Homos Vs. Hetros..again

[-Demosthenes-]

How about this:

1) "He doesn't act mentally ill at all, like a normal person"

2) "He acts normal, he makes all mentally ill look bad."

3) "He's trying to get help"

 

Mine are more valid because they deal with behavior.

[Deified]

This may be off topic at this point in the thread, but I just have to say that my best friend from my childhood until the present was raised by gay parents. His father's sperm was implanted into his mother, he had two gay fathers and two gay mothers. He is a perfectly normal and very nice boy who is now going to college to study Quantum Physics. His mother died when he was 14, but he quickly recovered from the loss and got high marks at Boston Latin school. As you may know, gay marriage was recently made legal in Massachusetts, and a few months ago his fathers got married after being together for 25 years. It was truly a special moment.

[john5746]

How about this:

1) "He doesn't act mentally ill at all' date=' like a normal person"

2) "He acts normal, he makes all mentally ill look bad."

3) "He's trying to get help"

 

Mine are more valid because they deal with behavior.[/quote']

 

What's your point? If a mentally ill person poses no threat to himself or others and can function in society normally - do you have a problem with them?

[TimeTraveler]

In the case of same sex parents and children, I would hope (and expect) that the gay parents would not try to force their lifestyle on the child, but would allow the child to choose his/her own preference, and support them, what ever it was.

 

I would hope and expect the same from religious parents as well, for the same reasons.

 

Ok....forgetting the school embarassment for every year of your life, trying to hide while sitting in church with two dads holding hands, the ridicule and staring, not having any friends over because their real parents object, how about this from personal experience.

 

This is actually where the problem is. Throughout history any sort of same sex affection has been considered wrong. We have to ask, why has it been considered wrong for so long? What is the reasoning behind it? The only reference I know of that has considered it wrong are biblical entries. What determined it was wrong? Was it because it had been known to cause some form of ailment or was it the teachings of priests?

 

Why in today's culture is it so widely believed to be wrong? Why do kids dislike gays? why would they tease other kids if their parents were gay? Why would parents continue to teach scriptures in the bible that say its wrong, as it would only teach them dislike and/or discomfort in the presence of gay people?

 

I guess what I am saying is, I don't see how any one could look at it as gays are the problem when it is clear that our cultural beliefs are the problem.

 

P.S. Don't tell the guys at the aryian nation camp thats up the street from my house that I wrote this. I might get 'hanged'. (j/k we ran them out of town a few years back)

 

Funny story about that too, since many are interested in them. When I tell people I live in N. Idaho, the first question I get asked is... oh you live by the aryian nations? Then they would go on about them, its funny... everyone out of state seemed to know more about them than I did... Well if you don't, they had a camp up here in N. Idaho, they did annual protests about once a year displaying their hatred for blacks and gays and whoever else they were mad at. They did a march through downtown, I would say there were about a 100 of them. They had a 'base' I guess you would call it, most of them lived there and worked there... they had a huge complex, I would guess probably about 20-30 rooms and they had about 30 or so acres. Their property was completly gated off and they had guards with semi-automatic weapons out front at all times. Anyways a lady and her daughter were driving down the road by their property when her mini-van backfired, the guards shot at her vehicle as they thaught they were being shot at (I think it was 9 rounds or something). No one was injured, but the court banned them from the state of Idaho. (Sorry whoever got them, not our problem anymore ) Somehow a few of them were able to remain, among them the was their leader Richard Butler. He ran for mayor last year, it was a big ordeal, but in the end he only got like 7 votes... He died a few months later.

 

Anyways sorry to stray off topic.

[Sayonara]

Throughout history any sort of same sex affection has been considered wrong.

That's not really true, unless you mean by individuals rather than societies.

[Lance]

What determined it was wrong? Was it because it had been known to cause some form of ailment or was it the teachings of priests?

 

 

I think the anus walls are supposed to be much thinner than the vagina walls. Thin to the point that anything your partner has you have. Of course I do not know if this is completely true. Its just something I have read a few times. This could have made it wrong.

 

Why in today's culture is it so widely believed to be wrong? Why do kids dislike gays? why would they tease other kids if their parents were gay?

 

Perhaps because kids at that age are already so confused. Having the boy down the street possibly attracted to you could be very disturbing when you're just starting to accept that guys like girls. If its not gays they will just find some other group to hate. Thats teenagers for you.

 

 

I guess what I am saying is, I don't see how any one could look at it as gays are the problem when it is clear that our cultural beliefs are the problem.

 

I guess you didn't really want the above questions answered then...

[-Demosthenes-]

What's your point? If a mentally ill person poses no threat to himself or others and can function in society normally - do you have a problem with them?

 

Post #102? My turn for a witty off topic remark.

I have to be careful here, since I don't know all the details of behavior you are referring to, but this sounds very similar to remarks towards blacks that I have heard.

 

(1) "He doesn't act black at all, like a normal person"

 

(2) "He is ghetto, he makes all blacks look bad"

 

(3) "He's trying to be white"

What's your point? Are you a racist?

[Mokele]

I think the anus walls are supposed to be much thinner than the vagina walls. Thin to the point that anything your partner has you have. Of course I do not know if this is completely true. Its just something I have read a few times. This could have made it wrong.

 

It's true to a limited extent. The walls of the rectum *are* thinner and more easily torn by rough sex, which does increase the risk of STD transmission. However, with enough lube and a properly prepared partner, the risk increase isn't actually that astronomicly high compared to vaginal sex.

 

Of course, this ignores lesbians, who have a much, much lower chance of STD transmission than even heterosexuals.

 

So, if it's all about STDs, shouldn't lesbians be God's Chosen people?

 

Mokele

[john5746]

Post #102? My turn for a witty off topic remark.

 

What's your point? Are you a racist?

 

I don't think either or our remarks were "witty".

 

I understand your post now - As I compared bigotry towards homosexuals to that of racism, you compared it to bigotry towards the mentally ill, so you also agree that homosexuals, like the mentally ill, should enjoy the same freedom to pursue happiness like everyone else, as long as they pose no danger to themselves or society.

 

That's nice.

[TimeTraveler]

That's not really true, unless you mean by individuals rather than societies.

 

Well actually I did mean by societies, particularly religious societies. But if I am wrong in thinking that please explain.

 

I think the anus walls are supposed to be much thinner than the vagina walls. Thin to the point that anything your partner has you have. Of course I do not know if this is completely true. Its just something I have read a few times. This could have made it wrong.

 

I didn't know that, I knew diseases could be spread more easily through anal intercourse, but I didn't know why. But you have to consider the fact that the ratio of men having anal intercourse with women is probably close to the same as men with men, if not more and I would imagine the risks are the same. (speculation)

 

Perhaps because kids at that age are already so confused. Having the boy down the street possibly attracted to you could be very disturbing when you're just starting to accept that guys like girls. If its not gays they will just find some other group to hate. Thats teenagers for you.

 

I know what you mean, I was a teenager not too long ago, I am not really sure what makes teenagers so hateful against groups of people who are different from themselves. It is a problem in our society and probably needs to be addressed more.

 

I guess you didn't really want the above questions answered then...

 

Nah, they are questions designed more to make people think about why they 'feel' a certain way about certain groups. More along the lines of questions to ask yourself before you pass judgements. But thanks for sharing your answers to a few of them.

[Sayonara]

Well actually I did mean by societies, particularly religious societies. But if I am wrong in thinking that please explain.

Historically, homosexuality has not really been a big deal. In fact it was a completely normal every-day thing in many cultures. There are very few societies that actually did make a big deal over it at any time. You used the words "throughout history", implying an ongoing and consistent aversion that simply was never there.

 

 

I didn't know that, I knew diseases could be spread more easily through anal intercourse, but I didn't know why. But you have to consider the fact that the ratio of men having anal intercourse with women is probably close to the same as men with men, if not more and I would imagine the risks are the same. (speculation)

Regardless, I'm not sure I see what any of that has to do with homosexuality being "wrong". When you originally asked, you used the words "same sex affection" - were you referring to sex?

[TimeTraveler]

Historically, homosexuality has not really been a big deal. In fact it was a completely normal every-day thing in many cultures. There are very few societies that actually did make a big deal over it at any time. You used the words "throughout history", implying an ongoing and consistent aversion that simply was never there.

 

Ahh okay, thanks for correcting me in my thinking then.

 

Regardless, I'm not sure I see what any of that has to do with homosexuality being "wrong". When you originally asked, you used the words "same sex affection" - were you referring to sex?

 

It really doesn't have anything to do with it being wrong, imo. I used the word affection meaning all levels of affection, his response was to a particular type of affection, I simply replied to the level he was discussing. The original comment was meant at all levels of affection though.

 

Currently there is a bill floating around for the state of Idaho to ban same sex marriage, however it goes one step further to ban same sex coupling all together. I do not know a whole lot about it as I just heard about it last night, but I will see if I can dig up some information after I get out of class today.

[Phi for All]

Ahh okay, thanks for correcting me in my thinking then.

Sorry for intruding here, but it's more a correction of knowledge than a correction of your thinking, implying a process. Many warrior cultures throughout history, from the Greeks to the Japanese, found it convenient and acceptable to have homosexual relationships, especially when on campaign far from home. It was neither preferable nor bizarre, simply different and convenient.

 

I find it interesting that many people quote St. Paul as condemning homosexuality in the Bible when there is plenty of evidence that, as Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee, he was a practicing homosexual.

[Sayonara]

Ahh okay, thanks for correcting me in my thinking then.

Like Phi said, it was more a correction of knowledge.

 

 

It really doesn't have anything to do with it being wrong, imo. I used the word affection meaning all levels of affection, his response was to a particular type of affection, I simply replied to the level he was discussing. The original comment was meant at all levels of affection though.

So that was Lance's assumption, not yours. I did wonder how specific you were being.

The issue of bum sex safety was discussed in 'Sanctity of Marriage', as was its irrelevance to the morality of gay couples, for anyone who cares.

 

 

Currently there is a bill floating around for the state of Idaho to ban same sex marriage, however it goes one step further to ban same sex coupling all together. I do not know a whole lot about it as I just heard about it last night, but I will see if I can dig up some information after I get out of class today.

Oh yeah, I can see that being popular. Run! Run from the fascists.

[TimeTraveler]

Oh yeah, I can see that being popular. Run! Run from the fascists.

 

The same bill tried to get passed last year and was shot down, I don't see it passing this time either.

 

And sorry for the incorrect assumption it banning gay-coupling all together, thats how it was explained to me, it is attempting to ban civil unions:

 

http://www.nwpr.org/HomepageArticles/Article.aspx?n=724

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't think either or our remarks were "witty".

 

I understand your post now - As I compared bigotry towards homosexuals to that of racism' date=' you compared it to bigotry towards the mentally ill, so you also agree that homosexuals, like the mentally ill, should enjoy the same freedom to pursue happiness like everyone else, as long as they pose no danger to themselves or society.

 

That's nice. [/quote']

I compared "bigotry" towards homosexuals to that of the mentally ill.

THe mentally ill are different, they are involved in special programs and some are in need of special medications. Homosexuals are different.

I have a realistic veiw of the world.

[Sayonara]

Please show that the nature of the difference is equivalent in terms of symptoms, pathology, and prognosis.

[-Demosthenes-]

It's not obviously, but it is more comparable than john's post comparing it to racism.

[Sayonara]

I don't see how, seeing as that particular bigotry is a form of racism.

 

You could lump all the mentally ill together into a "race" and make the claim that anti-mental-illnessism is a form of racism, and therefore that the two examples were equally comparable to homophobia, but that would be pushing the envelope a little.

[john5746]

I compared "bigotry" towards homosexuals to that of the mentally ill.

THe mentally ill are different' date=' they are involved in special programs and some are in need of special medications. Homosexuals are different.

I have a realistic veiw of the world.[/quote']

 

Your not making any sense. Everybody is "different". That's the point.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Everyone is different. Can they not be treated differently?

The problem with racism is that its based on the outer appearence of a person, which tells little of their character. But it remains perfectly okay to judge someone on how they think, if fact thats how most people judge others.

So then why is it so wrong to discriminate against gay marriage, much the same as an employer discriminates against lesser qualified people for a job? Its not bad discrimination, its based on purely logical thought.

[Mokele]

The problem with racism is that its based on the outer appearence of a person, which tells little of their character. But it remains perfectly okay to judge someone on how they think, if fact thats how most people judge others.

So then why is it so wrong to discriminate against gay marriage, much the same as an employer discriminates against lesser qualified people for a job? Its not bad discrimination, its based on purely logical thought.

 

Because it's *not* ok to discriminate purely based on thought; if it was, there would be no laws against discrimination based on religion.

 

Furthermore, an employer discriminates based on a logical criterion. There is no logical reason why gays should not be married. Every reason so far has boiled down to "They're different and I don't like them."

 

Why should your opinions of someone, positive or negative, have any effect on what they do with their life, like, say, getting married?

 

It's called "freedom".

 

Mokele

[atinymonkey]

I think this conversation is drawing to the inevitable stalemate. Demo is homophobic, but doesn't understand why that is wrong. We know this, but the internet is not a medium best suited to re-education of deeply embedded beliefs.

 

Can we just agree to close the discussion now?

[Phi for All]

I think this conversation is drawing to the inevitable stalemate. Demo is homophobic' date=' but doesn't understand why that is wrong. We know this, but the internet is not a medium best suited to re-education of deeply embedded beliefs.

 

Can we just agree to close the discussion now?[/quote']Unfortunately, TwilighterX chose only to start this thread, not participate in it. Unless someone wants to take a stab at something which hasn't been addressed, I fear atinymonkey is right.

[ed84c]

you have the power to close it now phi