construct. Hunting, gathering, protecting one's domestic domain, are social but based on biology. Women nurture, which is social but also based on biology.
When a boy, say Michael Jackson, for argument's sake, is at the age of five or six and has to work and become an adult before he reaches adulthood, lacks that mental guide and expression of fatherly love, never experience true childhood(not having to be carefree or social, but instead, have to work and be business savvy) , when he becomes an adult he will revert to what he lacked. He will want to hang around children and be a boy again, he will not have the social tools available to him to foster certain adult relationships.
To you, this may sound like it's devaluing "love" among homosexuals, but I'm looking at it from a less romanticise perspective and a more practical one. What is love, if it isn't a yearning to fill a specific void. To realize a need? Please remember that we are very social animals...
Do you have proof that it's all just environment? You seem pretty certain. I read a book about a boy who, after an accident to his privates, was raised a girl. It didn't work for him, he was born a genetic male and acted like it no matter what he was told and the Dr. kept lying saying he was happy being a girl.
here's a wiki about it
"During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially for allegedly demonstrating that gender was learned rather than innate. Many years later, however, it was revealed that his most famous case was the result of fraudulent reporting on the part of Money. The subject of Money's fraud was his involvement in the sex reassignment of David Reimer, in what later became known as the "John/Joan" case. Money reported that he successfully reassigned Reimer as female after a botched 1966 infant circumcision. In 1997, Milton Diamond reported that the reassignment had failed, that Reimer had never identified as female or behaved typically feminine. At age 14, Reimer, who had fought against being forced to see Dr. Money since age 7, refused to see Money again, threatening suicide if he were made to go. Reimer's parents then decided to tell Reimer the truth about his past, and biological sex. Reimer immediately ended the hormone treatments he had been forced to undergo to stimulate female sex traits, and began hormones to bring about the male puberty prevented by the removal of his testes by Dr. Money. He ceased using the name, Brenda, that his parents had chosen for him after he began treatment with Dr. Money, and chose a new name, David, for himself. At 15, with a different medical team, he sought a mastectomy, testosterone therapy and a phalloplasty. Later he married a woman who had children from a previous marriage and lived as a man until his suicide at age 38.[3]
Money continued to publish that his work with Reimer was a "success" even 30 years later in various publications. In 2000, David and his twin brother alleged that Dr. Money had taken numerous naked photos of the twins during their treatment, and forced them to engage in "sexual play" at age 7. In 2003, his brother was found dead from a drug overdose. This deeply disturbed David, who visited his brother's grave 4-5 days per week. In 2004, upon being told by his wife of her intention to separate, Reimer committed suicide. Reimer’s parents have stated that they believe Dr. Money's treatment bears responsibility for the deaths of both their sons. [4]"
Is wikipedia the new gospel? You do know that anyone(yourself included) can edit a wikipedia page in anywhich way he/she pleases, right?
as soon as debate reach a point where we might have to start using our wits instead of emotions, people say, "close the thread!". Well close it, I got stuff to do anyways, I'm getting dressed to go somewhere...
as soon as debate reach a point where we might have to start using our wits instead of emotions, people say, "close the thread!". Well close it, I got stuff to do anyways, I'm getting dressed to go somewhere...
On the contrary, it's you who has reduced it to an emotional level by refusing to explore or answer evidence presented to you that refutes your claims.
Debate ends at that point and it just becomes a slanging match.
I felt the same way when Prop 8 here in California was first brought up.
I remember hearing, somewhere, that the majority of people in minority communities are against gay marriages.
I guess they forgot what it was like only a few decades ago.
And for the record, this thread should be closed ASAP. With no new scripts coming on the board, we can use this opportunity to read older scripts, or we can continue posting on this thread to nowhere.
as soon as debate reach a point where we might have to start using our wits instead of emotions, people say, "close the thread!".
There was no debate here. It was a discussion -- or perhaps more of an exploration.
But when one begins to espouse volatile opinions as inarguable facts -- dismissing peer-reviewed literature as "junk science" -- while with their next breath citing Russian behavioral studies where children were confined to crates --
-- well, then you get the debate -- because it just boggles the mind.
Yeah, I don't see what the problem is. If people want to discuss, they should discuss it. If people want to read three yeard old screenplays, they should do that. I would recommend Producing Fiction or that funny one that Shelton wrote that Artie Lange should be starring in.
With no new scripts coming on the board, we can use this opportunity to read older scripts, or we can continue posting on this thread to nowhere.
Then get cracking, Phil, no one's stopping you. With the exeption of one poster, I think everyone here has offered valid opinions and, in general, been open to others' without condemning anyone. A discussion usually fizzles out when everyone have said what they needed to say. I'm sure the same will happen with this one.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
It occurs to me that I never actually answered Heretic's question:
In my opinion homosexuality, for whatever reason, is entirely natural and normal. I think that most people's sexuality is on a scale somewhere between the absolutes of being straight and being gay.
As Michael (was it?) mentioned about the Bonobo's, perhaps we had a similar evolution and homosexual behaviour has or had some role to fulfill in our society.
Regardless, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it's between consenting adults and they aren't hurting anyone else.
I believe they should be treated equally in law and be allowed to adopt.
Where I am from there is a very large gay community and I would suspect most people work or have friends who are openly gay. We have a whole area of town that is for gay people.
The media in particular (in fact all creative industries) tend to attract a disproportionate number of gays, so you're bound to be working with them if you enter that field.
It's interesting that India has recently legalised it having overturned on old colonial law that outlawed it in the first place. It exists in all cultures, even ones where people are killed for it, a clear sign to me that it is natural and not a choice. No Iranian would choose to be homosexual.
Anyway, live and let live I suppose. To live in a liberal society and enjoy its benefits you tend to have to allow people to do things you don't necessarily agree with.
I thought everyone was being pretty cool about it, but you have "I told you so" rights later, Phil, if it comes up.
I'm not saying to lock this thread because of the subject. I'm saying to lock it because it has nothing to do with screenwriting.
In fact, all threads not related to screenwriting could be temporarily locked. It'll promote screenwriting (and reading of screnplays). Didn't Don do this last year?
Can anyone actually put forth an argument on how homosexuality negatively effects them?
I don't know if it negatively affects me but I've always been put off by gays (male) who act, and I repeat, act overly feminine. Because it's so overstated imo, I've always felt like it comes across as an act and therefore fake.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I'm not saying to lock this thread because of the subject. I'm saying to lock it because it has nothing to do with screenwriting.
In fact, all threads not related to screenwriting could be temporarily locked. It'll promote screenwriting (and reading of screnplays). Didn't Don do this last year?
Phil
EVERYTHING has something to do with screenwriting.
I don't know if it negatively affects me but I've always been put off by gays (male) who act, and I repeat, act overly feminine. Because it's so overstated imo, I've always felt like it comes across as an act and therefore fake.
So, you experienced a moment of discomfort? Did they come over and fondle you afterward, because if not, this seems like a pretty bland negative effect.
OK, I'll jump in here, as I have a feeling some comments I made on the Bruno thread may have been the cause of this "discussion".
I think Siper just made a very relevent comment about gay men "acting" overly femine...or "gay". This is and always has been the problem for me, and it comes into play with gay themmed movies, like Bruno, as well as Gay Parades.
If 2 guys want to be togther, fine by me...no problem. If 2 chicks want to be together, again, more power to you. This isn't the problem though. It's people who act in a way that they know is going to cause issues, push buttons, etc.
For some reason, straight people find humor in overly femine, gay men. I don't know why, I don't share that opinion, but it's obvious. Look at the latest "Next Food Network Star" show. They've got this obvioulsy gay man on there, walking around, talking about himself as "Mamma", "Mother", and other female-like things. They threw a party in Miami recently and the crowd there either loved his antics, or hated them...but he just couldn't stop, and for me it's totally irritating. It's very polarizing.
Bruno is the same way. Gay Parades are the same thing. Live and let live always works for me, but don't slam things in my face that I don't want to see. No reason for it.
OK, I'll jump in here, as I have a feeling some comments I made on the Bruno thread may have been the cause of this "discussion".
I think Siper just made a very relevent comment about gay men "acting" overly femine...or "gay". This is and always has been the problem for me, and it comes into play with gay themmed movies, like Bruno, as well as Gay Parades.
If 2 guys want to be togther, fine by me...no problem. If 2 chicks want to be together, again, more power to you. This isn't the problem though. It's people who act in a way that they know is going to cause issues, push buttons, etc.
For some reason, straight people find humor in overly femine, gay men. I don't know why, I don't share that opinion, but it's obvious. Look at the latest "Next Food Network Star" show. They've got this obvioulsy gay man on there, walking around, talking about himself as "Mamma", "Mother", and other female-like things. They threw a party in Miami recently and the crowd there either loved his antics, or hated them...but he just couldn't stop, and for me it's totally irritating. It's very polarizing.
Bruno is the same way. Gay Parades are the same thing. Live and let live always works for me, but don't slam things in my face that I don't want to see. No reason for it.
So...are you in therapy because of this? Or undergoing some type of treatment? Because clearly all these people "acting gay" has taken its toll on you.
I mean, I know I'm out of commission for a whole week when I see someone acting gay. Ugh.
So, you experienced a moment of discomfort? Did they come over and fondle you afterward, because if not, this seems like a pretty bland negative effect.
Are you deliberately misunderstading me or what?
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
No, not at the moment. I've learned to deal with stuf like this, but it doesn't mean that it's right, or that people have to deal with it.
It's a private matter, that should be kept private. No reason to sing out to the world how you feel about being gay or straight. There aren't any "straight pride" parades that I'm aware of.
I agree, Sniper, Dressel is seeminhgly purposely missing the point here. Not sure why...
I get the point, I just think it's rather weak as I asked for actual negative effects on your life. Something that you can't just look away from or ignore.
Can anyone actually put forth an argument on how homosexuality negatively effects them?
Both Jeff and I have given you examples of how homosexuality negatively effects us. Why are you talking about therapy and medication? Maybe you should reprase your question, dude.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Both Jeff and I have given you examples of how homosexuality negatively effects us. Why are you talking about therapy and medication? Maybe you should reprase your question, dude.
Wow, sarcasm just doesn't come through on this.
I was originally asking for something more than your negative feelings on the issue, and something a bit more concrete. Like, it stops you from getting (fill in the blank here).
But oh well, I think I'm about done with this anyway. Back to writing!
There are numerous actual negative effects of Gay Parades. Some may find this comment shocking, or even appalling, but I don't think young children should see this kind of stuff going on. Lude behavior, counter culture lifestyles being brought into teh forefront...it's not good for anyone who doesn't live that lifestyle. No one outside of it wants to see it or be around it. I also believe that these "events" require quite a bit of law enforcement that should be used in muich better ways....like protecting our streets and taking a bite out of crime, as apposed to keeping the peace.
There are numerous actual negative effects of Gay Parades. Some may find this comment shocking, or even appalling, but I don't think young children should see this kind of stuff going on. Lude behavior, counter culture lifestyles being brought into teh forefront...it's not good for anyone who doesn't live that lifestyle. No one outside of it wants to see it or be around it. I also believe that these "events" require quite a bit of law enforcement that should be used in muich better ways....like protecting our streets and taking a bite out of crime, as apposed to keeping the peace.
Kids can't catch gay disease you know. They are either straight or they aren't.
It's more likely that they'll pick up negative traits from people who have a huge reaction against it.
As for the idea that people outside of any counter culture don't want to be subjected to it, it's a bit narrow-minded. Personally I like to experience all different kinds of culture. I'm a writer. Mainstream, dominant culture is more than a little bit dull.
In my experience a lot of the most homophobic people are that way because they are not settled in their own sexuality and they find it a threat.
Recent studies show that homophobic men tend to be sexually aroused by homoerotic images:
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
No, kids aren't going to catch gay disease, but they are most likley going to be confused and ask, "why do they look like that? Why are they dressed up like that? Why are thy acting like that?"
What's the answer without going into a detailed discussion of sexuality and the like? Maybe it's something simple like, "they're just acting goofy". So then the next day, the kid decides to try it out himself and dress up like a woman. He tells his Dad, "I'm just being goofy like the men in that parade yesterday." Oh boy, here we go...
I don't think the issue here is homophobic vs, accepting, or whatever.
FWIW, not much is said of Lot after that point. Lot made some bad decisions, and God spared him, we find that he ended up in a cave being humped by his daughters. The sons of his daughters were the Moabites and the Ammonites, two races eventually nearly wiped out by the Israelites. Not sure the message there is to idolize the incestuous drunk. Gotta keep your stories in context.
Context? The homosexuals were wiped out by God directly and Lot, the pimp, was spared. I think the point was that the Bible was condemning homosexuals while condoning Lot's shocking behaviour.
"...but they are most likley going to be confused and ask, "why do they look like that? Why are they dressed up like that? Why are thy acting like that?"
What's the answer without going into a detailed discussion of sexuality and the like? Maybe it's something simple like, "they're just acting goofy".
Kids are going to be confused on everything at some point and ask crazy questions. That's just what kids do. "Where do babies come from? What's the difference between a boy and a girl? What's an orgy?" A lot of this stuff they can get confused by simply from watching TV, let alone a looking out the window. It's just basic parenting with how one responds to that, isn't it?
Quoted Text
There are numerous actual negative effects of Gay Parades. Some may find this comment shocking, or even appalling, but I don't think young children should see this kind of stuff going on. Lude behavior, counter culture lifestyles being brought into teh forefront...it's not good for anyone who doesn't live that lifestyle etc etc
Eh. I must disagree. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and while there's an enormous gay culture/population there, no one's negatively affected by it. Kids weren't acting out and people weren't running for their basements and the area is still one of the most desirable places to live in the nation. I think your last quote...
Quoted Text
I don't think the issue here is homophobic vs, accepting, or whatever.
...is spot on. I think the issue is more of people just not being ready for this kinda thing or just not ready for the shock of it all. You see two dudes holding hands, it's kind of a shock. If someone lives in an area where this thing is uncommon...what are they supposed to think? And can you blame em?
Kids will be kids and questions will arise...sure. But this is why we have a rating system in place for TV and movies, etc. It's so parents can choose what their child sees and when.
Just wanted to comment on your SF living quote. I lived there for 3 years...probably the worst 3 years of my life. Sf is a place that people look at and say, "wow, what a place. I'd love to live there." Yeah, it seems like that, but it's far from reality, adn what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the gay population there. It's the weather, which is horrific! It's the traffic, which is unGodly. And it's teh cost of living, which is unreal. It's a great place to visit for teh weekend, but think twice about living there, unless it's all you know, because when you add it all up, it can be quite a shock.
Just wanted to comment on your SF living quote. I lived there for 3 years...probably the worst 3 years of my life. Sf is a place that people look at and say, "wow, what a place. I'd love to live there." Yeah, it seems like that, but it's far from reality, adn what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the gay population there. It's the weather, which is horrific! It's the traffic, which is unGodly. And it's teh cost of living, which is unreal. It's a great place to visit for teh weekend, but think twice about living there, unless it's all you know, because when you add it all up, it can be quite a shock.
You are very right. It can be a great shock when you actually get there and settle down, but still, that little peninsula is packed with people for a reason
You're right...it is PACKED with people...but that reason excapes me completely. Lots of well to do peole there who obvioulsy eitehr love city life, or don't realize that there are other ways to live...much better ways...
Like I said before, you are who you are some people like the big cities, some don't. I also spent 3+ years in a stupid suburb of Sacramento with all this wide open space and I thought it was one of the worst places in the state.
I'm not saying to lock this thread because of the subject. I'm saying to lock it because it has nothing to do with screenwriting.
In fact, all threads not related to screenwriting could be temporarily locked. It'll promote screenwriting (and reading of screnplays). Didn't Don do this last year?
Phil
I half agree with you here. Part of me says yes, this kind of thread explodes, but a thread where I had recently posted regarding Butterfly Effect 3 had zero responses. I guessed that people just hadn't watched it though or it wasn't worth the bother. It wasn't actually.
The other half of me says that this kind of thread might inspire people to write on this topic specifically in whatever way they so choose.
Another debate I guess. Nothing is ever black or white, lots of gray/grey areas.
There was no debate here. It was a discussion -- or perhaps more of an exploration.
But when one begins to espouse volatile opinions as inarguable facts -- dismissing peer-reviewed literature as "junk science" -- while with their next breath citing Russian behavioral studies where children were confined to crates --
-- well, then you get the debate -- because it just boggles the mind.
These are your opinions Bert. There is no definative scientific proof of homosexuality being genetic. There are only published theories. When someone proves it so(and it is fully vetted and validated) then will I say, sure.But until then, I'd rather not allow biased theories to sway me when I have my own abilities to study and read people.
Please explain how homosexuals have been "oppressed".
Well, let's see. They were stoned to death by the Jews during biblical times. They were burned by Christians during the Dark Ages. They were gassed with the Jews during Hitler. They were locked up in mental institutions and shunned by society during the 19th and 20th century. The were beat up by cops when they started to meet in clubs during the 40s and 50s and then thrown in jail. Many countries had made their sexuality illegal. Is that oppressed enough for you?
Well, let's see. They were stoned to death by the Jews during biblical times. They were burned by Christians during the Dark Ages. They were gassed with the Jews during Hitler. They were locked up in mental institutions and shunned by society during the 19th and 20th century. The were beat up by cops when they started to meet in clubs during the 40s and 50s and then thrown in jail. Many countries had made their sexuality illegal. Is that oppressed enough for you?
This happened to homosexuals only? How about paedophiles, are they being thrown in jail too for something they can claim to be born with, much like homosexuals? Aren't paedophiles shunned and deemed "sick" by mental doctors and society at large? That teacher, Mary Kay Letourneau, wasn't she imprisoned? Do you see paedophiles as being "oppressed" as well?
Afterall, paedophilia, much like heterosexuality and homosexuality, is a preference, no?
This happened to homosexuals only? How about paedophiles, are they being thrown in jail too for something they can claim to be born with, much like homosexuals? Aren't paedophiles shunned and deemed "sick" by mental doctors and society at large? That teacher, Mary Kay Letourneau, wasn't she imprisoned? Do you see paedophiles as being "oppressed" as well?
Personally, I find it very sad that you associate homosexuals with paedophilia. There are plenty of cases where older men screw around with very young girls. There isn't a sexuality barrier there.
Do you think all gay men screw around with young boys? If so, then you are quite misinformed.
Personally, I find it very sad that you associate homosexuals with paedophilia. There are plenty of cases where older men screw around with very young girls. There isn't a sexuality barrier there.
Do you think all gay men screw around with young boys? If so, then you are quite misinformed.
Michael, did I link a bridge between homosexual men being paedophiles? Is there a reason you made that connection?
Actually I'm not being extreme. I believe sexuality is fluid. When we condition ourselves to believe the notion that homosexuality is something you're born with, well what does that say about the boy who has sex with his sister? The siblings genuinly believe they're "in love", so what makes one sexual behaviour, once frown upon by society, now more nobel than incest?
Well, let's see. They were stoned to death by the Jews during biblical times. They were burned by Christians during the Dark Ages. They were gassed with the Jews during Hitler. They were locked up in mental institutions and shunned by society during the 19th and 20th century. The were beat up by cops when they started to meet in clubs during the 40s and 50s and then thrown in jail. Many countries had made their sexuality illegal. Is that oppressed enough for you?
Yes, and Jesus Christ. He too was oppressed.
We seem to have a trend going always with oppression. We should ask ourselves "Why?" And if we personally, gay or straight, show a lack of tolerance to others, for whatever reason.
We need to look at ourselves and criticize ourselves. This is our personal responsibility. For whatever reason a person is on any particular path in their life, it is their path and we only need to try and be sympathetic and understanding and helpful to them as they grow. And all people will grow, regardless how we might be inclined to judge. Growth is part of the program of the universe. Here is a quote from Robert Waxman because some people have brought up gayness with regards to morality. (By the way, I want to say that I think most people on this thread are purely discussing the nature of homosexuality and have conducted themselves well and have refrained from insulting kinds of behavior.)
So here goes, another headache for Bert:
What kind of religious philosophy were Jesus and his disciples studying ? They couldn't have been studying Christianity because The New Testament wasn't completed until 325 CE (almost 300 years after the crucifixion). They surely weren't studying Buddhism or Hinduism, so this leaves just one possibility they must have been studying the timeless, ancient wisdom of Jewish mysticism known as Kabbalah (which was very popular in Israel during this time).
Jesus veiled many Kabbalistic truths when he spoke to the masses (Matthew 13:34). "All these things Jesus spoke unto the multitudes in parables; and without a parable he spake not unto them" (KJV). Especially, when Jesus referred to the innermost power of the soul, he spoke in metaphors. An example of such a metaphor, is when Jesus refers to the "God-within" or illuminated soul: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you..." (Luke 17:20-21, KJV).
He also refers to "The Father in secret": "...pray to thy Father which is in secret..." (Matthew 6:18, KJV). This is another Kabbalistic reference to the eternal spark known as "neshamah" or the God-like quality of each individual soul.
Quoted from Robert Waxman
It is my personal belief that all people are part a divine soul that broke into lots of pieces, (us) and that we are all on our way back home, to our divine root in order to fulfill a divine purpose which is maximum joy for the will to receive (us) built as a desire to be fulfilled with pleasure. The road is necessarily difficult, but as we know, success is built upon failure. That is the way things work.
As such, our arguments and even initial intolerance, will help us to learn to be tolerant and to make such scrutiny that will not involve condemnation. We are all in this together. No matter what belief system we hold. As hard as it might be, we need to put aside our differences and work together as one man; one heart.
Last post in this thread. Thank you everyone for engaging in this discussion.
As someone who writes erotica for fun, I have to admit that I often push the envelope and the sibling situation is something I've written more than once... however, kids are and must always be taboo IMO as they are not a willing partner that fully understands what's going on.
IMO, anyone who "fucks" with a kid should be shot!
Actually I'm not being extreme. I believe sexuality is fluid. When we condition ourselves to believe the notion that homosexuality is something you're born with, well what does that say about the boy who has sex with his sister? The siblings genuinly believe they're "in love", so what makes one sexual behaviour, once frown upon by society, now more nobel than incest?
I just wanna say I was raised with a mother and father, in a very normal household, in the Detroit suburbs and I'm Gay. I didn't choose it, it wasn't forced upon me, it is just how it happened. I can't help being gay as much as I can't help what color my skin is. To compare it to incest is just...well disgusting...disgusting and ignorant.
Check out my Script:
Feature: "Candy: Inspired by the Houston Mass Murders" Horror, Drama - 15 year old drunkard Wayne Henley gets caught up in procuring his teenage friends for a serial killing psychopath. 117 pages
As someone who writes erotica for fun, I have to admit that I often push the envelope and the sibling situation is something I've written more than once... however, kids are and must always be taboo IMO as they are not a willing partner that fully understands what's going on.
IMO, anyone who "fucks" with a kid should be shot!
I completely understand where you're coming from. I hope you don't see my arguements as an advocation for paedophilia, but an illustration to show the ridiculousness of the "oppression" arguement.
I completely understand where you're coming from. I hope you don't see my arguements as an advocation for paedophilia, but an illustration to show the ridiculousness of the "oppression" arguement.
Opression is opression whether you think it's ridiculous or not. I'm sure the oppressors always think the oppressed make ridiculous accusations. Do you think the Nazi's paid any attention to complaints from the Jews? Do you think they cared? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner and sometimes those wolves are pretty famished.
Michael, did I link a bridge between homosexual men being paedophiles? Is there a reason you made that connection?
You were the one who made the connection and not for the first time.
Paedophiles harm children who have no say in what is happening. Homosexuals have sex with consenting adults. That's the difference. Just because someone is born and has urges to act out on certain behaviour doesn’t make it okay if it harms other people. But consensual sex between same sex couples harms no one.
Not that I agree with Jammin at all on this tangent, but what I think she's trying to say is this...
She doesn't feel that homosexuality is preconcieved...that it's merely an impulse, attaction, and choice...like pedophiles's attaction, impulse, and choice to have sex with children...and that it can, or should be curtailed or not lived.
Again, I do not agree with this or think this way...merely what I think she's getting at...we'll see what she says.
My point is this...do what makes you happy, but don't stick it in my face. I have a gay friend, and I was shocked when he told me, but I told him straight up that I didn't feel any differnt about us being friends, or think poorly of him. I just don't want to see that stuff around me, and these Gay Parades are a perfect example of people pushing something on others that they don't want or need to be around.
My point is this...do what makes you happy, but don't stick it in my face. I have a gay friend, and I was shocked when he told me, but I told him straight up that I didn't feel any differnt about us being friends, or think poorly of him. I just don't want to see that stuff around me, and these Gay Parades are a perfect example of people pushing something on others that they don't want or need to be around.
I don't want to see straight people getting married. Hide it.
Michael, it's not about getting married...at least in my mind. Big parades are quite a bit different than a marriage. It's an extreme showing for the sake of wanting to show it.
I don't know, as I said I have no bad feelings for anyone, s long as they're cool people. I'm one fo teh few who would do everything in my power to help anyone, sexual persasion aside, in a situation where they needed me.
It's all about the person and how you treat others.
Again, as I said...to each is own...be happy and do whatever you like, but don't stick it on my face, just like I don't stick my beliefs in anyone else's face.
Not that I agree with Jammin at all on this tangent, but what I think she's trying to say is this...
She doesn't feel that homosexuality is preconcieved...that it's merely an impulse, attaction, and choice...like pedophiles's attaction, impulse, and choice to have sex with children...and that it can, or should be curtailed or not lived.
Again, I do not agree with this or think this way...merely what I think she's getting at...we'll see what she says.
My point is this...do what makes you happy, but don't stick it in my face. I have a gay friend, and I was shocked when he told me, but I told him straight up that I didn't feel any differnt about us being friends, or think poorly of him. I just don't want to see that stuff around me, and these Gay Parades are a perfect example of people pushing something on others that they don't want or need to be around.
How's it any worse than hetros being overtly sexual in music videos?
Michael, it's not about getting married...at least in my mind. Big parades are quite a bit different than a marriage. It's an extreme showing for the sake of wanting to show it.
I don't know, as I said I have no bad feelings for anyone, s long as they're cool people. I'm one fo teh few who would do everything in my power to help anyone, sexual persasion aside, in a situation where they needed me.
It's all about the person and how you treat others.
Again, as I said...to each is own...be happy and do whatever you like, but don't stick it on my face, just like I don't stick my beliefs in anyone else's face.
I'm saying getting married is very obvious and is a flaunt of the straight lifestyle. Some of them are quite big productions and they even make the newspaper. Even if it didn't you think woman don't show off their engagement ring at the office. Or men don't talk about the wedding or their buck's parties. This flagrant, in my face, show of heterosexuality bothers me. Just like the flagrant, in your face, show of homosexuality bothers you. I want you straight people to stop it. You shouldn't be so obvious.
I don't see any correlation there at all, to be honest.
I think there are countless examples of homosexuals being avertly sexual in music videos as well. Are there not?
What's the point? Is either a good thing?
The point is a lot of homophobes make a big deal about same sex couples being openly gay because they say it's too in their face, but they don't usually take issue with hetros being too in their face. It seems a homosexual only has to kiss their partner in public for people to complain about it being in their face whereas hetros seems to have to take it a lot further before they'll be accused of it.
As for good or bad, I try not to think in that way. I tend to think in terms of harmful or not harmful. A homosexual holding hands or kissing their partner in public harms no one and what they do behind closed doors harms no one. If people feel uncomfortable about it it’s their problem and they need to deal with it without impinging on the liberty of harmless people.
Michael, you're being quite extreme in your examples now, much like Jammin was earlier.
I don't see how a wedding or time honored tradtiion (showing off a new wedding or engagement ring, or a Bachlor Party) can be compared to a Gay Pride Parade that takes up an awful lot of space in (usually) a city, where things come to a grind because of it.
I wish someone else would jump in here, because I don't want to come off the wrong way.
You know, alot of people like to masterbate...like alot sometimes, but they don't come out and tell their office employees...or do it at their desk.
Moderation in all things, my Mom always says, but I don't quite believe that, but in certain situations, yeah, she's right.
Michael, you're being quite extreme in your examples now, much like Jammin was earlier.
I don't see how a wedding or time honored tradtiion (showing off a new wedding or engagement ring, or a Bachlor Party) can be compared to a Gay Pride Parade that takes up an awful lot of space in (usually) a city, where things come to a grind because of it.
"The first gay pride parade in 1969, known as the March on Stonewall, started as a protest against discrimination and violence against gays in New York City."
It's a 40 year old tradition, older than a lot of people on this board. Just because weddings have been happening longer doesn't make the parade any less of a tradition.
The examples I gave were not extreme they were every day examples, things that most heterosexuals take for granted but things that exclude the gay community. Don't you think being excluded like that would bother someone? Don't you think it hurts some people to see it happening around them?
Opression is opression whether you think it's ridiculous or not. I'm sure the oppressors always think the oppressed make ridiculous accusations. Do you think the Nazi's paid any attention to complaints from the Jews? Do you think they cared? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner and sometimes those wolves are pretty famished.
You still haven't answered my questions. Are paedophiles being oppressed?
Michael, I understand what you're saying, and I'm not questioning the valiidity of your quotes and statements...as well as your feelings. I'm really not. You're sounding like I'm now the enemy, and trust me on this...I'm not.
You didn't address my example at all, and I'm looking forward to your thoughts on it...cause it's not that far out there, and in many ways, draws parallels to the whole "let me be me in publkic and fuck everyone that hs a problem with it" thing.
If a man wants to marry a man...if a girl wants to marry a girl...fine...coll. let it be. I have no issue with that. If they're good people, they're good people.
No reason to get angry and start screaming about oppression, IMO. If you really get down on it, I think you'll realize that everyone has been oppressed, when it really gets down to the nitty gritty. That's the way it is...right now. Things change, and things change for a reason.
You still haven't answered my questions. Are paedophiles being oppressed?
I would be glad to answer your question about paedophiles...in a thread that deals with that subject. So start a thread on that subject and if it's still around when I return then I will answer your question.
Interesting deflection there. We are speaking about sexuality. It is your contention that homosexuals were oppressed. This is as if homosexuals are a separate, propagating people instead of individuals with a specific sexual proclivity. Until very recently(in modern history), there was no large "group" of homosexual people calling themselves a community. Homosexuality is not unlike any other type of non-heterosexual propensity, in terms of being seen as undesireable and distasteful by most societies/cultures. My question within this thread is therefore valid. What makes homosexuality now more nobel than paedophilia, incest or beastiality? I know the "consentual adult" line is often used, but what about the man who has sex with his mother or adult daughter? How are such partnering viewed and what makes it less desireable than a man inserting his member in another man's fecal outlet? My own contention is marketing. Homosexuality is very very well marketed. When, not if, these other areas of sexuality gets marketed we will be having similar arguments and similar cries of "oppression".
What makes homosexuality now more nobel than paedophilia, incest or beastiality? I know the "consentual adult" line is often used, but what about the man who has sex with his mother or adult daughter? How are such partnering viewed and what makes it less desireable than a man inserting his member in another man's fecal outlet?
As long as the man having sex with his mother or adult daughter have their permission, there is no problem the way I see it. Same thing with a woman who has her German Shepherd have sex with her. Social constructs keep incest and beastiality as off-limits taboo, the way homosexuality was one hundred of two hundred years ago. Maybe over time, this will also change.
Orientation is a tricky subject, because no one exactly knows what causes a person to be either straight or gay, or any other tangent of sexuality. Nature or nurture, does it really make a difference? Shouldn't we be focussed on treating these people better and understanding their emotional viewpoint rather than wasting time figuring out why they are the way they are?
Wooooo...so...Matt, are you saying that you honeslty have no problem when mothers and sons have sex? When fathers and daughters have sex? When borthers and sisters and mothers and fathers all, engage in sex?
I notice how you qualified the harm... How about children who have a say?
Yeah. I guess it goes without saying that it's harmful.
If someone is under the age of consent then they don't know better and they can be psychologically fucked up for the rest of their lives by having sex with an adult.
I'm saying that I have no problem with it, yes. Homosexuality, incest and beastiality (as much as I'm against lumping the three together) are complex issues. There are a lot of emotional, biological and psychological things going on and unless we have personally experienced those emotions there's no way for us to fully understand what people in those kinds of relationships are feeling. Therefor, I think we should just leave them alone.
True happiness is the rarest of things in the world. If a father and daughter find that with each other then I think it's only right for them to hold onto it.
No one on earth has the right to tell another person what or how to feel.
As long as the man having sex with his mother or adult daughter have their permission, there is no problem the way I see it. Same thing with a woman who has her German Shepherd have sex with her. Social constructs keep incest and beastiality as off-limits taboo, the way homosexuality was one hundred of two hundred years ago. Maybe over time, this will also change.
Orientation is a tricky subject, because no one exactly knows what causes a person to be either straight or gay, or any other tangent of sexuality. Nature or nurture, does it really make a difference? Shouldn't we be focussed on treating these people better and understanding their emotional viewpoint rather than wasting time figuring out why they are the way they are?
Matt, you're homosexual but you listen to my POV with some understanding, this is not common among proponents of homosexuality... But I'll ask you this, when other aspects of sexuality manifests, what can you see? What will the results be, do you think?
Yeah. I guess it goes without saying that it's harmful.
If someone is under the age of consent then they don't know better they can be psychologically fucked up for the rest of their lives by having sex with an adult.
So you're position is different from Matt's on the basis of "age"?(which is not an accurate measure of maturity, btw). So you have your own personal rationale as to why paedophilia is not acceptable while homosexuality is...
I don't care if you're gay or straight. If there were a vote on gay marriage (which there was where I live), and if I voted (which I refuse to), I'd be for it in the sense that I'm not against it. Basically, to me, that means I have no right to tell people they can't marry. They can't be happy together. But, voting against it would restrict them and I don't believe that's fair of me.
So, when it comes down to it, I'm with them rather than against them.
I believe homosexuality is every bit as normal as hetrosexuality. Just cuz it's not as common does not mean it isnt just as normal or healthy. i don't know why people always try to compare homosexuality to non consentual acts like pedophilia or beastiality. W.e the reason it tells me that yes we do still need gay pride parades.
And you're perfectly within your rights to be shocked. But I'm not really going to concern myself with that. I'm certainly not going to censor myself for fear of offending other people. I stopped caring about that kind of thing a long time ago.
JamminGirl,
As to where sexuality is headed in the future, I have no idea really. I don't think there is a person alive who could accurately predict a thing like that. Most probably nothing will happen. People start fucking their brothers, people start marrying their daughters, the world will continue as it always has done.
The human race is headed for annihilation anyway. Why not enjoy the ride?
I believe homosexuality is every bit as normal as hetrosexuality. Just cuz it's not as common does not mean it isnt just as normal or healthy. i don't know why people always try to compare homosexuality to non consentual acts like pedophilia or beastiality. W.e the reason it tells me that yes we do still need gay pride parades.
Your yardstick is adult consent. So I'll take it then that incest is just as "normal" as homosexuality then?
So you're position is different from Matt's on the basis of "age"?(which is not an accurate measure of maturity, btw). So you have your own personal rationale as to why paedophilia is not acceptable while homosexuality is...
I don't see how homosexuality causes any harm between two consenting people. Whereas I can quite clearly see how sex between a child and an adult could be very harmful to the child.
Are you trying to say that gay people are as low and morally bankrupt as paedophiles?
And you're perfectly within your rights to be shocked. But I'm not really going to concern myself with that. I'm certainly not going to censor myself for fear of offending other people. I stopped caring about that kind of thing a long time ago.
JamminGirl,
As to where sexuality is headed in the future, I have no idea really. I don't think there is a person alive who could accurately predict a thing like that. Most probably nothing will happen. People start fucking their brothers, people start marrying their daughters, the world will continue as it always has done.
The human race is headed for annihilation anyway. Why not enjoy the ride?
Ah, and there we have it! Tantadadaaa! My job here is done! ... or is it?
BTW, Matt, let it be said that I find your honesty and ability to THINK refreshing within this context...
I don't see how homosexuality causes any harm between two consenting people. Whereas I can quite clearly see how sex between a child and an adult could be very harmful to the child.
Are you trying to say that gay people are as low and morally bankrupt as paedophilias?
It's interesting that you categorise another sexual subset that way... What makes homosexuals higher and morally sound?
With a pedophile, only they accept it. Even if the child accepts it, it won't count because legally, the child won't be of an age where they can make an informed decision.
And, yes, that's basically quoting off something some news guy said once.
Your yardstick is adult consent. So I'll take it then that incest is just as "normal" as homosexuality then?
No, idk anyone who is into incest. I do kno lots of gay ppl tho. And there are reasons incest is illegal, because it isn't healthy. Babies born out those kinds of unions are usually genetically messed up.
No, idk anyone who is into incest. I do kno lots of gay ppl tho. And there are reasons incest is illegal, because it isn't healthy. Babies born out those kinds of unions are usually genetically messed up.
Technically, that's only a generalization, but yes, the odds of a genetic disorder are heightened.
No, idk anyone who is into incest. I do kno lots of gay ppl tho. And there are reasons incest is illegal, because it isn't healthy. Babies born out those kinds of unions are usually genetically messed up.
And yet we're all descended from Adam and Eve. Makes you think, huh?
No, idk anyone who is into incest. I do kno lots of gay ppl tho. And there are reasons incest is illegal, because it isn't healthy. Babies born out those kinds of unions are usually genetically messed up.
But a man inserting his penis in another man's anus(which hosts a plethora of bacteria, entamoeba's and fecal matter) is more healthy? (Notice how I haven't even mentioned the spreading of HIV?)
But a man inserting his penis in another man's anus(which hosts a plethora of bacteria, entamoeba's and fecal matter) is more healthy? (Notice how I haven't even mentioned the spreading of HIV?)
What does this even matter? Don't hetro couples have anal sex? HIV is in a lot of countries primarily a hetro problem. (So it's prolly good that you didn't mention it cuz it's irrelevant)
But a man inserting his penis in another man's anus(which hosts a plethora of bacteria, entamoeba's and fecal matter) is more healthy? (Notice how I haven't even mentioned the spreading of HIV?)
There are many steps that can be taken to help prevent this kind of thing. Anal hygiene is very important to a lot of gay people.
Interesting deflection there. We are speaking about sexuality. It is your contention that homosexuals were oppressed. This is as if homosexuals are a separate, propagating people instead of individuals with a specific sexual proclivity. Until very recently(in modern history), there was no large "group" of homosexual people calling themselves a community. Homosexuality is not unlike any other type of non-heterosexual propensity, in terms of being seen as undesireable and distasteful by most societies/cultures. My question within this thread is therefore valid. What makes homosexuality now more nobel than paedophilia, incest or beastiality? I know the "consentual adult" line is often used, but what about the man who has sex with his mother or adult daughter? How are such partnering viewed and what makes it less desireable than a man inserting his member in another man's fecal outlet? My own contention is marketing. Homosexuality is very very well marketed. When, not if, these other areas of sexuality gets marketed we will be having similar arguments and similar cries of "oppression".
The reason I am not discussing pedophilia is because that isn't what we are talking about here. It's not a question of what's more noble, it's a question of what's acceptable and what's not by the current society. Last time I looked pedophilia and homosexuality were two different things. It's apples and oranges. Which tastes better is completely up to you. Maybe you don't like either. But if you have issues on how far you want to push your tolerance those are your issues and no one else's.
Perhaps the reason homosexuals have banded together into a community is because they are tired of being oppressed - even though you might not agree they are. There is another community of homosexuals that I know of that has been around for quite a while, much longer than recent times, they are called Hijra and they live in India. They are also quite oppressed, even though you might think they aren't.
There were times in history when homosexuality was accepted by society. The ancient Greeks, the Spartans and the Romans all practiced homosexuality as part of normal everyday life. Cults of homosexuals existed then. Saphho comes to mind as one of the more prominent.
The Thai have long been accepting of homosexuality. They have no qualms about two men holding hands in public - even if the guys are straight. Then again the Thai have no qualms about picking their nose in front of you so we probably shouldn't use them as character witnesses.
The Tahitian's have long since had a third sex, which is a male that lives his life as a female. This is and always has been part of their culture. The same was true of the Native American cultures who had Two Spirit, which is essentially the same thing.
Yet, since the Dark Ages homosexuals have been persecuted in the west. I ask, is it really unusual that they have banded together for protection?
The reason I am not discussing pedophilia is because that isn't what we are talking about here. It's not a question of what's more noble, it's a question of what's acceptable and what's not by the current society. Last time I looked pedophilia and homosexuality were two different things. It's apples and oranges. Which tastes better is completely up to you. Maybe you don't like either. But if you have issues on how far you want to push your tolerance those are your issues and no one else's.
Perhaps the reason homosexuals have banded together into a community is because they are tired of being oppressed - even though you might not agree they are. There is another community of homosexuals that I know of that has been around for quite a while, much longer than recent times, they are called Hijra and they live in India. They are also quite oppressed, even though you might think they aren't.
There were times in history when homosexuality was accepted by society. The ancient Greeks, the Spartans and the Romans all practiced homosexuality as part of normal everyday life. Cults of homosexuals existed then. Saphho comes to mind as one of the more prominent.
The Thai have long been accepting of homosexuality. They have no qualms about two men holding hands in public - even if the guys are straight. Then again the Thai have no qualms about picking their nose in front of you so we probably shouldn't use them as character witnesses.
The Tahitian's have long since had a third sex, which is a male that lives his life as a female. This is and always has been part of their culture. The same was true of the Native American cultures who had Two Spirit, which is essentially the same thing.
Yet, since the Dark Ages homosexuals have been persecuted in the west. I ask, is it really unusual that they have banded together for protection?
One can cite similar histories and cultures where there wasn't an age or blood relation delineation with regards to sexuality. Infact, King David's first son, Amnon, raped his sister who asked him why he simply didn't seek their father's consent to marry instead of raping her. Tamar was also very young and newly developing. Why is one sexual proclivity apples and another oranges when they are both deviating from societal norms and could argue "oppression" with the same "merit"?
Unusual, not anymore unusual than (paedophilia groups like) NAMBLA has banded together, no.
What does this even matter? Don't hetro couples have anal sex? HIV is in a lot of countries primarily a hetro problem. (So it's prolly good that you didn't mention it cuz it's irrelevant)
That's another topic in and of itself, but you could stand to learn a thing or two in regards to your answer...
Why is one sexual proclivity apples and another oranges when they are both deviating from societal norms and could argue "oppression" with the same "merit"?
Apples and oranges deviate from a banana but they are all fruit. Therefore if you love one you love them all and if you hate one you hate them all. Black and white logic doesn't work for what you are trying to say Jammin' , it's a different discussion. Keep on topic.
That's another topic in and of itself, but you could stand to learn a thing or two in regards to your answer...
I'm going to be honest, and maybe that means this post will be removed. But I don't think you have anything to teach me and this will be my last post to this thread.
Apples and oranges deviate from a banana but they are all fruit. Therefore if you love one you love them all and if you hate one you hate them all. Black and white logic doesn't work for what you are trying to say Jammin' , it's a different discussion. Keep on topic.
you deem them apples, oranges and bananas instead of aspects of sexuality and sexual proclivity, in order to elevate one above another. I am on topic. I've already said sexuality is fluid and no one was born "gay", "a paedophile" etc. The subtext you are ignoring is that there are reasons certain societies have been largely strictly heterosxual. Matt referred to the chaotic outcome as annihilation of human species...
you deem them apples, oranges and bananas instead of aspects of sexuality and sexual proclivity, in order to elevate one above another. I am on topic. I've already said sexuality is fluid and no one was born "gay", "a paedophile" etc. The subtext you are ignoring is that there are reasons certain societies have been largely strictly heterosxual. Matt referred to the chaotic outcome as annihilation of human species...
I do no such thing. I do that to differentiate them from one another. An apple is different from a banana but whether it's better or not depends upon your personal taste. You prefer to lump them all together as if they are all one thing - which they aren't. It's like saying an aspirin and heroin are drugs - if you can freely take one you should be able to freely take the other. Things don't work like that Jammin' the world is full of colours and they're all different - you can't lump them into black or white.
In other words "I'm out of bullets, so stop shooting at me"
Chris's question only requires a Yes or No answer and you've purposely avoided it out of fear of ruining your credibility and being seen as, shall we say, "morally-bankrupt"?
The moderators consulted about this thread last night, and agreed to let it ride, as there seems to be interest in this discussion -- though I must say, it moved outside the purview of my own interests some time ago.
We are watching the conversation, though. And tossing slightly miffed looks at Heretic -- who ought to know better -- for starting the whole mess in the first place.
And we are deleting nothing -- even amongst those who might not be acquitting themselves as well as others in terms of the most basic fundamentals of logic.
Personally, I think this thread has run its course -- and is simply spinning its wheels -- as no minds will be changed here -- and clearly nobody is going to convince anybody of anything.
Though no minds are going to be changed, I offer a final opinion here on an earlier question that I realized the answer on much later when I pondered it. Someone had asked why (in relation to my long answer) something that doesn't hurt anyone else, such as homosexuality, is considered a sin.
From a Biblical standpoint, it boils down to two references from the very beginning of Genesis in regards to the very, very first command the God gave mankind. Right after man was created, God said this in Genesis 1:28:
"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.'"
That is what I remembered as the real crux of why the Bible considers homosexuality a sin, and really, it isn't the act so much as it is the consequence. Reproduction is only possible through the union of a man and woman. No matter what the biology of the brain is or whether it is a choice or not or whether homosexuality has existed (accepted or not) for eons, it is impossible to deny the biological fact that two men or two women cannot reproduce. As such, a same sex union violates the first thing that man was told to do: Be fruitful and multiply.
Ok, so that being said, there is the argument that homosexual couples have children, yadda-yadda-yadda, and sure they possess children, but they did not have them biologically together. I guess they can adopt.
Then you have the other biological side of it in that woman was created specifically for man. They are two parts of a whole and literally fit together. Granted, this is more or less the proponent of "no premarital sex," but it fits into this topic since we're talking sex anyway. This basically says that once the two come together, they are as one. I know 90% of the world doesn't believe this, and that's your decision, but you have to wonder where we would be on the homosexual topic as well as all the other sexual stuff if we still believed that having sex with someone meant that we were forever with them.
This is Genesis 2:19-24.
"19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Ok, so I went Bible again, but as that is the backbone of my life, that's what I have. I also figured the topic was descending again into nonsense, so I figured I'd at least interject some pure reference material into it, and hopefully either steer the conversation back, or end it on a better note than pedophiles and bestiality (two other issues that also do not accomplish anything reproductive).
From a Biblical standpoint, it boils down to two references from the very beginning of Genesis in regards to the very, very first command the God gave mankind. Right after man was created, God said this in Genesis 1:28:
"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.'"
Ok, I have a quick question about that part. You're saying (that if you believe in God and read the words of the Bible) that God pretty much believes men are, if you'll forgive my language, fucking useless?
Increase in number and subdue it. Men can't have kids. So, theoretically, if a ginormous sperm bank was created and then, for some reason, all men were killed off, God would be appeased? Artificial insemenation would basically become a requirement.
Makes me wonder how people believe that God is a man and is always portrayed that way (except of course in comedies).
EDIT:
(This is all from the Bible but I don't believe in it anyway, so don't hate me for it. Lol.)
One more thing about the Adam and Eve quote.
Eve wasn't first. There was someone named Lilith. Supposedly, God created Adam and Lilith at the same time. But, for that reason, she demanded to be equal to Adam. That pissed Adam off and he wasn't happy with him anymore. So, he had God kill her. After that, she became some demon-spirit thing that killed kids in their sleep.
Ironically, there's a song I really like that's all about that story, if you listen to the lyrics.
And, no, this mini-story telling didn't come from the song. I just noticed it in the song after listening to the lyrics.
The song, if anyone is interested is "The Night" by Morphine. And, yes, this is technically still on topic. Responding to the Admin who posted right above me. =)
In other words "I'm out of bullets, so stop shooting at me"
Chris's question only requires a Yes or No answer and you've purposely avoided it out of fear of ruining your credibility and being seen as, shall we say, "morally-bankrupt"?
Chris Ried seem unable to appreciate the irony of his question, even when it's pointed out to him. He, as a homosexual man, is someone who engages in what most societies, past and present see as being morally bankrupt and low. Today, a number of societies have had homosexuality marketed to them in such a way that it's now widely "accepted". He, seeing homosexuals as being "oppressed", draws no corellation to other sexual fringes, on the mere basis that they have not yet been accepted.
Yes, that's what I take from his question, and response.
My opinion on homosexuality should be neither here nor there for him. I don't see homosexuality in the same light he does.
Jesus fucking christ, this is so stupid and it should be so simple. EVERYONE has the right for happiness, if being gay is a choice or not who cares, if it makes them happy who is any douchebag to judge them or deny them their happiness and equal as long as they are not causing physical harm to anyone, if you don't like it, don't look at it, simple, i swear to christ i think some people need to pull their stick out of their ass an accept people for who they are, if you can't do that then you have some serious emotional and mental problems.
The only thing I really wanted to pick up on was Dressel's Q re: what actually bothers people about PDAs from gay men. Also, why is there a chasm between what feelings that evokes and that of lesbians? No discernible reason was provided, and this speaks volumes - perhaps 'cos there - quite frankly - is nothing wrong with it. Cornetto eloquently listed the oppression that has been felt by gay men for long swathes of history, and decadence's articulation of plausible explanations for straight men to be offended - by way of an actual scientific exploration - was most satisfying to me from a writing perspective.
Parades - what's the big deal?
Jeff, I know you were talking about it being "in your face", but in principle, is a parade any different from your irregular proclamations of having a girlfriend? Sure, there is a wealth of difference in scale, but ultimately both are proud declarations of how a person feels - what's wrong with that? You quite clearly stated that you have no problems with gay men, so that's cool. I think your comments appeared quite gruff, and no nonsense, which is how you are as a person, so naturally this issue filtered through that lens is likely to yield that type of response. That's cool, 'cos you appear to have no bigotry.
Jammin, well, I think I see what your point is - you are asking why society categorises homosexuality, young/old and incestuous behaviour in different ways, right? That's a valid question, but I think you inherently believe homosexuality to be wrong, which colours your question. Therefore you are lumping all of those behaviours into some level of perversion of the normal - heterosexuality. Why is heterosexuality the norm, or viewed as the norm? I guess it's down to reproduction, but we're hardly an endangered species. Martin Rees - a superb Cosmologist - gave a recent lecture in London where he suggested the worldwide population could reach 9 billion by 2050 - we need to reduce the population, so why is homosexuality wrong? To me, that growth in population suggests there is no natural evolution in place to determine homosexuality wrong.
My personal stance is that consent and welfare should permeate all levels of this discussion. Consensual sex between men/men or women/women is something that cannot be questioned aside from a level of bigotry or religious musing, IMO. I know others disagree, but I have never seen a compelling argument as to why.
Finally, I have to agree with Cornetto that pairing up homosexuality and that of paedophiles is not a fair comparison. Sure, the point Jammin made was that we have two historically persecuted groups - so one must now be accepted 'cos it's marketed better. I'm sorry, I am going to have to call bullshit on that - I would suggest it's down to humans evolving, and finding it increasingly difficult to rationalise persecution against two proponents of love. Love is beautiful thing, whether it be between men/women, men/men or women/women - there would appear to be a deficit of love in a wider societal context, so why demonise it based on who the proponents are - that's my opinion.
The age of consent and its complexities as to what constitutes a loving relationship in that realm would need a thesis, 'cos it's far too large an area to be carved up on a message board.
Jesus fucking christ, this is so stupid and it should be so simple. EVERYONE has the right for happiness, if being gay is a choice or not who cares, if it makes them happy who is any douchebag to judge them or deny them their happiness and equal as long as they are not causing physical harm to anyone, if you don't like it, don't look at it, simple, i swear to christ i think some people need to pull their stick out of their ass an accept people for who they are, if you can't do that then you have some serious emotional and mental problems.
Clearly the best post of this thread. Simple, brilliant, absolutely true, and used F***ng, douche and ass! Nicely done sir!
Everyone has their own opinions here and no one should doubt that. But I'm still extremely shocked that no one seems to have a problem with what Matt Chisholm had to say last night. Here are his words in regrads to beasitality and incest being completely acceptable...
"As long as the man having sex with his mother or adult daughter have their permission, there is no problem the way I see it. Same thing with a woman who has her German Shepherd have sex with her. Social constructs keep incest and beastiality as off-limits taboo, the way homosexuality was one hundred of two hundred years ago. Maybe over time, this will also change."
How can anyone not find this to be crazy and downright wrong?
This happened to homosexuals only? How about paedophiles, are they being thrown in jail too for something they can claim to be born with, much like homosexuals? Aren't paedophiles shunned and deemed "sick" by mental doctors and society at large? That teacher, Mary Kay Letourneau, wasn't she imprisoned? Do you see paedophiles as being "oppressed" as well?
Afterall, paedophilia, much like heterosexuality and homosexuality, is a preference, no?
To put homosexuals and paedophiles in the same argument is nuts.
Paedophiles should be shot. But that's another argument.
I disagree with what Matt said about bestiality. That is wrong, and it's wrong because the animal can't consent. If adults want to engage in incest, that's their business. The same with polygamy. As long as everyone involved is ok with it, it's no one eles concern.
What exactly are we hoping to achieve with this discussion? None of us are lawmakers (thankfully, in some cases!). This isn't really a debate, because there will be no outcome. We all have our opinions. Clearly, from what I have read, nobody is going to be swayed by any argument, no matter whether it's logically sound and well expressed, or not.
Homosexuality is real. People are gay. They have the right to be gay, and people have the right to disapprove. It's that simple. Personally? I don't give two hoots about whether someone considers themselves 'gay' or not. Sexual orientation is only one facet of someone's personality, after all. But it must be remembered that while X has the right to be gay, and to not be ashamed of that fact, Y has just as much right to disapprove, and to vocalise that disapproval. Freedom of opinion and the ability to express that opinion is as much of a basic human right as the right to choose whether you have sex with consenting men, or consenting women.
(I want to make the point that I specifically said 'expressing disapproval', before I'm accused of condoning oppression or violence towards homosexuals. Saying 'I think that's wrong' is one thing. Beating someone up because you think it's wrong, or encouraging others to do so, is quite another.)
I may regret getting involved in this discussion, but that, I think, is that. And by the way, since when could a German Shepherd give consent?
The only thing I really wanted to pick up on was Dressel's Q re: what actually bothers people about PDAs from gay men. Also, why is there a chasm between what feelings that evokes and that of lesbians? No discernible reason was provided, and this speaks volumes - perhaps 'cos there - quite frankly - is nothing wrong with it. Cornetto eloquently listed the oppression that has been felt by gay men for long swathes of history, and decadence's articulation of plausible explanations for straight men to be offended - by way of an actual scientific exploration - was most satisfying to me from a writing perspective.
Parades - what's the big deal?
Jeff, I know you were talking about it being "in your face", but in principle, is a parade any different from your irregular proclamations of having a girlfriend? Sure, there is a wealth of difference in scale, but ultimately both are proud declarations of how a person feels - what's wrong with that? You quite clearly stated that you have no problems with gay men, so that's cool. I think your comments appeared quite gruff, and no nonsense, which is how you are as a person, so naturally this issue filtered through that lens is likely to yield that type of response. That's cool, 'cos you appear to have no bigotry.
Jammin, well, I think I see what your point is - you are asking why society categorises homosexuality, young/old and incestuous behaviour in different ways, right? That's a valid question, but I think you inherently believe homosexuality to be wrong, which colours your question. Therefore you are lumping all of those behaviours into some level of perversion of the normal - heterosexuality. Why is heterosexuality the norm, or viewed as the norm? I guess it's down to reproduction, but we're hardly an endangered species. Martin Rees - a superb Cosmologist - gave a recent lecture in London where he suggested the worldwide population could reach 9 billion by 2050 - we need to reduce the population, so why is homosexuality wrong? To me, that growth in population suggests there is no natural evolution in place to determine homosexuality wrong.
My personal stance is that consent and welfare should permeate all levels of this discussion. Consensual sex between men/men or women/women is something that cannot be questioned aside from a level of bigotry or religious musing, IMO. I know others disagree, but I have never seen a compelling argument as to why.
Finally, I have to agree with Cornetto that pairing up homosexuality and that of paedophiles is not a fair comparison. Sure, the point Jammin made was that we have two historically persecuted groups - so one must now be accepted 'cos it's marketed better. I'm sorry, I am going to have to call bullshit on that - I would suggest it's down to humans evolving, and finding it increasingly difficult to rationalise persecution against two proponents of love. Love is beautiful thing, whether it be between men/women, men/men or women/women - there would appear to be a deficit of love in a wider societal context, so why demonise it based on who the proponents are - that's my opinion.
The age of consent and its complexities as to what constitutes a loving relationship in that realm would need a thesis, 'cos it's far too large an area to be carved up on a message board.
Andrew
Andrew, you're seeing this from a "romantic", emotional POV. Also bear in mind that our environment/culture have conditioned us differently. What you see as "love", I see in an entirely different way. No, I do not see "adult consent" as being a strong argument against the other sexual fringes. A number of factors intersect. No, I do not see homosexuality as being above any of the other sexual fringes. And yes, it's marketed extremely well. Look at the difference in popular view of homosexuality in the early to mid 90's as compared to now. You and I will have to agree to dissagree on this issue.
I think Matt's entitled to his opinion. Like Seamus, I don't agree with his stance on beastiality. Here in Denmark, where I'm from, bestiality is, for some reason, legal. I don't understand that since, again like Seamus said, an animal can't consent.
Regarding incest among consenting adults...hmm, that's a tougher one. Personally, the mere thought of it makes my stomach churn. Like canabalism, incest is one of the major taboos in the civilized part of the world. I think it's disgusting and wrong but when it happens between two consenting adults then I guess I just have to accept it - it's none of my business and not my problem.
I'm sorry to see that this discussion about homosexuality has spiralled into a discussion about paedophilia, incest and beastiality - as if it's related.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I'm sorry to see that this discussion about homosexuality has spiralled into a discussion about paedophilia, incest and beastiality - as if it's related.
Well, incest is clearly related, and if you ask any Darwinist, they'll tell you we're related to the beasts. Haha.
Anyway, the correlation was going to be inevitable for the obvious reason that they're all sexually related and for that matter, taboo among certain peoples, just as homosexuality still is in some areas.
And just to point out one further tidbit, both bestiality and incest are included in that list in Leviticus I mentioned earlier that has homosexuality in it along with the other fun activities that the original Israelites would take you out for: child sacrifice to pagan gods, medium consulting, bad-mouthing your parents, adultery, marrying a woman and her mother, sex during a woman's period, and marrying your sister-in-law.
I wonder who many reads a script called Homosexuality would get?
Back onto topic. Personally I believe in freedom and liberty, something many goverments and plenty of people seem to have forgotten about.
As far as I know people have no choice in what their sexual preference is. Sure, there are plenty who dabble because of peer pressure, culture or whatever but the gays I've met aren't gay because it's a choice, they're gay by nature.
The heterosexuals so offended by homosexuals are, in my humble, either scared, insecure or just being plain old macho. Somewhere deep inside they think hating gays somehow makes them more of a man. Alas, it's not the 1950s.
The thing that scares them the most is the one they won't admit. They don't understand, and therefore fear, that two people of the same sex can love each other. That's the one that really freaks them out.
I wonder who many reads a script called Homosexuality would get?
Back onto topic. Personally I believe in freedom and liberty, something many goverments and plenty of people seem to have forgotten about.
As far as I know people have no choice in what their sexual preference is. Sure, there are plenty who dabble because of peer pressure, culture or whatever but the gays I've met aren't gay because it's a choice, they're gay by nature.
The heterosexuals so offended by homosexuals are, in my humble, either scared, insecure or just being plain old macho. Somewhere deep inside they think hating gays somehow makes them more of a man. Alas, it's not the 1950s.
The thing that scares them the most is the one they won't admit. They don't understand, and therefore fear, that two people of the same sex can love each other. That's the one that really freaks them out.
Well, incest is clearly related, and if you ask any Darwinist, they'll tell you we're related to the beasts. Haha.
What’s a Darwinist? The Theory of Evolution has far more evidence to support it than your superstition. In fact, a shred of evidence is more than you have for God’s existence.
And on the subject of morality, it makes more sense for morality to derive from logic than the “moral” code of primitive Bronze Age tribesmen who raped, murdered, and stole their way into power.
Genesis 7 - God murders every newborn and unborn infant on Earth with a deluge.
Exodus 12: 29-30 - God murders the first born son in every house in Egypt.
Leviticus 26:21-22, God says, “I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children.”
Numbers 31 - the Midianite massacre - all male children murdered and the virgins kept as slaves by order of Moses.
Deuteronomy 3:3-7 - “We completely destroyed them,…every city—men, women and children.
2 Kings 2:23-24 - God sends two bears to maul 42 youths for the petty crime of making fun of the “prophet” Elisha’s bald head.
In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, the “prophet” Samuel says, “put to death men and women, children and infants,…”
In Isaiah 13:15-18, the “prophet” Isaiah says, “infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes.”
In Ezekiel 9:3-7, the “prophet” Ezekiel says, “Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children.”
In Hosea 9:11-12, God says, “Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one.”
In Hosea 13:16, God says, “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Real “moral.” Getting your morals from the biblical God is like getting them from Satan. No wait, scratch that. Satan is nowhere near as evil as God.
Hmmm, that outta draw some fire from a few in here...Wow, how'd we move onto this now?
We moved onto this because this is where this conversation leads. Antigay people have absolutely no leg to stand on to defend their bigotry. The only thing they have to fall back on is morality. So where you derive your morality becomes an issue. If someone can give one reason why they’re antigay other than, “Oh, it makes me feel uncomfortable,” or “The Bible says…,” then we have a discussion. Otherwise there’s no real discussion because your discomfort is your own personal problem and the Bible is certainly no source of morality.
We moved onto this because this is where this conversation leads. Antigay people have absolutely no leg to stand on to defend their bigotry. The only thing they have to fall back on is morality. So where you derive your morality becomes an issue. If someone can give one reason why they�re antigay other than, �Oh, it makes me feel uncomfortable,� or �The Bible says�,� then we have a discussion. Otherwise there�s no real discussion because your discomfort is your own personal problem and the Bible is certainly no source of morality.
Breanne
Aparently you haven't been following the thread along very well, so you fall back on the popular(and fallacious) assumption that opposition to homosexuality is generally religious... It seems to be, you are deliberately trying to invoke ire in the religious among us. You can defend your position without stooping to such a level, IMO.
But anyway, I think this thread has run its course for me. Goodnight all!!!!!!
Somehow I don't think the gay community would appreciate being indirectly likened to incest and bestiality. Seriously guys. How bad do you really need to prove a point to someone hundreds of miles away. Is it really going to change things that much? Like it or not, there are homosexuals in the world and unless you're in the government, you'd be hard pressed to make a significant dent in their lives. It's quite clear at this point in the threat that nobody's backing down and nobody seems to be pissed enough to threaten to leave the boards like in the old days. Everyone needs to chill out and go have a beer.
It really amazes me how upset people get, on both sides of this fence. Why can't people just state their case, do it in a professional, courtious way, and listen to opposing viewpoints? Where does all the anger come from? The low blows? The wierd, off color, and off topic revelations?
As many assumed up front, this type of discussion always seems to end up in the same place...the fucking gutter!
Aparently you haven't been following the thread along very well, so you fall back on the popular(and fallacious) assumption that opposition to homosexuality is generally religious...
It seems to be, you are deliberately trying to invoke ire in the religious among us. You can defend your position without stooping to such a level, IMO.
Be careful of making too many assumptions...cos "assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups".
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
It really amazes me how upset people get, on both sides of this fence. Why can't people just state their case, do it in a professional, courtious way, and listen to opposing viewpoints? Where does all the anger come from? The low blows? The wierd, off color, and off topic revelations?
As many assumed up front, this type of discussion always seems to end up in the same place...the fucking gutter!
Writers are a rowdy bunch. Not sure why anyone thought they'd be better suited for serious debates.
Aparently you haven't been following the thread along very well, so you fall back on the popular(and fallacious) assumption that opposition to homosexuality is generally religious... It seems to be, you are deliberately trying to invoke ire in the religious among us. You can defend your position without stooping to such a level, IMO.
But anyway, I think this thread has run its course for me. Goodnight all!!!!!!
This from the girl who’s only way to defend her bigotry is to lump homosexuality with pedophilia. You fall under the “Oh, it makes me feel uncomfortable” category. I hope you get the irony here.
I try to avoid you JamminGirl because I think you’re nothing but a troublemaker here at this site. You have all of ten pages of work to show and spend the bulk of your time starting and fueling arguments.
This thread ran its course a long time ago; about the time you started posting.
This from the girl who�s only way to defend her bigotry is to lump homosexuality with pedophilia. You fall under the �Oh, it makes me feel uncomfortable� category. I hope you get the irony here.
I try to avoid you JamminGirl because I think you�re nothing but a troublemaker here at this site. You have all of ten pages of work to show and spend the bulk of your time starting and fueling arguments.
This thread ran its course a long time ago; about the time you started posting.
Breanne
Sometimes when people dislike reviews of their scripts they'll hold onto animosity towards a reviewer. I've learned that awhile now so I understand your feelings towards me. In terms of the "lumping", if you try to detatch your emotions and look at it from a logical perspective, how can you not see similarity in all the sexual subsets? How can you not recognize the fluidity of sexuality? What makes one fringe, homosexuality, more nobel than another? If I claim to be born homosexual, what would prevent you from claiming to be born to have sexual attraction to people under 16? What would make my propensity be above yours?
btw, you have no idea as to whether I feel uncomfortable or not around homosexuality. I live in Toronto. Don't assume...
Sometimes when people dislike reviews of their scripts they'll hold onto animosity towards a reviewer. I've learned that awhile now so I understand your feelings towards me.
Man was created after the other animals - Gen 1:25,26,27
Man was created before the other animals - Gen 2:18,19
To this I respond. Gen 2:19 "Now the LORD God HAD FORMED out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." Yes, this passage comes after the creation of man, however, the language does not indicate a progression, but rather that it was an event that had already occurred. If the animals came after man, it would read "Then the LORD God formed out of the ground...."
I'm afraid that is too simple a "contradiction" to debunk. And yeah, this is off topic. And yeah, it can still be closed.
Johnny...that's some funny shit! Seriously, I'm actualy LOL!!! Nicely put.
Good point...why is Doris wearing a dead dude's skin all of a sudden? Maybe, she'll be part of the new Task Force that the Mayor is starting up? Who knows...
And so we come to a close on this particularly exasperating topic, and I doubt anyone is shedding any tears about it.
I think it was Dec who somewhere along the way said, "Everything is about screenwriting" -- which amused me enough and had just enough crazy logic to let this thread go as long as it did.
I would also like to thank my buddy Heretic for lobbing this big stink bomb then promptly bailing on the chaos that ensued.
Now for God's sake go write -- or read some scripts -- or something.
Pages: 
Author
The Really Weird Homosexuality Thread: Closed
Logged
but I do believe in treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. Any prejudice goes against that belief so I don't have anything against gay people.
) but we're getting there I think.
