Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Elfhelm]

I do have an opinion on gay marriage. I think they should. Is this the right place for that? But I am sure gay rights isn't about sex. It's about equal treatment under the law. I support them. My wife and I happen to be the opposite sex, so we get to be bisexuals in disguise. But there are times we have felt so bad for the gays not being able to marry that we wanted to get ours revoked along with theirs. We only look straight.

Where I said I can't speak about gayness is the whole issue of being born that way. I am of the opinion, based on myself, that people are born without a preference and pick one up over time. But my best friend is sure he was born gay. So maybe he was. I don't think so, but it's not my life. Know what I mean?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If the pro-gay people want to stop bringing things into public, then I'd be thrilled. I'd love to stop hearing about the details of other people's sex lives, believe me - I'm tired of signs like "Gay Love Rules" which shoves "what goes where" into my face. Tell the people who go to the White House Easter Egg roll wearing rainbow hats to stop being "obsessed" and putting their sexuality in the public square. They are supporting homoSEXUAL marriage - of course it involves sex.

Yes, if only they'd just go away and not exist.

Sorry, Rian, but I think you and Gwai between you have just proven my point. Your capitalisation suggests to me that you are unable to even look at a gay person without contemplating their sexual acts.

You see, this is the thing. Were those gay parents engaging in sexual acts on the White House lawn? Were they holding placards depicting images of sexual activity? No. They were just there.

Elsewhere, of course, we have some irrelevant discussion about whether children are capable of consenting to sex acts.

I look at a gay couple and I see love. It seems to me that you look at a gay couple and see immoral sex acts. Its a shame.

PS - hope the kids invasion was fun

[Lizra]

Oh Shudder!! Evil Rainbow hats!! Rian...you poor suffering creature... What DOES go where? Inked dear...can you elaborate with some of your famous fisting and rimming jargon!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gaffer

Yes, if only they'd just go away and not exist.

(this is what happens when I post in a hurry before a kid invasion...)
That's a whole 'nuther point. I don't want the people to go away and not exist. I'm only addressing the "obsession" thing - that it's not the conservatives who are obsessed with it.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry, Rian, but I think you and Gwai between you have just proven my point. Your capitalisation suggests to me that you are unable to even look at a gay person without contemplating their sexual acts.

You see, this is the thing. Were those gay parents engaging in sexual acts on the White House lawn? Were they holding placards depicting images of sexual activity? No. They were just there.

You're wrong, Gaffer. They were not "just there". They announced publically before the event, in the news, that they were wearing rainbow colored hats to promote homosexuality and homosexual marriage. It was another "in your face" type of thing, which is their choice, and which is also good strategy.

I look at a gay couple and I see love. It seems to me that you look at a gay couple and see immoral sex acts. Its a shame.

I look at a gay person and see a person. I can look at a gay couple and see love, too. But that doesn't mean I think it's right for them to marry, or that I think their particular expression of sexuality is right and good. Opinions differ, Gaffer - you have yours about who you think should marry and I have mine. (Both, in our cases, are sincerely held and sincerely thought to be for the best of everyone involved. I don't think it's that way with everyone, though. I do see a lot of hate on both sides.) You have your opinion about what kinds of sexual expession are right and good and I have mine. As Grey Mouser pointed out, those that are based on evolution are hard to justify.

PS - hope the kids invasion was fun

Fourteen 4th graders, and 10 stayed overnight *yawn*

ps - what do you mean by "Your capitalisation"?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Oh Shudder!! Evil Rainbow hats!!

Who said they were evil, Liz? I certainly didn't.

The discussion was about clearing up the rather foundless statement that "conservatives" are "obsessed" with what goes where. I was making my first point (of several) to disprove that - showing that it's the homosexuals who are choosing to bring it into the public. I can understand why they do, and it's excellent strategy, but then to call conservatives "obsessed" with it, if they aren't bringing it there, just seems pretty foundless. I think they're "obsessed" with it in the same way that if someone's finger is poking into you, you're "obsessed" with it.

[Nurvingiel]

I heart you so much Gaffer.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're wrong, Gaffer. They announced publically before the event, in the news, that they were wearing rainbow colored hats to promote homosexuality and homosexual marriage. It was another "in your face" type of thing, which is their choice and which is also good strategy.

I think his point was they were just there to say that homosexuality is alright, not that they are having sex, homosexual style. The sex is just not the point here, is what I'm seeing.

Unless that wasn't your point either, and we are like two ships passing in the night?

Are you against PETA or Greenpeace or Bono because they too promote their views publicly? (Sometimes, very much in your face.)

I mean, you very possibly could be, and a lot of people don't agree with one or more of those guys. Just askin'.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Who said they were evil, Liz? I certainly didn't.

The discussion was about clearing up the rather foundless statement that "conservatives" are "obsessed" with what goes where. I was making my first point (of several) to disprove that - showing that it's the homosexuals who are choosing to bring it into the public. I can understand why they do, and it's excellent strategy, but then to call conservatives "obsessed" with it, if they aren't bringing it there, just seems pretty foundless. I think they're "obsessed" with it in the same way that if someone's finger is poking into you, you're "obsessed" with it.

I was just making fun of you. The statement is not foundless...it is the utter and absolute truth. Conservatives are so obsessed with homosexuality, they try to pass laws to prohibit gay rights, and try to block laws supporting them. Conservatives do not want homosexuality on the map. They want to pretend gays are sick and don't exist.
NEWS ALERT!!Gay people exist...always have, always will. Get over it.

[Rían]

well, Liz, by your statements, I am not a conservative, because I don't fit what you just said


Nurvi - no, I'm not against people promoting their views publically. All I was doing was trying to dispel the "obsessed" thing, which IMO is just unfounded. I don't think it's being obsessed if a group whose viewpoint you disagree with makes major public demonstrations and you respond.


EDIT - and a bisexual person (really nice girl, I miss her!) started this thread, not an "obsessed" heterosexual

Oh wait - I can't think she's nice, and I can't think any of my non-het friends are nice, right Liz?

I'm just angry right now - I"m signing off for a bit.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

1) Then what are you doing dissaproving of them?
2) If you aren't concerned with how they act, what are you concerned with?

1) Because I believe that there is such a thing as universal morality, which applies regardless of how kind or loving a person may be. I have a right to voice my opinion on issues of morality, and especially on this one.

2) Whether or not homosexual acts are right or wrong, in and of the themselves.

... Who else is there? Besides self-hating homosexuals. Transgenders? Bisexuals? Everyone except heterosexuals are just as or more discriminated against than homosexuals for many of the same 'reasons'.

Now, Lady, I have homosexual tendencies, and I believe it would be wrong to act upon those tendencies, but I don't hate myself.

The 'reason' given was a majority fearing a minority, so how can minorities have the same reason?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry, Rian, but I think you and Gwai between you have just proven my point.

How have I proven it? My response was simply "We are not".[/QUOTE]

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

There are plenty of us who'd be thrilled if it wasn't necessary. We'd love it if it wasn't controversial, if we could happily go about our courtships and partnerships just as any heterosexual couple might without having to worry about getting ostracized from our families or communities, without constantly having to wonder if someone is going to decide that we're abominations that need to be 'taken care of', without being afraid of our partner getting hurt and us being barred from seeing them in the hospital because we don't count as family...

The 'don't ask, don't tell' system only fosters the inequality. And even when homosexuals do keep to themselves it doesn't make them any less discriminated against.

Do you see what I'm getting at? About why it has to be brought into the public?

Yes, I see what you're getting at, and it's a good strategy, and I'm VERY sorry that things are so hard for you in this area I was only addressing the "obsessed" comment with my response - trying to show that it's a response on the part of the conservative side to the homosexual activists trying to CHANGE existing laws (which they have a perfect right to do, and they SHOULD fight for whatever they think is right, just as I should). I don't think a response is an obsession. Which side is right or wrong doesn't matter in how I addressed the obsession comment - I was trying to show that if anything, it's NOT the conservatives that are obsessed.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

I see what you're saying, Rian, but the trouble with that argument (that the conservative obsession is merely a reaction to activists) is that the activists feel that they are merely reacting to said obsession. And to an extent, they're both correct in those beliefs. It's a pointless cycle of finger pointing and 'who started it' arguments that in the end don't do a thing to resolve the issue.

1) Because I believe that there is such a thing as universal morality, which applies regardless of how kind or loving a person may be. I have a right to voice my opinion on issues of morality, and especially on this one.

But under that universal morality, is it moral to voice your opinions to support discrimination against other people who, aside from this one thing, are just as kind or loving or good by your standards as anyone else?

2) Whether or not homosexual acts are right or wrong, in and of the themselves.

Why are you concerned with this? If you come to the conclusion that they are wrong but those who actually practice them come to the conclusion that they are right and you are all working from the same evidence then what happens? Are they automatically wrong because you believe them to be so, or would you be willing to reevaluate your belief? Right and wrong are so subjective that you are unlikely to resolve this concern in a satisfactory manner.

I have homosexual tendencies, and I believe it would be wrong to act upon those tendencies, but I don't hate myself.

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but it's still denial of a part of yourself.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

I see what you're saying, Rian, but the trouble with that argument (that the conservative obsession is merely a reaction to activists) is that the activists feel that they are merely reacting to said obsession. And to an extent, they're both correct in those beliefs. It's a pointless cycle of finger pointing and 'who started it' arguments that in the end don't do a thing to resolve the issue.

Oh Maggie, I've gone from angry to sad, just reading this post from you and liking you so much and thinking you might not like me anymore because of my viewpoints I think you're a really neat person, and I like being friends with you, and it's hard to be on threads where we disagree because my fears start rearing their head and telling me I'll lose friendships over this issue But I just can't be untruthful about things I think, and I think real friends can disagree and still be friends, and should feel free to express their deepest thoughts even on controversial issues. I have NO problem at ALL with being friends with people of ANY sexual persuasion - I think ALL people are really wonderful and incredibly beautiful and valuable. And I'm so sorry to hear of your pain and difficulties in this area, and Sane's, too, and anyone else's - I'm sorry to hear of anyone's pain - I hate pain! I hate sorrow!

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

it's hard to be on threads where we disagree because my fears start rearing their head and telling me I'll lose friendships over this issue But I just can't be untruthful about things I think, and I think real friends can disagree and still be friends, and should feel free to express their deepest thoughts even on controversial issues. I have NO problem at ALL with being friends with people of ANY sexual persuasion - I think ALL people are really wonderful and incredibly beautiful and valuable.

Then as a well meaning friend I'm challenging you to think about what you've been saying, and about what those of us whom you disagree with but still consider your friends are saying.
You say you have no problem with people of any sexual orientation, yet you've also said some things which I've found to be incredibly offensive.
And I don't think you meant them to be, which is why I'm replying and not just leaving in a huff.
So here's my question: If you really, truly do not have any problem with people of any sexual orientation, then how can you believe that those people who are not heterosexual don't deserve the same rights as those who are?

If we consider each other friends, then I consider it my duty to point out instances of what seems to me to resemble doublethink (from 1984, I believe that's the right term... it's the newspeak word for simultaneously believing two contradictory things).

[Rían]

I'll be glad to answer, and hope to challenge you to think about what you've been saying, too. I'll have to wait until Monday, though, to have any length of time to post.

And believe me, people here say incredibly offensive things to me, too, about my beliefs - but if I can see that the heart behind it doesn't mean to offend, then I can let it pass and keep up the dialog and the friendship.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Rest assured that already think about what I say, far more than I actually say it, but I can always think more. Speaking of food for thought, here's something a bit lighter, but still very relevant:

http://www.ozyandmillie.net/2000/om20000817.html

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

Rest assured that already think about what I say, far more than I actually say it, but I can always think more.

Ditto.

My "challenge you to think" line to you was in response to your "challenging you to think" line to me. I've already thought a lot - a LOT - a heckuva lot - about this issue. I prob. should have just said that, instead of giving the challenge back to you. The way I read your line, it seemed like you thought I wasn't thinking, so I challenged you back.

Lots of good thought in that cartoon! If I ever am in a demonstration in support of one-man/one-woman marriage, I think I"ll hold a sign saying "God loves gays" ... all those hateful signs really tick me off. Hateful signs from BOTH sides, actually ...

Well, hope to get a detailed answer to you tomorrow - today's just a quick check-in.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

But under that universal morality, is it moral to voice your opinions to support discrimination against other people who, aside from this one thing, are just as kind or loving or good by your standards as anyone else?

Well, of course, it depends on what you mean by "discrimination". The word discriminate means simply to distinguish between two different things. That of course is not wrong. However, if someone harbours ill-will towards homosexuals, that is very wrong. I absolutely believe that we cannot deny inalienable human rights to homosexuals on the basis that they are homosexuals. The problem is, I don't believe marriage is an inalienable human right.

Why are you concerned with this? If you come to the conclusion that they are wrong but those who actually practice them come to the conclusion that they are right and you are all working from the same evidence then what happens? Are they automatically wrong because you believe them to be so, or would you be willing to reevaluate your belief? Right and wrong are so subjective that you are unlikely to resolve this concern in a satisfactory manner.

I am concerned with this, because I really do believe that there is such a thing as absolute or objective morality. A lot of things look like grey to me, but I believe that this is merely "bad eyesight" so to speak on my part, but most acts, and all sexual acts, I believe are either morally good or morally bad. Because I genuinely and sincerely believe this, I think that it is right for me to live in accordance with my beliefs.

No, those who disagree with me are not automatically wrong because I believe them to be so. I could certainly be wrong. I just don't believe that I am. Like you, I also have given a lot of thought to this, naturally. I don't want it to be necessarily wrong to give in to my feelings. I would like it if there were some way in which I could do so, without denying my conscience. However, I simply do not see any way that I can do so.

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but it's still denial of a part of yourself.

In what way, exactly, do you believe that it is a denial of a part of myself?

Allow me to say that I sincerely and absolutely do not want to offend anyone, and I pray God Almighty that I may not do so. I am interested in charitable and thoughtful discussion, but if I say anything offensive, I apologise beforehand; it is not my intention to do so.

[Rían]

(jumps back in for a sec while the kids are playing their new Narnia video game)

I don't think denying a part of yourself is necessarily a bad thing. I try to deny parts in me that I think are wrong, like my selfishness and laziness. I even try to develop the opposite thought/action. I suppose you could call that denying part of myself - but again, I don't think that's a bad thing.

(ps - just to forestall a possible objection, NO, I do not think homosexuals are lazy or self-centered any more than other people. I'm talking about the CONCEPT of denying part of one's self and that IMO it's not always a bad thing to do.)

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

The problem is, I don't believe marriage is an inalienable human right.

But when significant benefits are given to those who are married, then prohibiting a specific group of people who want to marry from doing so is willfully denying them access to those benefits and is thus harmful discrimination.
I'm not saying the benefits offered with marriage are inalienable human rights, but they are offered to anyone from other groups who are willing to commit to binding, longterm, relationships and should therefore be offered to homosexuals who are willing to commit to binding, longterm relationships.

I am concerned with this, because I really do believe that there is such a thing as absolute or objective morality. A lot of things look like grey to me, but I believe that this is merely "bad eyesight" so to speak on my part, but most acts, and all sexual acts, I believe are either morally good or morally bad. Because I genuinely and sincerely believe this, I think that it is right for me to live in accordance with my beliefs.

I don't disagree with that. Living in accordance with our beliefs is all we really can do most of the time.

No, those who disagree with me are not automatically wrong because I believe them to be so. I could certainly be wrong. I just don't believe that I am. Like you, I also have given a lot of thought to this, naturally. I don't want it to be necessarily wrong to give in to my feelings. I would like it if there were some way in which I could do so, without denying my conscience. However, I simply do not see any way that I can do so.

Forgive me for psychoanalyzing here... but it sounds to me like you're projecting your own anxiety about not wanting your feelings to be wrong but believing they are onto people who have similar feelings but don't believe them to be wrong.
As in, because giving in to them denies your conscience it must be wrong for everyone. (Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just what it's sounding like from my point of view).

For myself, I believe (also very strongly) that if giving into these feelings brings significant happiness to myself and my partner and doesn't physically harm anyone then there is no way they can be wrong. Of course, I also believe that God has bigger things to be worrying about when it comes to humans.

In what way, exactly, do you believe that it is a denial of a part of myself?

What else would you call it? If it's merely suppression of a socially maladaptive instinct then how can other people who are no better or worse than you be at peace with the same sort of feelings? It's your choice to deny that part of you, if you're happier that way then go ahead. Just don't insist that those who choose not to deny are inherently wrong.

Allow me to say that I sincerely and absolutely do not want to offend anyone, and I pray God Almighty that I may not do so.

God Almighty helps those who help themselves, if you don't want to offend anyone it's within your power not to.

I don't think denying a part of yourself is necessarily a bad thing. I try to deny parts in me that I think are wrong, like my selfishness and laziness. I even try to develop the opposite thought/action. I suppose you could call that denying part of myself - but again, I don't think that's a bad thing.

The difference in denying those parts of yourself and denying your sexual orientation is that qualities like selfishness and laziness are socially maladaptive and very obviously so. They do not in any way contribute to survival in a social group and not disciplining yourself to overcome such tendencies makes relationships difficult and lowers your own self-esteem which is likely to contribute to depression.

Homosexuality, on it's own, unstigmatized, does not prevent forming strong relationships, does not lead to lowered self-esteem, does not cause depression, and has contributed to survival in a social group.

Example: 'The Sacred Band', Theban elite troops composed of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers. Use of these troops enabled Thebes to break Spartan control of the Peloponnesias. The nature of these soldiers caused them to fight harder and as a more cohesive unit.

(Can you tell it's exam week? )