Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is homosexuality right or wrong?

Posted Nov 18, '12 at 11:13pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

What? you were not kicked out of your house at 18?
How unwestrener.
or you were kicked out of the house at 18 and still love her?
Still, how unwestrener.(At least according to my knowledge of west)

i dont see a connection there.
anyway, i left home at age 16 (weekends i was home)

So tell me, why werent we thrown in a trash can at 5 months of age?

hahaha... well i got nothing whit kids, so i dunno.
but they are 9 months to make. lets atleast use it for 9 months. =P
anyway, this probably falls under the same kind as loving your parents.
and i think i got  a different amount in mind when i say "like allot" then you all do. maybe i should put it as "like ALLOT!!!!" ?

 

Posted Nov 19, '12 at 12:14am

Kasic

Kasic

5,570 posts

and i think i got  a different amount in mind when i say "like allot" then you all do. maybe i should put it as "like ALLOT!!!!" ?

At this point, all you're doing is quibbling over the word to use for the same thing. Everyone except you calls it love, you call it "like ALLOT!!!!"

It exists. /end.

I was simply using vegetables since you used that as your example. Replace that with chips or whatever unhealthy food.

Whatever. Analogies aren't going anywhere. Why do you feel how you do about homosexuality?

The idea involves the act, since the specific idea of homosexuality is the sexual act, not the love for the person.

In other words, you're holding completely meaningless prejudices against someone else not for the concept of what it is but for their preference.

Not to be antagonistic, but do you hold prejudice against those who like things you don't in general? Why not? From what you've told us, your only reason for being uncomfortable with homosexuals is because you don't like homosexual sex yourself...

 

Posted Nov 19, '12 at 5:54am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

I turn my back and it's like four pages.

I think that we should show the TRUTH IN LOVE and teach them to change and see their faults and not just condemn them.
though that needs to happen in order to show them it is wrong. shunning them is not the answer but neither is keeping it ok when at terms with them.

It's not a fault or something wrong.

WHAT are you talking about it means with out A sex like a plant and that is not what we are talking about we are talking about gays

Plants do have sexes. Many are hermaphroditic (possessing both male and female parts).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_sexuality

It is instinctive. I just am because I find it disgusting. However, I realize and recognize that I shouldn't be because these people can't help it, they just are gay. However, I am because I find it repulsive. However, I do see that it's not the gay's fault therefore I shouldn't be, but I am because I am digusted.

Perhaps that's something you should work on overcoming. I would suggest exposure therapy. Further education could also help.

If you are homosexual you specifically find yourself sexually attracted to the same sex. That is the definition of homosexuality. I love my father and my male friends, I am not homosexual though. I am not talking about simple love I am talking about homosexuality.

I've heard one purpose use of homosexuality had to do with bonding mechanisms between people of the same sex. So while you may not be homosexual the basic mechanism that is in place that allows you to have those feelings for your dad and male friends may be pretty much the same.

I will have to see if I can find the link again.

 

Posted Nov 19, '12 at 6:07am

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

Everyone except you calls it love

yea we call it love. i said that in the 1st post where it came up.
but did you ever got the feeling of love for those groupes?
well i didn't,

 

Posted Nov 19, '12 at 7:55am

Strop

Strop

10,823 posts

Moderator

Yeah mage, I'm with you on this one. I also turned my back and it's like four pages...

And they're rehashing things that were said in the version of the thread before this. And before this. And before that even.

So let me try to find something new in this:

This is exactly the point i am trying to make...I love my father and friends without the sexual attraction of loving a girl.

thats not real love

Historically speaking there exists more than one definition of (and word for) love. The ancient Greeks in fact had: filial (family) love, companiable love, and of course, the one that's associated with sexual attraction (at least, this is what I recall, but it may not be all that reliable). Now, seeing as so few people have figured out love for themselves... you can imagine how confusing it can be to talk about it.

 

Posted Nov 19, '12 at 10:08am

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

(at least, this is what I recall, but it may not be all that reliable)

seems logical to have different words for it.

 

Posted Nov 19, '12 at 9:11pm

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

I could go off on a rant about the sexualization of women in modern society and why it's an absurd distinction to make, but I'm too lazy.

Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. I'll take this one.

Lesbians Are Not More Accepted in Society Than Their Male Counterparts: an informal essay.

It's not a rant. I don't like the term rant because it gives the concept a negative connotation. It's a form of anti-intellectualism I don't really like. Not that anti-intellectualism is always bad.

First, I shall illustrate the pervading opinion among the unenlightened but perceptive group who believes that lesbians are held in higher regard, a rejection of which is more or less my view.

The view is that lesbians are more accepted by society than gay men. Perhaps cynically, the causal factor proposed is that people find girl-on-girl attractive.

First, a flaw in this reasoning. It's rationalization. People see a presumed effect (the role of lesbianism in heteronormative society) and ascribe a more or less rational cause (the attractiveness of lesbianism). This is okay if the cause is a hypothesis, but it's not. People seek an explanation, find one consistent with some of their anecdotal evidence, and then stick with that explanation. This method is flawed because it doesn't seriously consider the relation between the cause and effect. Social science is cause and effect. History is not just names and dates. It is the why and the how.

So anyway, lesbians aren't more accepted than gay men. They are, in fact, less accepted by society than gay men, and their apparent acceptability, attributed to attractiveness, is, in fact, a symptom of their less accepted position. Simply put, gay men are accepted and rejected by society. Lesbians, on the other hand, aren't accepted at all.

The society does not reject them, not because it finds them inoffensive but because it finds them nonthreatening. Gay men represent a threat to the typical heteronormative model of society, but lesbians do not.

The reason for this both is and is not "because they're sexy". The thought that they're more free for that reason more or less illustrates the issue. Lesbianism does not threaten homophobic society because society does not allow it to do so. As a potential threat, it must be destroyed or assimilated and it has been successfully neutralized through assimilation. Society, simply put, does not take lesbianism seriously. Lesbianism is not a threat because it is not considered a legitimate institution.

Lesbianism is acceptable, of course, as a means through which women offer sexual pleasure to men. It is considered to be either something done for the amusement of men (seen more in western culture) or, perhaps worse, a silly game girls play when there are no men around in preparation for their interactions with men (I'm looking at you, Japan).

What lesbianism is not considered to be is an actual relationship between two women, which involves sexual attraction without the inclusion of men. The apparent accepting environment primarily accepts forms of female homosexuality that belittle and disempower women, not forms that lend legitimacy to lesbianism as a form of human relationships.

Lesbianism is not acceptable because it goes against the societal role of women, which is to have her political identity subsumed by a man. Gay men are threatening because they have political identity, but women are more oppressed by default, and particularly lesbians are oppressed by heterosexism, Heterosexism is the social institution by which heteronormativity implements homophobia and sexism.

So yeah. I stopped paying attention and lost my train of thought. That's a shame. Good stuff was happening. Solid thoughts. Anyway, the core point is that I don't see lesbians as less oppressed. I see lesbians as a population who are not taken seriously enough to be discriminated against, because society just doesn't let them. Not men. Society. Not women. Society. Society, this strange force that controls stuff like this. Yeah. I think I was trying to build this into a larger point about individualism so I'll skip to the end. You can control society if you want, each individual has the capacity to control stuff, only Atlas was free. Peace.

 

Posted Nov 19, '12 at 11:45pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,570 posts

Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. I'll take this one.

Xzeno, this is perhaps the first time I've ever agreed with you on your feminist agenda.

seems logical to have different words for it.

Another term for it is platonic love.

 

Posted Nov 20, '12 at 3:12am

Wingless

Wingless

10 posts

Who are You, who am I, who are we to say who gets to do what?

 

Posted Nov 20, '12 at 11:06pm

Strop

Strop

10,823 posts

Moderator

Xzeno, this is perhaps the first time I've ever agreed with you on your feminist agenda.

This. That was the first post I've even read from Xzeno for a long time and it was a great one.

So while I have him here, Xzeno where's my revamped WoM interview you lazy git!?

.Who are You, who am I, who are we to say who gets to do what?

You take that too far and you deny yourself the right to recourse to law to prevent you having to defend yourself against a malicious aggressor, which is something a lot of people take for granted.

 
Reply to Is homosexuality right or wrong?

You must be logged in to post a reply!