Forums → WEPR → [necro] Is homosexuality right or wrong?

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.

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,

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:

[quote]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[/quote]

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.

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

seems logical to have different words for it.

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.

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.

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.

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

I'd submit that you haven't really meaningfully encountered my feminist agenda. The only discussion on the matter I recall is Twilight, which we both agree on. I suppose you and I tend to have different views on the individualism that I mentioned near the end.

As for Kasic, I'd argue that this is likely the first post for which he's ever had adequate reading comprehension to realize he agrees with me. The only discussion I remember with him on the matter was a previous homosexuality thread, in which I made a series of factual statements and drew deductively valid conclusions, which was met with distaste.

Try ever being on AIM ever, Strop. I'll sign in nowish.

As for Kasic, I'd argue that this is likely the first post for which he's ever had adequate reading comprehension to realize he agrees with me

You can argue that if you want, even though it's not correct. Most of what I've seen you post before about it has either been exaggerated, a non issue, or of a small issue barely worth mentioning. Bits and pieces of your assertions I've agreed with, but never before the conclusion which you drew.

The only discussion I remember with him on the matter was a previous homosexuality thread,

That was a semantic argument about how you wanted to say homosexuality was a feminist issue, and which I said it should not be considered one (although feminists may have an interest in the topic) because it involves more than that.

The only discussion on the matter I recall is Twilight, which we both agree on. I suppose you and I tend to have different views on the individualism that I mentioned near the end.

You're going to have to unlazy yourself and elaborate, I wasn't quite sure what you were alluding to!

Try ever being on AIM ever, Strop. I'll sign in nowish.

Now's not the time to be doing that, I have a presentation to finish!

Now's not the time to be doing that, I have a presentation to finish!

Alright. Then let's use whatever threads we see each other on indiscriminately. So I kind of assumed that discussing the changes was sufficient and actually enacting them weren't no thang. So I didn't. However, I totally forget what you wanted me to change now that you apparently actually want me to do that.

Okay. So. Individualism.

First of all, feminism has long had an emphasis on individualism as a living philosophy. Particularly the self-actualization themes that become dominant through the second wave. I believe the reason for this is two-fold: one, the western intellectual heritage emphasizes this so it's only natural that feminism, a logical conclusion of said western values, features this. Second, the 1950s featured a culture which both promoted autonomy and denied it to women, which created a feeling that they were being denied something they were basically trained to value by society. The Feminine Mystique supplies insight into this. It is not a complete picture, because it is extremely high-level analysis, unlike, say, some low level factual statements about how feminism ought to view the issue of gay marriage made by me on a previous thread, which were and are not really up for debate as they are true in an objective sense.

So anyway, the short of it is that feminism and individualism are linked in a philosophical-historical context, but the philosophy itself doesn't impose individualism. Feminists can, and many do, be collectivists, as feminism allows for even extremely strict societal roles so long as they aren't based on gender. Feminism isn't nor is it intended to be a complete ethical philosophy: for example, with a few minor but necessary changes, oligarchical collectivism could be rendered unobjectionable on purely feminist grounds while still retaining its core values of unending and purposeless cruelty.

So my individualism, anyway, stems from the same source. Individualism is not an ape that evolved into feminism but rather one of a common ancestor. As for my own take on it, I said my mantra: Only Atlas was free.

Faulkner would advise me to strike it from my vocabulary, and he's no doubt right, as I find it too clever for my own good. Attachment is the enemy of the enlightened mind and all that. Second, I know Atlas holds up the heavens, not the earth. Shut up, the earth thing has been around over a thousand years and the analogy works.

So basically, I'm a strong believer in the notion that human behavior is dictated primarily by social context and culture. Indeed, most of our discussion on how to make people better has come to the same dismal conclusion that we don't even know how to create a society that creates good, self-realized individuals. However, we both advocate the creation of a society that produces these reliably. This Aristotelian approach to the issue, I think, is the best.

But that's hard. As I mentioned, society is a difficult thing to tackle. No one controls it. No one commands it. No one person even fully grasps it. We are not, despite our angstier, teen-age-y-er notions, able to see and embrace or reject all of society. Even with our most brilliant, high-level analysis (you guys don't HAVE to read The Feminine Mystique I guess), we are like Dante glancing through an aperture at the truth and MAN that was obscure I'm on fire.

So basically, there's a lot of stuff dictating our life experience that we can't really control. There are sorta three ways to go here. The first is one extreme: we can't really control our lives or the world around us. This grants a sort of existential freedom. It is freeing to have no responsibility and have your life controlled by external forces.

Then there's the most defensible position, which is that you can change some stuff, and you totally should to make your life and the world better but there's a lot we really don't control and you shouldn't get too torn up about all of that. If people like this one, totally get it. Really, the main flaw is that it fails to clarify where it is on the spectrum. It accepts that the locus of control isn't on either extreme but it doesn't really inform one as to how far in any direction to put it.

On that note, I lean mostly towards the opposite extreme. I ultimately place most everything under the control of the individual, including incredibly vast things like, say, the role of gender in society. One extreme requires complete surrender, where as the other requires the individual -- each individual -- to take responsibility for everything and everyone. One is not super free, because you don't control anything. The other requires you to bear the weight of the world on your shoulders, and with a lot of responsibility, that kinda ties you to things too. As a person who hates the unfreedom of responsibility incredibly taxing, it's a hard thing for me to embrace. But there we find Atlas, forced into his prison, able to hold the world or drop it, with only one choice he can ever make but at least he was free to choose.

Yes, I know the myth, get off me. It's called poetic license :P

Eve came out of Adam's rib, not anyone else.

I'm trying and trying to figure out exactly how this is a reason to be against homosexuality...but I just can't.

Females were made to be suitable partners to men.

Made to be eh? I suppose you also think women should all stay home with the kids and put up with anything the husband wants because that's the duty of a good wife too.

And that's how it's supposed to be.

Again, I'm not seeing how this is a reason against homosexuality. What does it matter if someone does something, even if it's not "supposed" to be that way (and really, at most you can just say homosexuality doesn't produce offspring, not that it's not supposed to happen at all) does it really matter?

I'm trying and trying to figure out exactly how this is a reason to be against homosexuality...but I just can't.

What if a dog came out of his rib? But a man liked women?

Made to be eh? I suppose you also think women should all stay home with the kids and put up with anything the husband wants because that's the duty of a good wife too.

Just because you're &quotartners" with someone doesn't mean you're a sidekick.

Again, I'm not seeing how this is a reason against homosexuality. What does it matter if someone does something, even if it's not "supposed" to be that way (and really, at most you can just say homosexuality doesn't produce offspring, not that it's not supposed to happen at all) does it really matter?

Because it's a sin. Simple as that. If someone killed your sibling, what does it matter if it's not "supposed" to be? Well, alot. It would mean alot if someone killed your sibling, wouldn't it?

Made to be eh? I suppose you also think women should all stay home with the kids and put up with anything the husband wants because that's the duty of a good wife too.

I don't know about hom but agree with this partially.
i.e Woman should stay with kids at home but they should not necessarily put up with any thing their husband wants.