Hot Debate: Your Views On Gays & Homosexuality ...

[bigredrosen 0]

hu·man Pronunciation Key (hymn)n. 1. A member of the genus *person* and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.nowhere does it say "A member of the genus *person*, although they cannot be *person* ..." or "A straight person...".whether one is gay, straight, bisexual, male, female, black, white, asian, or any thing else that makes one person different from another, THEY ARE ALL PEOPLE. religion should not be used to make gay marriages illegal, as there is this little thing called separation of church and state. i myself am not gay, but being of the Unitarian Universalist religion (http://www.uua.org/), I am 100% pro-diversity

[mimi_m 0]

Wow... I'm actually quite surprised at some of the responses I've read here. Homosexuality is contagious? Gay marriage is like drugs? Sexual orientation is a preference, because children can’t tell the difference between genders due to being uneducated?Yeh. I don’t think it's the children here who are the 'uneducated' ones. I may be biased, but I’m open minded. I’ll pretty much accept anything as long as it’s not something completely ignorant and hypocritical. And for those people, you just have to shake your head at and walk away. It’s a little trick I learnt from my stupid younger brother when I realized using logic with him totally passed right by him. Idiot. In my own biased opinion, If people are ignorant enough to create societal diversities based on sexuality, those people aren't even worth you're time. There are some people you can't reason with, so just let them be in their little bible-reading worlds full of denial, lies and ignorance. What we need to try and focus on changing is the mass attitude of society, not an ignorant individual opinion. I’m lucky… I come from a culture where everyone is so apathetic that pretty much anything is accepted. (Melbourne, Australia, just for reference). I’m not saying apathy is a good thing, but people down here don’t get too worked up over irrelevant things like sexual preference. There’s barely any hate crimes committed, and I’ve never heard of a hate crime being committed due to homosexuality. Only those who are ‘uneducated’ would disagree that this is a healthy attitude for a society. Personally, I approve of the recent media hype that advocates homosexuality. Media is allegedly the biggest influence of western culture, and shows such as ‘queer eye’, ‘will n grace’, etc. help to communicate to the public the normalcy of being gay. It helps influence opinions, and helps people become more open-minded. And if anyone says that ‘gay’ isn’t ‘normal’, don’t even get me started. This may be a low-blow to die-hard catholics or very obstinate believers of a 'natural' sexuality, but it's about time you wake up and read a book or two about genetic make-up. Its called FACTS, alot more than what you'd find in the holy book.Remember people, anything controversial is GOOD.

[mitchellmckain 0]

I have been avoiding this topic because it is painful. I think this issue is tearing our country apart. I voted for Kerry but I didn't like him and I am not surprised he lost for one simple reason: he was from Massachusettes.Now I don't think that homosexuality is any worse than hetersexuality. But, I think they both bad. I suppose I am a little homophobic, because I don't like being prey. But on they other hand, I don't like the idea of women being prey either, which is why I think heterosexuality is just as bad. I am offended by the whole idea of sexual preference, as if we were talking about our favorite flavor of ice cream. Sexuality is a difficult aspect of human life, it involves physical, psychological and social desires, needs and functions. But I think it is absolutely essential that the social function be dominant. The reason is that the object sexual desire is a human being, and so when personal reasons dominate (whether physical or psychological), it becomes the moral equivalent of canibalism. Public homosexuality is no more appropriate than public heterosexuality. Just like pornography both should be considered a type of sexual harrassment in both school and workplace. I don't see the need for people publicly demanding acceptance as homosexuals any more than there is the need for people to publicly demand acceptance for how they have sex with their husband or wife.From an objective point of view I see the need for some sexuality neutral ways of handling significant others in many rules and regulations. I think that any two or more people should be able call themselves a family and should have a way of getting legal recognition and rights as such.However, objectivity is no longer an option. The liberal right and gay right activists have gone too far. Horror stories from friends in california have made me realize that that these groups want nothing less than "thought police" to tell us what we must believe. In fighting for gay rights, they are demanding equal status for sexual preference with race and sex. They demand that we accept their belief that they are born different and have choice in being what they are. These demands are offensive and unacceptible and they always will be. I will NEVER accept anyone telling me what I must believe.The result is nothing less than war. Recently there was an initiative in utah against homosexual rights and while from an objective point of view, it was bad legislation, I still voted for it. As I said it is war. To hell their rights. My rights take precedent. I am afraid we are in for some dark times ahead.

[mimi_m 0]

I have been avoiding this topic because it is painful.  I think this issue is tearing our country apart.  I voted for Kerry but I didn't like him and I am not surprised he lost for one simple reason: he was from Massachusettes.

 

Now I don't think that homosexuality is any worse than hetersexuality. But, I think they both bad. I suppose I am a little homophobic, because I don't like being prey.  But on they other hand, I don't like the idea of women being prey either, which is why I think heterosexuality is just as bad.  I am offended by the whole idea of sexual preference, as if we were talking about our favorite flavor of ice cream. 

 

Sexuality is a difficult aspect of human life, it involves physical, psychological and social desires, needs and functions.  But I think it is absolutely essential that the social function be dominant.  The reason is that the object sexual desire is a human being, and so when personal reasons dominate (whether physical or psychological), it becomes the moral equivalent of canibalism.

 

Public homosexuality is no more appropriate than public heterosexuality.  Just like pornography both should be considered a type of sexual harrassment in both school and workplace. I don't see the need for people publicly demanding acceptance as homosexuals any more than there is the need for people to publicly demand acceptance for how they have sex with their husband or wife.

 

From an objective point of view I see the need for some sexuality neutral ways of handling significant others in many rules and regulations. I think that any two or more people should be able call themselves a family and should have a way of getting legal recognition and rights as such.

 

However, objectivity is no longer an option. The liberal right and gay right activists have gone too far.  Horror stories from friends in california have made me realize that that these groups want nothing less than "thought police" to tell us what we must believe.  In fighting for gay rights, they are demanding equal status for sexual preference with race and sex.  They demand that we accept their belief that they are born different and have choice in being what they are.  These demands are offensive and unacceptible and they always will be.  I will NEVER accept anyone telling me what I must believe.

 

The result is nothing less than war.  Recently there was an initiative in utah against homosexual rights and while from an objective point of view, it was bad legislation,  I still voted for it.  As I said it is war.  To hell their rights.  My rights take precedent.

 

I am afraid we are in for some dark times ahead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know this topic may be a sore spot to some people, but don't you think you're taking this just a little TOO out of focus? War? I mean... okay, everyone has heard of hate crimes being commited in America, but that could hardly be classified as a reason for 'tearing the country apart', now could it?

 

It's healthy to not accept what others believe, like you clearly state is your perspective, but I think you're being hypocritical here. If other's must accept that your beliefs wont change, why dont you accept that theirs arent either? The only way a 'war' is going to errupt out of conflicting morals is if people cant find the open-mindedness to just accept others and let them be. Hell, you dont even need to like it, but it doesnt affect YOU whether Billy Joe from down the street is gay or not, does it?

 

and to think that you're 'prey' ...i mean, egotism much? And weomen arent the only prey for heterosexuals. My friends LOVE to stalk hot guys every now and then

 

You also say that open sexuality is 'offensive' to you. This I dont understand... I mean, as much as some people may dislike it, sexuality is a HUGE part of human life. There's a difference between what's considered obscene and what's considered affection, but according to your logic, an elderly couple strolling down the park hand-in-hand should be outcasted, because they are publically displaying a form of 'sexuality'. I don't believe in censorship... it's a form of oppression. And stopping people from displaying their beliefs, sexuality, WHATEVER will cause a war, NOT moral activists.

 

I think your grudge is with liberal activists, by the sound of your post, and I think that's hardly related to open sexuality and preferences. Get a grip, will ya?

[mitchellmckain 0]

I know this topic may be a sore spot to some people, but don't you think you're taking this just a little TOO out of focus? War? I mean... okay, everyone has heard of hate crimes being commited in America, but that could hardly be classified as a reason for 'tearing the country apart', now could it?

I think you do not get a lot of what I am saying. The war I am talking about is a war of ideas where the possibility of compromise is becoming nonexistent. Our system of governement cannot exist without compromise. Without it we will swing back and forth between extremes which most people cannot live with. The increasingly anti- democratic methods of political parties like geryandering and the election of a barely sentient president is a perfect example of this. We are in a right wing swing that scares me.

It's healthy to not accept what others believe, like you clearly state is your perspective, but I think you're being hypocritical here. If other's must accept that your beliefs wont change, why dont you accept that theirs arent either? The only way a 'war' is going to errupt out of conflicting morals is if people cant find the open-mindedness to just accept others and let them be. Hell, you dont even need to like it, but it doesnt affect YOU whether Billy Joe from down the street is gay or not, does it?

You misunderstand me completely. I have a friend in California who was denied an engineering simply because he made a comment in a required public class that he did not think that it has been proven the homosexuals are genetically predisposed. It was not even a matter of following public policy. He was denied his livelihood because his beliefs did not conform to this politically dominated public program.

and to think that you're 'prey' ...i mean, egotism much? And weomen arent the only prey for heterosexuals. My friends LOVE to stalk hot guys every now and then 

Ego? Give me break. Phobias are caused by bad experiences. When we are talking about the experience of being prey, this has nothing to do with men and women who try so hard to make themselves attractive in order to get what they want. The experience of being prey is one of being targeted by what could be called sexual harassment. And well yes, I have managed to avoid women like you describe, and my only bad experiences were of the other kind.

You also say that open sexuality is 'offensive' to you. This I dont understand... I mean, as much as some people may dislike it, sexuality is a HUGE part of human life. There's a difference between what's considered obscene and what's considered affection, but according to your logic, an elderly couple strolling down the park hand-in-hand should be outcasted, because they are publically displaying a form of 'sexuality'. I don't believe in censorship... it's a form of oppression. And stopping people from displaying their beliefs, sexuality, WHATEVER will cause a war, NOT moral activists.

Look I think people should pretty much mind their own business. I think it is sad that our society has become so uptight about displays of affection for fear of sexual interpretations. But there are places for open sexuality, because participation should be voluntary. And there are place where open sexuality is not appropriate (like in schools and workplace) because the question of voluntary participation becomes confused. For example, I do not think it is appropriate for a teacher to tell his or her students that he or she is homosexual. I think the only possible purpose for doing so is make the teachers beliefs about sexuality a part of a program for social engineering. I can sympathize for some very valid reasons for it, because of the history of hate crimes against homosexuals.

I think your grudge is with liberal activists, by the sound of your post, and I think that's hardly related to open sexuality and preferences. Get a grip, will ya?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are quite right that my grudge is with liberal activists. But a change of public policy is what will give them the power I fear and oppose. And it has everything to do with open sexuality and preferences. It is their obsession with open sexuality and preferences that I do not want forced down my thoat.

[mzwebfreak 0]

Oh, boy I sure got in late on this issue! How to respond to 8 pages of posts for and against a very controversial topic? Well, to start off, I have to agree with mimi_m about some of the things people have been saying in this thread. Um, last time I checked, homosexuality, bisexuality, or being transgender has nothing to do with a disease (i.e. being contagious), unless the contagious you're referring to is the contagiousness of multiple people coming out of the closet after one person is brave enough to do so.

In my honest opinion, homosexuality (and I'll be writing about this from a fem/lesbian point of view) is something that may take years for someone to realize or no time at all. I think the atmosphere in which someone is raised does have some influence on whether or not someone feels comfortable admitting to liking someone of the same sex. I grew up in a Christian household, so it wasn't until I was away and in college that someone pointed out (and I was willing to believe and understand) that I was bisexual and was interested in my, at the time, college roommate. It's not genetic, although I do believe that we are all inherently bisexual, but are not cognitively such unless we can freely admit it and feel that that is something that we feel comfortable doing. That is not to say that I'm trying to say that everybody's gay or should be gay; only that the possibility is there in all of us.

Being homosexual is something that a lot of this country is very uncomfortable with either facing or dealing with. For example, right in the Florida county I live in, the county council has approved a policy that they will not approve, advocate, or in other ways promote gay pride. I don't believe that that's right. Just because people are of a different sexual orientation than yourself does not mean that they are any less of a person, or any less of a human than yourself. I know I'm gonna get on rocky ground with this one, but even the Bible cautions people judging others without thinking first.

Matthew 7:1&2"Judge not lest you be judged.  For with what judgement you judge others, you will also be judged.

So, basically, what I'm trying to say with that is that people need to be careful and understand that if you're going to judge people harshly based on who they prefer in bed, then you'd better be prepared to have the same magnifying glass shone on your own self. I merely do not approve of the fact that my county commissioners are saying that gays and lesbians promote "high-risk behavior" ....Um, how is gay or lesbians having sex any more high risk than heterosexuals having sex??? Last time I checked, and not to sound crude, but fluids are exchanged in all three instances. I think that those hardcore anti-homosexual groups sometimes think that they are above it all, and what they're levelling against these other groups surely doesn't apply to them, because they're better than that!

[moonwitch1405241479 0]

how can you do that when you don't know what a boy is? And by time you do, and start living your life. It's totally up to you if you are gonna become gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you DO know what boys and girls are. A baby "knows" a lot right after birth, they just haven't learnt spoken/written language. Babies communicate by visuals, sounds and later on phonetics.

 

See, even small children have a form of sexuality. But they don't "know" it the way we as adults do. They haven't experienced lust, sex drive, etc. They merely experience small pleasant touches (which is a fact in the development psychology - Freud, Yung, and some dude whose name I can not remember - You go through several phases in your "growing up". Eg. The anal phase, where the child discovers that part of its body and the secretion, the genital phase, where the child discovers the difference in gender (this is around 3 or younger even).

 

We have things called, the Oedipus complex, where the boy "falls in love " with his mother and thus mimics the father. Or for the girls the Electra complex. These are events that naturally occur with most children (even children in same sex households - where there usually is a more feminine character and more masculine character) All these events, phases are essential for a young child and lead eventually to the discovery of their own sexuality and sexual preferences.

 

For EVERYTHING in our bodies and lives, there are several factors. Biological factors (genes being part of this), enviromental factors (including financial status, family situation etc) and social factors (friends etc, ever noticed how kids start going to school and suddenly know a tun of foul language?). Being gay/homosexual/lesbian/bisexual is merely partial genetic, partial environment and partial peer pressure.

 

I can understand why certain behaviors associated with homosexuality may be disturbing to some people (such as cross dressing or promiscuity).  However, those are attributes of those individuals, not homosexuality per say, and even those things strike me as no more odd than BDSM/furries/etc which are just as prevelent in the 'straight' community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to add a few things, which may come to a shock to some .

I may not have a very broad knowledge about BDSM (Bondage, Dominance, submissive, masochism OR bondage, dominant sado masochism) SM, sadomasochism, D/s Dominance/submission, Gor (stricter more structural form of D/s BDSM based on a series of books). It's wrong to think that this only happens in same sex relationships, promiscuious people etc. I know just as much "straight" folks practicing this as I know gay or bi people in the D/s world. I even know several poly amourous relationships who live D/s 24/7. So kinky or not is no factor in your sexual preference, kink is determined by what you and your partner like.

 

In my honest opinion, homosexuality (and I'll be writing about this from a fem/lesbian point of view) is something that may take years for someone to realize or no time at all. I think the atmosphere in which someone is raised does have some influence on whether or not someone feels comfortable admitting to liking someone of the same sex. I grew up in a Christian household, so it wasn't until I was away and in college that someone pointed out (and I was willing to believe and understand) that I was bisexual and was interested in my, at the time, college roommate. It's not genetic, although I do believe that we are all inherently bisexual, but are not cognitively such unless we can freely admit it and feel that that is something that we feel comfortable doing. That is not to say that I'm trying to say that everybody's gay or should be gay; only that the possibility is there in all of us.

Hi there LOL

Now, I actually agree with you mostly. I realize how I felt while talking to a friend about her sexuality. LOL. Ok given that we ended up dating and that we broke up, it did make me realize a lot. I would like to add that sometimes past trauma's/problems also have a huge influence on your sexuality. But due to the rating I prefer to not go into this part too deeply. We don't wanna shock everyone , now do we? Basically, it's how YOU feel about YOURSELF and OTHERS. And how YOU feel good about you. Nothing more to it.

[HanginNerd 0]

Hello Im Gay And I Think Discrimination Of Gay People Should Be Classed As Recist Because What Is The Difference Between Two gay Guys And Two Black People Thanx Ben

[mitchellmckain 0]

I think the atmosphere in which someone is raised does have some influence on whether or not someone feels comfortable admitting to liking someone of the same sex.  I grew up in a Christian household, so it wasn't until I was away and in college that someone pointed out (and I was willing to believe and understand) that I was bisexual and was interested in my, at the time, college roommate. 

You are mostly right about that. I was raised in an extremely liberal family and became a Christian on my own. So while I understand and sympathize with both viewpoints, it is the Christian viewpoint that I defend most.

It's not genetic, although I do believe that we are all inherently bisexual, but are not cognitively such unless we can freely admit it and feel that that is something that we feel comfortable doing.

It is first and foremost a sexual activity. People can have all sorts of experiences and try different things but that does not define them. From there it can become a choice or a habit. Calling it is a disease or genetic is pollitically motivated. Calling it genetic lays the foundation for gay rights equal with race and sex. On the other hand it occurs to me that as an activity it might have a claim to equal footing with religious freedom. This compromise intrigues me the more I think of it. Religion is now prohibited in the same places where I think homosexuality is inappropriate.
It sounds kind of funny but I kind of understand what you mean when say we are all inherently bisexual. Most people would say that we are inherently heterosexual for obvious reasons. I think the body chemistry is inherently heterosexual but the human mind is more powerful than the chemistry and so I think it is the good or bad experiences we have that really makes the difference by pulling us or pushing us one way or another (or neither).

For example, right in the Florida county I live in, the county council has approved a policy that they will not approve, advocate, or in other ways promote gay pride.  I don't believe that that's right. 

I have to agree with the county council. But according the the compromise I have suggested above, perhaps we should ask whether this council has the same policy regarding expressions of religion.

[bigredrosen 0]

<i>Exactly
You gotta be kidding me. You ARE NOT born gay. THere's nothing in genetics that tell you if you are gay or not. No GG Gg gg or anything. You become gay, just like say, loving the girl next door. You're not born loving her. You have to see her first.</i>

sure it <i>could</i> be true, but can it be proven?? i saw another post with a great link: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

it cannot be proven, i guess, unless you're a scientist or a gay person. but regardless of if you are born or not born gay, does it really matter!? a pereson is who they are, and nobody can/should change that.

[mzwebfreak 0]

I have to agree with the county council.  But according the the compromise I have suggested above, perhaps we should ask whether this council has the same policy regarding expressions of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, no such luck. This is a current issue going on in Hillsbourough County, spearheaded by Councilwoman Ronda Storms who feels that she does not have to, in her official capacity, condone gays and lesbians...they even took out the "cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation" out of the county human rights charter. Have they done the same about religious freedom from discrimination? Nope, and probably never will.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Councilwoman Ronda Storms who feels that she does not have to, in her official capacity, condone gays and lesbians...they even took out the "cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation" out of the county human rights charter. Have they done the same about religious freedom from discrimination? Nope, and probably never will.

This is a perfect example of how I think this conflict has reached the status of war, where no one is looking for compromise. This situation is created by fear. I think compromise is essential and I can see the logical equivalence with freedom of religion, but will I be able to vote that way? My difficulties are nothing compared to those for many Americans who will not be able to accept the equivalence of Gay rights and freedom of religion.
We desperately need a middle groung on issues like abortion and gay rights, before people elect a dangerous maniac for president who uses these issues for a hidden agenda. Wait, maybe that has already happened.

[foolakadugie 0]

I have no problem with gays/lesbians. I am around them all the time and have quite a few gay/lesbian friends. Through artschool and jobs at design departments I have been around them for a while. There always seems to be more gays in the art/design world, or maybe they are just more accepted in those groupos and feel comfortable with comming out. I have always made an effort to accept people for who they are or who they want to be. It's their life. I don't like people telling me how to live my life and I have always stuck to my own values and ways of doing things. So, I can't really complain about others doing their thing.

[organicbmx 0]

well that was a long read! luckily it sounds as if the Xisto forum people are mostly nice people. [dont come back and say im nice but i hate gay people - thats all about that hate, its no good, dont be a hater]

 

anyhow my main point to say is that really this whole debate is amazing. people say all these anti-homosexual things but it really is our 21st [or should i say 20th - prejudice is so outdated!] culture and the way our [old] society works.

 

case study. the ancient greeks. this is one of the most respected societys in human history. they achieved many brilliant things. but lets talk about sexuality.

 

in the provence of sparta hetrosexual relations were normally used for making children and little more. the young of this society were brought up with homosexual sex because in an age without contraception this was an easy way of family planning. also their's was a military society and they thought this the best way to say a powerful military state. and of course other reason that we will probably never know. it was normal and it happened, it was part of growing up - just like first kiss etc in our society.

 

in the provence of athens it was most certainly not unusual for best male [and i guess female] friends to have sexual relations. does this mean they were lovers - in a way i guess it does - but that is not the point, the point is that this could happen to anyone.

 

this is straight to the homophobe: Xisto or not. if you weren't born in the 20 century but in the 10th century AD then the exact same person - exactly you - would be thinking and being activly homosexual just like you are active in your hetrosexual relations

[mitchellmckain 0]

case study. the ancient greeks. this is one of the most respected societys in human history. they achieved many brilliant things. but lets talk about sexuality.

 

in the provence of sparta hetrosexual relations were normally used for making children and little more. the young of this society were brought up with homosexual sex because in an age without contraception this was an easy way of family planning. also their's was a military society and they thought this the best way to say a powerful military state. and of course other reason that we will probably never know. it was normal and it happened, it was part of growing up - just like first kiss etc in our society.

 

in the provence of athens it was most certainly not unusual for best male [and i guess female] friends to have sexual relations. does this mean they were lovers - in a way i guess it does - but that is not the point, the point is that this could happen to anyone.

 

But this point of view leads directly to the conclusion that homosexuality is an activity, a natural activity according to you but still an activity not an identity like sex and race. The homosexual community will have difficulty accept this because they see it as losing ground. However if the logical groundwork can be laid for an equivalence with religious freedom, it might fly. It is, after all, the identification of homosexuality as an immoral activity by religious groups that makes this such a problem. Equivalence with religious freedom may be just what is needed to deal with the threat (and do a lot to put religous groups in their place).

 

Religious freedom must include a freedom from the imposition of religion on other people. Any activity which does not do harm according to secular judgement (ie. legal and scientific reasoning), cannot be prohibited by the secular authority. The morality of such activities can only be judged by the religious sector, which means that homosexuality (which clearly falls in this category) must be protected under the auspices of religious freedom. However, that means it must also be subjected to the same restrictions. This means that public places such as the workplace and public schools can prohibit the free discussion of both religion and homosexuality if these are judged disruptive or inappropriate. However these two must legally be on an equal basis.