Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

I confess I maintain a consistent data-based approach to the phenomenon.

I think the verb you were looking for was "profess", not "confess".

Originally Posted by inked

I also note the allegations of various behaviours being inborn or innate and therefore excusable in some instances but not in others, according to whether one is, say, a Pedophile or an Homosexual or a Kleptomaniac or a serial killer.

Hmm. Interesting choice of examples. Do you *really* have no idea where we get the idea from that you are homophobic?

I agree that it's irrelevant, though. I also agree that it's principally a moral issue, in fact. It is morally abhorrent to discriminate against homosexuals, IMO.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

. It is morally abhorrent to discriminate against homosexuals.IMO.

Indeed.

[inked]

The Gaffer,

Profess...confess: they are different words!

As in: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...112856,00.html

So, rather than ignore the lack of data, let's just profess that all sexually uncertain persons are gay! I think that's politically correct thing to do, don't you? So the 13 - 30% (depends on the data cited!) who choose wrongly (might be 100%!) can never default on their error, huh?

That way they can experience the love and warmth of social exclusion for being bisexual, transgendered, and incorrect (that's known as ex-gay, by the way) that exudes from the only truly loving group of morally correct persons in the universe - gay people - as so attested on this site.

Pardon me for disagreeing, but there seems to be room for disagreement according to this Time magazine article. (It must be true because the gay gene and the god gene both made the cover of Time! )

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think the verb you were looking for was "profess", not "confess".

Hmm. Interesting choice of examples. Do you *really* have no idea where we get the idea from that you are homophobic?

I agree that it's irrelevant, though. I also agree that it's principally a moral issue, in fact. It is morally abhorrent to discriminate against homosexuals, IMO.

On what basis, pray tell, do you make such a moral call? And, why should I be subject to your sense of moral? Had you said politically correct, I could have grasped the concept since the nature of that changes with the tide of fashion. However, your implication is that you have a superior stance based on moral highground.

I might disagree with your concept of morality if it involves forcing people to make limited decisions from a stridently, demarcated base of feeling rather than fact.

[Spock]

...sigh...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In that case I can only assume that you have never known a gay person.

your assumption is incorrect.

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is just the way people are. The "causes" of them being that way are irrelevant. That is why the ethnic analogy is far more apposite than the political one.

And I don't choose to be selfish, and really, it's irrelevant how I turned out that way. The thing is: do I see selfish behavior as wrong, and if so, will I choose to try to go against my selfish bent?

Same goes for me with my attraction to other men - if I think it's wrong to have sex with any man I find attractive, then I will fight against that desire. It doesn't matter how the desire got there.

And if homosexuals think that it's wrong to have sex with a person of the same sex, then they'll fight against that desire. It doesn't matter how it got there.

And if homosexuals think it's good to have sex with a person of the same sex, then they'll do it. It doesn't matter how that desire got there.

If I think it's wrong to be Irish/Scottish/English, then it doesn't matter if I fight against it or not - it can't be changed; it's not a behavior.

And when you say, "Homosexuality is not a choice", do you mean that homosexuals have absolutely NO control over how they act out on their sexual urges? That any time they feel an urge to have sex, they can't control that urge at all, even if they're in the middle of a shopping mall or something? I hope you would grant that they have at least SOME control over their urges, because it's pretty insulting if you don't!

It is interesting that the vast, vast majority of this thread is by straight people arguing over whether gays deserve equality.

Absolutely NOT!!
It is NOT about straight people arguing over whether gays deserve equality, and I resent any implication that I think they are NOT equal!
Hmmph!
I'm SO tired of that false charge.

Occasionally, some of our GLB mooters chip in, mostly in very eloquent and moving ways, but their voices are very much drowned out by the argument between the censorious and the liberal. Imagine how you would feel if you did a "find and replace" on this thread, replacing "gay" or "homosexual" with "Christian".

Many people think I do things wrong. That's their choice to think that, and they've informed me of things that they think I do wrong. I still need to do what I think is right, and homosexuals need to do what they think is right.

Data is helpful only when interpreted. That means we need to view it in context. If that context is "homosexuality is a choice, these people don't have to behave that way and they shouldn't because it is sinful/morally wrong" then that data has a very different impact than if it is in the context of "homosexuals, and homosexual love, deserve to be treated with the same respect and love that everbody else gets".

Does that make sense?

Yes, I can see your POV. I happen to disagree with a small part of it.

[Spock]

per Felix Unger: "never assume as it makes an ass/u/me"

Equality is in the eye of the beholder and not necessarily in law.

Keep it civil folks.!!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Absolutely NOT!!
It is NOT about straight people arguing over whether gays deserve equality, and I resent any implication that I think they are NOT equal!
Hmmph!
I'm SO tired of that false charge.

then why don't we just let them marry one another if they so desire?

[Lotesse]

What I cannot understand is how people can say with a straight conscience, oh, tell homosexuals IN PARTICULAR that they musn't have sex, because it is wrong for them to be a homosexual and wrong for them to follow their instinct to want to enjoy being who they are, and have safe sex with one another. This is what burns me up. What gives ANYone the right to deny another group their pleasure in life? SO incredibly morally unjust to do that!

[Spock]

Morality is determined by society and unfortunately society evolves faster than our notion of morals. It is not logical but it is often true.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Gay is a behaviour that can define a group, such as artists, writers, and fascists?

please quote my entire sentence - I said, "...a behavior in a certain area - i.e., sexuality".
What's the issue with this?
Isn't a homosexual someone who desires sex with a person of the same sex?

So... who likes to do it missionary style? Hand up please... okay, all of you, stand over there. Thank you. You're not allowed to marry or adopt children.

If you really think you can get that passed into law, and you think that's what's best for your country, then GO FOR IT! I doubt you'll get it passed, though, because it might be difficult to find who qualifies!

And you know what? "People that like to do it missionary style" is certainly a group with a behavior in a certain area, too! And if I was giving a marriage seminar, I would like to talk to that group and make some suggestions to them

I am NOT saying homosexuals all act a certain way, except in the one area of how they like to act on their sexuality. Is there a problem with that?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

then why don't we just let them marry one another if they so desire?

If that's what you think is good and right for society, then vote for it

And why not let groups marry, if they so desire? And why not let brother and sisters marry, if they so desire? If that's what you think is good and right for society, then vote for it And I'll vote for what I think is good and right for society.

[Lotesse]

I don't understand any of this anymore. I think I'm going to stop posting in any of these threads - evolution, religion, sex, abortion, what have you. Because so many hairs get split, and so much unnecessary misinformation and misunderstanding and sometimes flat-out ugliness keeps happening, over and over again, and it seems like hardly any of the mooters can maintain a reasonable debate without devolving into hair-splitting and in some way or another, attacking or defending each other based on the ol ' he said/she said baloney. Even I get sucked into doing this, much to my own embarrasment. What a waste. Ciao.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

What I cannot understand is how people can say with a straight conscience, oh, tell homosexuals IN PARTICULAR that they musn't have sex, because it is wrong for them to be a homosexual and wrong for them to follow their instinct to want to enjoy being who they are, and have safe sex with one another. This is what burns me up. What gives ANYone the right to deny another group their pleasure in life? SO incredibly morally unjust to do that!

I don't say that. If someone asks me my opinion on homosexual behavior, then I would tell them (with a great deal of respect and consideration), but then finish off with that I think they need to do what THEY think is right.

But if it comes to a vote about laws in society, then I, as a member of society, will carefully and thoughtfully exercise my right to vote how I think is right for society, just like anyone else. And I encourage everyone else to do the same.

And of course, we ALL deny certain groups what they consider their pleasure in life - that's why we have people in jails!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And why not let groups marry, if they so desire? And why not let brother and sisters marry, if they so desire? If that's what you think is good and right for society, then vote for it And I'll vote for what I think is good and right for society.

And apparently you think whats "good and right" for society is to have a sex life exactly like yours. Lucky for you eh? And that sexual activity as described in the bible is the ONLY way to go. Again what a coincidence eh?

And you apparently also believe that mob rule is the best way to determine what is "good and right" for society. Right? Because the majority of the population never determined that it was ok to enslave another human being or that it should be illegal for blacks to marry whites, etc. The simple fact that people can vote in discrimination in a democratic environment means its "good and right" to descriminate right?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex

And you apparently also believe that mob rule is the best way to determine what is "good and right" for society. Right?

Absolutely not!
More later - I'm tired now.

[Rían]

(ps - what's your definition of "mob rule", btw? Is it when you disagree with the majority? And when you agree with the majority, it's somehow NOT "mob rule"? )

[Lotesse]

*hair-splitting, hair splitting.*

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I don't understand any of this anymore. I think I'm going to stop posting in any of these threads - evolution, religion, sex, abortion, what have you. Because so many hairs get split,.

Well said, now lets see you stick by it , I know you better, until ????

[Lotesse]

I can't help it, Spock! I just can't HELP it. LOL!!